March 28th, 2016 02:59 am

Original taken from brndk in

Original taken from ss69100 How quotes from Jewish writers are attributed to Stalin

False quotes attributed to the head of the Soviet state.

Children of the 20th Congress, practically all of us were anti-Stalinists in our youth. And when in Brezhnev times old men hung portraits of Stalin on the windshields of their trucks and cars as a call for "order" and a protest against this "stagnation", I continued to be an anti-Stalinist.

After the 20th Congress, Stalin was buried so deeply by the "communists" that the understanding of "what Stalin is" did not come all at once and will be revealed for a long time...

Stalin didn't say that.:

"The death of a man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic"

“There is a person - there is a problem. No person, no problem

It is alleged that I. Stalin stated that:

“There is a person - there is a problem. No person, no problem.

This myth is used to point out Stalin's cruelty and neglect human life. In fact, Stalin never said anything of the sort. This statement was invented by the writer A. Rybakov and attributed it to Stalin in his book “Children of the Arbat”: “In one of my articles, which he especially liked, I reproduced famous aphorism Stalin: “There is a person - there is a problem. No person, no problem! Anatoly Naumovich glared: where did Stalin say this? In what work of yours? Or in a note? Or in what speech? I thought. He answered this way: knowing a little Stalin's psychology, I assume and even am sure that he never spoke such exact words in public. And he didn't write.

He was a great actor in politics and would not allow himself to reveal his essence. He could afford such frankness only in a very narrow circle of his "comrades-in-arms", or rather lackeys. Where did I read this? Yes, it's kind of blurry. Hanging in the air. A lot of where. In memoirs... In journalism. This phrase has become a kind of cliché for that era. So you don't remember exactly where? - Absolutely not. - So that's it, - Anatoly Naumovich exclaimed with youthful vivacity, - I invented it myself! For the first time in "Children of the Arbat" Stalin just utters this phrase. I composed it and put it into Stalin's mouth! I wrote this novel 20 years before it was published in 1987. And from there she went for a walk, and no one remembers where she came from.

"The death of a man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."

It is alleged that Stalin uttered the phrase: "The death of a man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic." In fact, Stalin did not utter such words. This phrase is a slightly paraphrased quote from Remarque's The Black Obelisk: "But apparently it always happens: the death of one person is death, and the death of two million is just a statistic."

“There are no prisoners of war in the Red Army, there are only traitors and traitors to the Motherland”

"There is famous phrase attributed to Stalin: "There are no prisoners of war in the Red Army, there are only traitors and traitors to the Motherland." And Khavkin in his article “German prisoners of war in the USSR and Soviet prisoners of war in Germany. Formulation of the problem. Sources and Literature” quotes this phrase, referring to the Certificate of the Commission for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repressions. What is interesting - there really is such a phrase, that is the name of one part of this certificate. No reference is made to where this phrase was taken from, where, when and to whom Stalin said it - is not given.

The most interesting thing is that there are no links in the help at all. Only in the introduction are the names of the archives in which they worked. There is a version that this phrase was allegedly uttered by Stalin in a conversation with a representative of the International Red Cross, Count Bernadotte, and is quoted in his memoirs. The phrase in the retellings is formulated as follows: “... there are no Russian prisoners of war - the Russian soldier fights to the death.

If he chooses captivity, then he is automatically excluded from the Russian community, ”which somewhat changes its meaning, because. "Russian community" is moral category, and not legal, i.e. “We will despise the prisoners, but return the prisoners to us and observe the conventions on prisoners of war.”

By the author to all famous phrase“It doesn’t matter how they vote, but what matters is how they count” is Napoleon III. He said it after another plebiscite in France. Tov. Stalin simply paraphrased them: "In bourgeois countries, it is important not how they vote, but how they count." First appeared in the memoirs of defector B. Bazhanov (to France, 1/1/1928) Full quotation “You know, comrades,” says Stalin, “what I think about this: I think that it is absolutely unimportant who and how will vote in the party; but what is extremely important is who and how will count the votes. However, it is extremely doubtful that Stalin would say this clearly compromising phrase in public.

THE WIND OF HISTORY WILL DISSOLVE EVERYTHING

I.V. Stalin:
“I know that after death, a pile of rubbish will be put on my grave. But the wind of History will ruthlessly dispel it.”

For the enemies of socialism, the Soviet government, a truly inexhaustible source from which most of their spiteful slander on the power of the working people, “arguments” are being sought out to support dirty attacks, the “cult of personality” and all the activities of I.V. Stalin have become.

The history of the creation of a new society that arose as a result of revolutionary upheavals is not straightforward, dramatic, and sometimes tragic. This is typical for any country after any revolution. The forces overthrown by the revolution always and everywhere seek to organize a powerful rebuff to the new order, they try in every possible way to discredit the authorities that have replaced them, pour streams of dirty slander, vilify the inspirers and leaders, fighters for the cause of the people.
For the enemies of socialism, the Soviet power, a truly inexhaustible source, from which most of their spiteful slander on the power of the working people is drawn, “arguments” are sought out to support dirty attacks, has become the “cult of personality” and all the activities of I.V. Stalin. For a long time everything has been assessed, its causes and consequences have been revealed. But the counter-revolution could not rest content with this! On a grand scale, under the pretext of fighting the "cult of personality", an unprincipled and unscrupulous slander began, the falsification of absolutely everything that happened in the country after 1917. V. Pozner, M. Shvydkoi, M. Shatrov, G. Baklanov, Yu. , advanced, which even enemies called a superpower. They brazenly and completely ignore the introduction of millions of illiterate, zatyukany, oppressed people to the achievements of human progress!
No revolution escaped blood innocent victims. Thus, fulfilling the will of the Convention, an organ created by the Great French bourgeois revolution, in Lyon alone, in just a few weeks, on the orders of the representative of the Fouche Convention, more than sixteen hundred people were executed, and not for the whole of 1793 - a harbinger of our 1937. Even the vocabulary of those years is similar. “The people's avengers will remain firm in the fulfillment of the mission entrusted to them...,” Fouche wrote in one of his proclamations. “They have the courage to calmly walk along the longest rows of graves of the conspirators, so that, walking through the ruins, they will come to the happiness of the nation and the renewal of the world.” For five years during the Great french revolution 750 thousand people were sent under the punishing knife of the guillotine. In those years, the population of France was 25 million people. In proportion, this is many times more than during the repressions in the USSR. However, even in those difficult years population growth in the Soviet Union reached almost 12 million people.
As Stefan Zweig wrote: “This is one of the secrets of almost all revolutions and tragic fate their leaders: they all do not like blood, and yet they are compelled to shed it. It is not for me, of course, who lost his father in 1937, to justify political repression, but the laws of the development of revolutions are such that they cannot be changed by anyone.
There were objective preconditions for carrying out a punitive policy. This is confirmed even by Churchill, who all his life sought to strangle the first state of workers and peasants in world history. Here are his words: “The German government kept in touch with important Russian persons through the Soviet embassy in Prague. The purpose of the conspiracy is to overthrow Stalin and introduce a new pro-German regime in Russia. Soviet Russia began purges, merciless, but in any case necessary, which purged political and economic circles. Soviet army was liberated from pro-German elements."
Some facts of the treacherous activity of "important persons" cannot be denied by the current detractors of everything Soviet. A film about Tukhachevsky was shown on television screens not so long ago. It quite convincingly reveals the treacherous actions of one of the first marshals of the Soviet Union. True, the scriptwriters and directors of the film are trying to justify it by the fact that conspiracies were woven against Stalin. It completely ignores the fact that at the same time our state and our people became victims of vile betrayal.
In 2004, the work "Kremlin Affairs" by Semyon Vavilovich Korobenkov was published. The author is my compatriot from Irkutsk, he worked for many years in the apparatus of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. In the three books of this work (Semyon Vavilovich marked them - “Case No. 1”, “Case No. 2”, “Case No. 3”) there is a lot of interesting texture for historians, politicians and ordinary reader. It may be useful to borrow something from this book that relates to the theme of repression. S.V. Korobenkov writes: “It is known that none of the defendants (meaning the well-known Moscow trials), including such as Yagoda, Bukharin, Tomsky, Rykov, who knew both the Criminal Code and the current then the rules of procedure did not state at the trial that their confessions in anti-Soviet activities were “knocked out” by torture. Not because of pride, when it was a matter of life and death?! And the price of the "promises" - to save their lives in the event of "sincere confession and repentance" - they knew very well from past proceedings, the participants of which were themselves ...
Recognizing under pressure irrefutable evidence themselves guilty, the main accused slandered the innocent and deliberately involved innocent people in the repressive whirlwind. An increasing number of people, including those close to the then rulers, became, in essence, the hostages of the main accused.
The principle is the same: “If they shoot us, they will kill you too!” And kill. But after all, they are moaning not for those innocently murdered unfortunate "hostages", but for representatives of the "thin layer". About those who for many years ruthlessly ripped off a thick “soil” layer from Russia and wanted to continue this “operation”, even at the cost of betrayal, openly, like Trotsky, or secretly, like Tukhachevsky, calling on Western countries, including and fascist Germany, to intervention, war against the USSR, promising them the most tasty "pieces" of its territory for this. V.M. Molotov throughout the “second” half of his life did not get tired of repeating that, if in the 30s. failed to destroy the "fifth column" that formed then in our country, Soviet Union would have lost the war Nazi Germany».
The German writer of Jewish origin, Lion Feucht-wanger, in his book "Moscow 1937", carefully hushed up by the apologists for Trotsky and Bukharin, as you know, took the side of Stalin in his purge of the country from the "fifth column". “Earlier, the Trotskyists,” he wrote, “were less dangerous, they can be forgiven, in worst case to exile ... Now, immediately on the eve of the war, such kindness of heart could not be allowed. The split, factionalism, which are not of serious importance in peaceful environment, can pose a huge danger in war conditions.
In the summer of 1941, US Ambassador to the USSR Joseph E. Davis wrote in his diary: “Today we know, thanks to the efforts of the FBI, that Hitler’s agents were operating everywhere, even in the United States and South America. The German entry into Prague was accompanied by the active support of Gehlen's military organizations. The same thing happened in Norway (Quisling), Slovakia (Tiso), Belgium (de Grell) ... However, we do not see anything like this in Russia. “Where are the Russian accomplices of Hitler?” - ask me often. “They were shot,” I answer.
Only now are you beginning to realize how far-sighted Soviet government during the years of the purges... At that time, we argued a lot in our circle about the struggle for power in the Kremlin leadership, but, as life showed, we were sitting "in the wrong boat."
Of interest are the observations and conclusions entered by this ambassador in his diary on July 28, 1937: “There is an opinion among the diplomatic corps that the executed generals were guilty of crimes that, under Soviet law, are punishable by death.
In April, Tukhachevsky was present among others (Voroshilov, Yegorov, and others) at a reception organized by our embassy in honor of the Red Army. He had a reputation talented person. However, he did not make a special impression on me ... If, in addition to everything, he still suffered from Bonapartist manners, then it must be admitted that Stalin got rid of his "Corsican".
Adolf Hitler, speaking on May 8, 1943 at a meeting with
Reichs-Leiters and Gauleiters, stated that the USSR “was freed from this threat (“fifth column” - S.K.) in time and can therefore direct all its energy to fight the enemy.” This, in his opinion, "put an end to defeatism."
The West German military historian (and ardent anti-Soviet) Joachim Hoffmann in his book The History of Vlasov's Army (published by Rombach, Freiburg, 1984) provides a long list of "outstanding" traitors who went over to the Germans in 1941 and 1942 , and, as a rule, not due to forced circumstances. They created them themselves. Among them are such as the former personal adjutant of Tukhachevsky, at the beginning of the war, commander
41st Rifle Division Boyarsky, head of the operational department of the Baltic Special Military District (from June 22 - the North-Western Front), Major General Trukhin. Is it any wonder at the dire situation of the front from the very first day of the war! The list is not short, from modest lieutenants to generals, most of them deliberately going over to the enemy. There were especially many of these in Vlasov's headquarters, which numbered about three hundred senior and senior officers, former commanders of the Red Army ...
Against this background, the words spoken by Trotsky back in 1936 that in the event of an attack by Hitler on the Soviet Union, Stalin cannot avoid defeat are no longer perceived as bragging. Such confidence suggests that Trotsky was well aware of the hidden traitors and was associated with them ... He raised and nurtured them himself. Hitler planned the war with them in mind. But he miscalculated - the traitors provided him with initial successes and our tragedy, then the contingent of traitors dried up ...
Without Stalin, without the "cult of personality," the champions of the restoration of capitalism would cling to anything to curse socialism, the Communist Party. They did not even bother to analyze what our country was like at the time of joining the historical arena Stalin and what it became by the end of his reign. Not by individual events, facts, even stages, historical figures are judged, but by the final results, real results their reign. Stalin left behind a strong party that skillfully rallied and directed the people to solve the most difficult problems. He left the country with the most advanced, strengthened its position public and political system. He left the Soviet Union - a power of world significance, enjoying the greatest respect and authority, received universal recognition for the defeat of the darkest, most reactionary, most cruel force of big capital - German fascism. Before these results, mistakes and miscalculations fade, often inevitable when laying a new and unknown path. It would be worth comparing, and what achievements could the peoples of our country be proud of and rejoice after the tragic disappearance of the first and last president of the USSR?!
"Revision" of the role of Stalin in Soviet history his “successor N.S. Khrushchev” began, using the “cavalry attack” method, he tried to crack down on the Stalinist legacy. He slandered Stalin from all sides, although millions of people believed in the late leader, believed with conviction and unconditionally. Stalin, a personality of truly world-historical proportions, despite some negative sides his reign. Millions Soviet people, and not only ordinary ones, but this should have been foreseen, they perceived the report of N.S. Khrushchev at a closed meeting of the XX Congress of the CPSU as a blow to them, as an obliteration of their military and labor achievements, of their whole difficult life. From his ridiculous "cavalry attack" a deep crack formed in society, and it still does not grow over, like trenches and trenches during the war ...
In our days, a lot of data has appeared, on the basis of which it is possible to more calmly and objectively consider some of Khrushchev's accusations against Stalin. First of all, about repression. What they were, no one can refute, they swept across the country like a terrible skating rink. At the same time, knowledge of the situation in prewar years forces us to admit that repressions were practically inevitable, although their scale could have been less destructive. Nowadays, many documents have become known that irrefutably prove that many Trotskyists and other oppositionists were on the payroll of Western intelligence services, including fascist ones. Of course, one cannot justify the fact that innocent people fell under the comb of repression. However, it is also impossible to rehabilitate in a row, indiscriminately, those who caused great harm to our Motherland and betrayed it.
Khrushchev more than once dirtyly hinted that I.V. Stalin had direct relation to the murder of S.M. Kirov. Now it turned out that Sergei Mironovich had an affair with a waitress at the secretariat in Smolny, Matilda Draula. Her husband Nikolaev was a jealous and unbalanced person. He had the right to enter the Smolny, besides, the guards knew him well. It was not difficult for him to deal with an opponent. To substantiate the "version" of Khrushchev, as you know, a special commission was created. All efforts of the commission were in vain. When the results were reported to Khrushchev, he burst into abuse and forbade them to be published. Khrushchev's statement that at the XVII Congress of the CPSU (b) someone proposed Kirov for the post of General Secretary and therefore Stalin saw him as a rival, turned out to be nothing more than an evil fiction.
N.S. Khrushchev, when attacking I.V. Stalin, often referred to the so-called “testament” of V.I. Lenin, speaking directly, he speculated on the letter of the sick party leader to the XII Congress of the CPSU (b). In it, Vladimir Ilyich gave characteristics to the leading leaders of the party of that time and made a proposal to expand the membership of the Central Committee of the party. However, the letter was not read at this congress. After the congress, Trotsky and his supporters launched a campaign against Stalin, often referring to the said letter from Lenin. In order to stop all sorts of rumors and speculations of the opposition, the Politburo decided to read out the letter in the regional delegations of the XIII Party Congress. Each delegation had to vote for its candidacy for the post of General Secretary of the Central Committee. As a result, not a single (!) Candidate other than Stalin was proposed. It is noteworthy that Trotsky and his supporters - the congress delegates - voted for Stalin! Nevertheless, at the first, organizational, Plenum of the new Central Committee, Stalin resigned, but he was asked - unanimously! - stay at your post.
Trotsky's article "On Eastman's book After Lenin's Death" was published in the Bolshevik magazine No. 16 for 1925. Trotsky writes: “In several places in the book, Eastman says that the Central Committee “concealed” from the Party a number of exclusively important documents written by Lenin in the last period of his life (the case concerns letters on the national question, the so-called "testament", etc.); this cannot be called otherwise than a slander against the Central Committee of our Party. From Eastman's words, one can conclude that Vladimir Ilyich intended these letters, which had the character of internal organizational councils, to be printed. In fact, this is completely false. Vladimir Ilyich, since his illness, has repeatedly addressed governing bodies party and its congress with proposals, letters, etc. All these letters and proposals, of course, were always delivered to their destination, brought to the attention of the XII and XIII congresses of the party and always, of course, had a proper influence on the decisions of the party, and if not all these letters are printed, because they were not intended by their author for publication. Vladimir Ilyich did not leave any "testament", and the very nature of his attitude towards the party, like the character of the party itself, ruled out the possibility of such a "testament". (It is emphasized by me. - S.K.) Under the guise of a "testament" in the emigrant and foreign bourgeois and Menshevik press, one of Vladimir Ilyich's letters is usually mentioned (in a form distorted beyond recognition), which contained organizational advice. The 13th Party Congress considered this letter, as well as all the others, very attentively, and drew conclusions from it in relation to the conditions and circumstances of the moment. Any talk about a hidden or violated "testament" is a malicious fiction and is entirely directed against the actual will of Vladimir Ilyich and the interests of the party he created.
We emphasize once again that Trotsky wrote this. And in October 1927, at a meeting of the joint Plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, Stalin addressed this issue: “Now about Lenin's “testament”. Oppositionists shouted here - you heard it - that Central Committee party "concealed" Lenin's "testament". We discussed this question several times at the plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission, you know that. (Voice. Dozens of times.) It has been proven and re-proven that no one is hiding anything. It was discussed at the 13th Party Congress. The opposition knows all this as well as all of us. And yet the opposition has the audacity to declare that the Central Committee is "concealing" Lenin's "testament"... On what grounds are Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev now fooling around, asserting that the Party and its Central Committee are "concealing" Lenin's "testament"? It is “possible” to fornicate with the tongue, but one must know when to stop.
They say that in this "testament" comrade. In view of Stalin's rudeness, Lenin suggested that the congress consider the question of replacing Stalin in the post of General Secretary with another person. This is absolutely true. Yes, I am rude, comrades, towards those who rudely and treacherously destroy and split the Party. It is possible that a certain gentleness towards the schismatics is required here. But I can't do it. At the very first meeting of the plenum of the Central Committee after the 13th Party Congress, I asked the plenum of the Central Committee to relieve me of my duties as General Secretary. The congress itself discussed this question. Each delegation discussed this issue. And all the delegations unanimously, including Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, obliged Stalin to remain in his post. What could I do? Run away from your post? It is not in my nature, I have never run away from any post and have no right to run away, because that would be desertion. I am a man, as I have said before, a forced person, and when the party obliges me, I must obey.
A year after that, I again applied to the plenum for release, but I was again obliged to remain in office.
What else could I do?
As for the publication of the "testament" ... then we have a decision of the plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission in 1926 to ask permission from the XV Congress to print this document.
At the insistence and demand of Stalin, Lenin's letter, against his will, was published on the pages of a special "Discussion Sheet" in Pravda on November 10, 1927. Khrushchev, of course, knew about this document and is obliged, as he was already in a leading position by that time, to explain the party's line on this issue. What motivated him when, contrary to all known facts, he declared: “The letter to the congress was never published, but it was not mentioned at all. Stalin was afraid of this letter”? It is quite obvious that he deceived, misled the younger members of the CPSU, all our people.
Khrushchev was especially gloating about Stalin as a military leader, trying not only to belittle his role and merits in the defeat of Nazi Germany, but presented him as militarily ignorant. They say how once Khrushchev tried to attract famous marshals to his supporters by spitting on Stalin. “Ivan Stepanovich,” he turned to Marshal Konev, “you suffered from Stalin in the forty-first year, speak out, condemn ... what the hell is he, a commander ...
- No, Comrade Khrushchev! Stalin really was a commander ... "
He addresses Marshal Grechko with the same request.
- Not! Stalin was a great figure and a great commander! - answered Grechko.
Khrushchev tried to persuade Marshal Zakharov, known for his directness and rudeness, to this. But he sent Nikita Sergeevich ... For this he paid with his position. Marshal Rokossovsky, who was subjected to repression, very politely and firmly stated:
- How can one talk about Stalin's mediocrity if he has no equal leaders of states ?! And we won thanks to the talent of Stalin. No, Comrade Stalin is a saint for me!
The former chief of the General Staff, Marshal Vasilevsky, sharply stated:
- Stalin is a great statesman and great
half-leader!
In his book The Work of a Lifetime, the marshal writes: Good relationship were with me with N.S. Khrushchev and in the first post-war years. But they changed dramatically after I did not support his statement that I.V. Stalin did not understand operational-strategic issues and unskillfully led the actions of the troops as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. I still don't understand how he could say that. Being a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the party and a member of the Military Council of a number of fronts, N.S. Khrushchev could not help but know how high the authority of the Headquarters and Stalin was in matters of conducting military operations. He also could not help but know that the commanders of the fronts and armies treated the Headquarters and Stalin with great respect and valued them for their exceptional competence in leading the armed struggle.
At one meeting in the Kremlin, Khrushchev said:
- The Chief of the General Staff Sokolovsky is present here, he will confirm that Stalin did not understand military issues. Am I right?" “No way, Nikita Sergeevich,” the marshal answered clearly. He, too, was relieved of his post.
Well, Zhukov was brief: “We are not worth Stalin and the little finger!”
I had a good intention to put together everything that was said, written about Stalin eminent figures of our country: military leaders, ministers, industrial workers, representatives of the scientific, technical and creative intelligentsia, who knew him not from stories, from books and articles, but who worked with him, communicated regularly, observed this figure in the most different situations. But this intention was not fully realized. I managed to write out something only from the works of G.K. Zhukov. I think it would be appropriate to cite only some of the statements of the great marshal. Describing the work of the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command, Georgy Konstantinovich clearly states: “The activities of the Headquarters are inseparable from the name of I.V. Stalin. During the war years, I often met with him. In most cases, these were official meetings at which issues of leadership in the course of the war were decided. But even a simple invitation to dinner has always been used for the same purposes. I really liked the complete lack of formalism. Everything that he did through the Headquarters or the State Defense Committee was done in such a way that the decisions made by these high bodies began to be carried out immediately, and the progress of their implementation was strictly and steadily controlled personally by the Supreme Commander or, at his direction, by other leading persons or organizations. […] ...the practice of the Headquarters and the State Defense Committee was physically very difficult for their members, but during the war this was not thought of: everyone worked to the fullest extent of their strength and capabilities. Everyone looked up to Stalin, and he, despite his age, was always active and tireless. When the war ended and the days of comparatively systematic work began, I.V. Stalin somehow immediately aged, became less mobile, even more silent and thoughtful. The past war and everything connected with it strongly and tangibly affected him. […]
JV Stalin made a great personal contribution to the victory over Nazi Germany and its allies. His authority was extremely great, and therefore the appointment of Stalin as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief was perceived positively by the people and troops. […]
Marshal Zhukov appeals to the authority of the genius of world and Russian literature, Mikhail Aleksandrovich Sholokhov, to make his assessments of I.V. Stalin more convincing:
“You can’t be stupid and belittle the activities of Stalin in that period,” said the greatest writer of the twentieth century. “Firstly, it is dishonest, and secondly, it is harmful for the country, for the Soviet people, and not because the winners are not judged, but primarily because the “overthrow” does not correspond to the truth.” G.K. Zhukov writes: “One can hardly add anything to these words of M.A. Sholokhov. They are accurate and fair. The Supreme Commander-in-Chief did everything possible so that the Headquarters, its working apparatus - the General Staff and the Military Councils of the fronts - became truly wise and skillful military assistants to the party in achieving victory over fascist Germany. […]
“The style of work, as a rule, was businesslike, without nervousness, everyone could express their opinion. The Supreme addressed everyone the same way - strictly and officially. He knew how to listen attentively when they reported to him competently. He himself was laconic and did not like the verbosity of others, often stopping those who were talking with remarks - “shorter!”, “Clearer!”. Conducted meetings without introductory opening remarks. He spoke quietly, freely, only to the point. He was concise, formulated thoughts clearly. […] He did not tolerate answers at random, he demanded exhaustive completeness and clarity.
The Supreme Commander had a special flair for weaknesses in reports or documents, he immediately found them and severely punished for fuzzy information. Possessing a tenacious memory, he remembered well what was said and did not miss the opportunity to scold rather sharply for what was forgotten. […]
“Unremarkable in appearance, I.V. Stalin made a strong impression during the conversation. Deprived of posturing, he bribed his interlocutor with the simplicity of communication. A free manner of speaking, the ability to clearly articulate a thought, a natural analytical mind, great erudition and a rare memory made people during a conversation with him, even very sophisticated and significant people, internally gather and be on the alert.
“... He read a lot and was an informed person in a wide variety of fields of knowledge. Amazing efficiency, the ability to quickly grasp the essence of the matter allowed him to view and assimilate in a day so much different material, which was only possible for an outstanding person. […]
“I.V. Stalin was strong-willed person and, as they say, "not from a cowardly dozen." […] Stalin firmly ruled the country, the armed struggle, international affairs. Even at the moment of mortal danger hanging over Moscow, when the enemy was at a distance of 25-30 kilometers from it, I.V. Stalin did not leave his post, was at Headquarters in Moscow and behaved as befits the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. […]
“The merit of I.V. Stalin here is that he quickly and correctly perceived the advice of military specialists, supplemented and developed them in a generalized form - in instructions, directives and instructions, - immediately transferred them to the troops for practical guidance.
In addition, in supporting operations, creating strategic reserves, in organizing military equipment and in general in creating everything necessary for waging war, the Supreme Commander, frankly, proved himself outstanding organizer. And it will be unfair if we do not give him his due in this. […]
“In the leadership of the armed struggle as a whole, I.V. Stalin was helped by his natural mind, experience in political leadership, rich intuition, wide awareness. He knew how to find the main link in a strategic situation and, seizing on it, to outline ways to counter the enemy, to successfully carry out one or another offensive operation. Undoubtedly, he was a worthy Supreme Commander.” (Emphasis mine. - S.K.)
It is worth recalling that all the above statements about I.V. Stalin were written by G.K. Zhukov in the years when it was not easy to positively evaluate this person.
In one of the articles, Marshal D.T. Yazov, the last Minister of Defense of the USSR, cites a very remarkable dialogue. Once, when meeting with him, People's Artist of the USSR Innokenty Smoktunovsky said:
- What's Stalin! Generals like Zhukov or Vasilevsky could decide everything even without Stalin. They could do even better!
Yazov replied:
- Here you have almost all the great artists in the Moscow Art Theater! Why do you need a director?
- And what about without a director?
- And what about without the Supreme Commander-in-Chief? - the marshal asked in turn. - Each front will pull for itself, each front will be on its own.
In questions of a prominent representative of the Soviet intelligentsia, a great artist, naive unprofessionalism prevailed, a frivolous substitution of emotional outbursts for serious reflections.
A person is never unambiguous, one-colored. Everything is mixed in it. So it is with Stalin. Stalin alone is the greatest statesman and politician, a convinced, uncompromising communist. Another Stalin - a common person a person with their own strengths and weaknesses. But with Stalin, the first prevailed over the second, which was almost unknown to anyone and occupied a subordinate, even secondary position in relation to the first. That is, the obvious primacy of the first over the second. For Stalin supreme interests the construction of a socialist state has always unconditionally stood above personal demands and needs. I.V. Stalin was not so naive as not to imagine how in the future certain forces would evaluate his activities. Air Marshal A.E. Golovanov leads following words Stalin: “I know that when I am gone, not one tub of dirt will be poured on my head. But I am sure that the wind of history will dispel all this.
With Khrushchev, his individuality, his personal needs and passions dominated the Khrushchev politician, statesman, communist. His base, philistine, selfish interests rose above the interests of the party, country, people.
Sometimes the thought arises, did N.S. Khrushchev need to put the blame on I.V. Stalin for all the negative things that happened with him? Yes, and add a stupid gag like directing military operations on a globe, confusion, and the like, clearly not characteristic of I.V. Stalin, nonsense.
Cult of personality?! He blurted out "our dear", but, as they say, did not look into the calendar. There is a cult of personality, and there is also a micro-cult. A cult is when a significant person, by his service to the country, reaches the people high position in the party and in the state, and the grateful people glorify him and even deify him. A microcult, a cult, a stump - choose any - this is when a nonentity, which cannot be seen through the most powerful microscope, puffs up immensely, thinks about itself, about the same as that frog that burst. Stalin cannot even be compared with such figures as Alexander the Great and Napoleon! Compared to him, they are small! Stalin is a personality, but such that for centuries they will remember and glorify his deeds! The pug barked at the elephant!
From the closed report of N.S. Khrushchev at the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU, the enemy received such arguments in the fight against the communists, against the Soviet state, which he did not even dare to dream of. You involuntarily wonder who Nikita Sergeevich served more - the cause of communism, the international communist and workers' movement, his party, his state or the enemies of communism, reactionaries and obscurantists, opportunists and traitors? At one time, Nikita Sergeevich hobnobbed with the Trotskyists, so wasn’t this a kind of relapse, a burp of this past, which he really carefully concealed?

Stepan KARNAUKHOV

Stepan KARNAUKHOV

About the wind of history that will dispel everything or the power of the Internet... March 6th, 2010

Just recently I was thinking, but how did the revolution in my mind about Stalin pass? I remember exactly the almost animal fear of the Omenovsky type from perestroika Ogonki, Svandze-Rodzionad and other memories of the creative intelligentsia. And then somehow bang and shock from the facts and enchantingly stupid lies ... But that's what happened Starting point inversions, for the life of me I don't remember. I remember that I read Bushkov's books on Stalin with greedy interest, though not without skepticism ... Bo author is a well-known zalipushnik for the sake of a red word, and that's exactly what he launched for me the process of independent verification. Fortunately, the Internet was already in full force at that time.
So, in one of the books, either as an epigraph or on the cover, there was a beautiful phrase attributed to Stalin:

"After my death, a lot of rubbish will be dragged onto my grave, but the wind of history will dispel it. "

Even then, somehow the pathos of the eyes hurt, but there was no time for it, and then Onotole fasted on the topic, and it became curious whether the boy was like that. I began to look at sources on tips from network people. Bushkov, by the way, was immediately expelled as a well-known swindler, who, in small things, is not trustworthy. :) Komrad gosh100 offered the option that , the so-called testament of Stalin from Roman Trapeznikov "Testament of the Red Monarch":

After my death, a lot of rubbish will be put on my grave, but the time will come and sweep it away. I have never been a real revolutionary, my whole life has been an ongoing struggle against Zionism, the goal of which is to establish a new world order under the domination of the Jewish bourgeoisie ... To achieve this, they need to destroy the USSR, Russia, destroy the Faith, turn the Russian sovereign people into rootless cosmopolitans
Only the Empire can resist their plans. If it doesn't exist, Russia will perish, the World will perish... Enough of utopias. It is impossible to think of anything better than a monarchy, which means it is not necessary. I have always admired the genius and greatness of the Russian tsars. We can't get away from unity. But the autocrat must replace the dictator. When the time comes.
The only place on earth where we can be together is Russia. Reforms are inevitable, but in due time. And these should be reforms - organic, evolutionary, based on traditions, with the gradual restoration of Orthodox self-consciousness. They are based on realism and common sense. Very soon wars for territories will be replaced by cold wars - for resources and energy. You need to be ready for this. Mastering new types of energy should become a priority for our scientists. Their success is the guarantee of our independence in the future. An army can be strong only when it enjoys the exclusive care and love of the people and the government. This is the greatest moral strength of the army, the guarantee of its invincibility. And the army must be loved and cherished!
I'm lonely. Russia is a colossal country, and there is not a single one around decent person... The old generation is completely infected with Zionism, our only hope is in the youth. The time has come to announce a new crusade against the International, and only a new Russian Order can lead it, the creation of which must be started immediately. Remember: the world does not need a strong Russia, no one will help us, you can only rely on your own strength.
I did what I could, I hope you do more and better.
Be worthy of the memory of our great ancestors.

January-February 1953.
Joseph Stalin"

Fiery people, writers. Of course, they know better than Stalin about the Orthodox self-consciousness, and about the Jewish bourgeoisie, and, of course, about the Russian Order, which is so necessary for us. Yeah. Ftopka like prooflin. golovastik_lj I found an option that this is not Trapeznikov, but Marshal Golovanov:

Site "Military literature": militera.lib.ru
Edition: Golovanov A.E. Long-range bomber ... - M .: Delta NB LLC, 2004.
Book on the site: http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/gol ovanov_ae/index.html
Book in one file: http://militera.lib.ru/memo/0/chm/russi an/golovanov_ae.zip
Illustrations: http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/gol ovanov_ae/ill.html
OCR, editing, html: Petr Andriyanov ( [email protected])
Additional processing: Hoaxer ( [email protected])
So the pages are marked, the number precedes.
(1) References to notes are designated as such. Notes after text.
Golovanov A.E. Long-range bomber ... - M .: LLC "Delta NB", 2004. - 630 s: ill ..
Publisher's abstract: The memoirs of Chief Marshal of Aviation A. E. Golovanov (1904–1975) come to the reader as the last of the memoirs of the generals of the Great Patriotic War. Only now the book of the commander of the Long-Range Aviation is being published in true form and in full. All author's estimates and details restored according to the manuscript. The fate of the author is exceptional: an unusually bright rise during the war years and an unusually long and deaf silence in subsequent times. The reason for the disgrace was primarily that the activities of the ADD were directly subordinated to I.V. Stalin, about whom A.E. Golovanov writes a lot in his book. Entertaining and lively Chief Marshal about the selfless flights of bomber crews, about the formation of an offensive type of aviation in the Soviet Air Force, about many dramatic episodes on the fronts and at Headquarters, of which he was a participant and witness. The book by A. E. Golovanov will undoubtedly enter the golden fund of Russian memoir literature.

The truth is, I'm really worried about phrases like:

"Only now the book of the commander of long-range aviation is published in its true form and in full"

Also, the publication date is 2004, but even despite the military figurativeness of the turnover, "the tub will pour out - but the wind will dispel", in general, more sane than Trapeznikov's:

“I know,” he began, “that when I am gone, not one tub of dirt will be poured on my head. - And, walking a little, he continued: - But I am sure that the wind of history will dispel all this ...

Needless to say, I was surprised. At that time, it did not seem likely to me, yes, I think, not only to me, that anyone could say bad things about Stalin. During the war, everything was associated with his name, and this had clearly visible reasons. The initial German successes were localized. Hitler's armies were defeated near Moscow, Stalingrad and on Kursk Bulge. We won victories one after another, the solidity of the army and the people was obvious, and the desire to wipe the enemy off the face of the earth was unanimous. The whole machine of the state worked accurately and smoothly. When an orchestra plays without a conductor, and in the concept of government - without a firm leadership, the state machine, of course, could not work like that. The precise operation of this machine has also always been associated with his name. Therefore, it seemed to me that Stalin really fell ill ...

After walking a little more, he continued:

That's all good people connects with the name of Stalin, the oppressed peoples see in this name the beacon of freedom, the opportunity to break the age-old chains of slavery. "Comrade Stalin" has become a collective name, a hope for the oppressed and poor, the hope of workers and peasants groaning under the yoke of capitalism. The name of Comrade Stalin is endowed with the best features, as in a fairy tale. Of course, only good people does not exist in the world. In life, any very good person necessarily has his shortcomings, and Stalin has enough of them. But if they believe that Comrade Stalin can rescue the destitute from captivity and slavery, such faith must be supported, because it will give strength to the peoples to actively fight for their future, inspire them with hope and confidence in victory.

But there is no such thing as trust. And not that he would not trust the military, but much more than a prooflink, this looks like a bike like: "An oval is a circle inscribed in a square with sides 2 and 3." The next, and more solid at first glance, source suggested crykitten2 . Namely, they say this, according to Molotov, came from Felix Chuev's book "One Hundred and Forty Conversations with Molotov" in 1991:

... Several times I found out from Molotov the details of Stalin's death. I remember walking in the forest, having not really achieved anything, I asked a clearly provocative question:

- They say that Beria himself killed him?
Why Beria? Could be a Chekist or a doctor, - Molotov answered. – When he was dying, there were moments when he regained consciousness. It was - he writhed, there were different such moments. It seemed to be starting to come into its own. That's when Beria kept Stalin! Woo! I was ready ... I do not exclude that he had a hand in his death. From what he told me, and I felt it too... On the podium of the Mausoleum on May 1, 1953, he made such hints... Apparently, he wanted to evoke my sympathy. Said, "I removed it." It seems to have helped me. He, of course, wanted to make my attitude more favorable: "I saved you all!" Khrushchev hardly helped. He could guess. And perhaps ... They are still close. Malenkov knows more. More, more.

... Shota Ivanovich conveys the story of the former First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia, A. Mgeladze, about his meeting with Beria immediately after Stalin's funeral. Beria laughed, cursed Stalin: “The coryphaeus of science! Ha ha ha!"

- Stalin himself, I remember, said during the war: I know that after my death, a pile of garbage will be put on my grave. But the wind of history will mercilessly dispel it!»

And for sure, Beria stands on the mausoleum and conspiratorially says this to Molotov: We bet I removed it ... It is weak to believe in this, and the year of publication is significant. In general, I practically convinced myself that the phrase is a fake zavrodi kagbe of Churchilevsky: "I took it with a plow, left it with an atomic bomb," but here, thanks trilirium ,campaign and a convincing first surfaced 19-03-2015

A long time ago, a small discussion arose in Gus Buk about the words attributed to Stalin:

"I know that on my grave ungrateful descendants will cause a heap of garbage, but the wind of history will mercilessly dispel it.

I then wrote: Editor Wednesday, July 09, 2008 at 06:38:24

More than once I met this phrase on Stalinist websites. The guys made a mistake by presenting their idol in an inappropriate way. For never and under no circumstances could Stalin even think that someday “descendants will put a bunch of garbage” on his grave. Excluded. Stalin will always shine in the mountainous future.

And he would never have thought about his own grave. This is at the other graves. He has eternity. At first Comrade Stalin, as it were, guessed and ended up in the Mausoleum, which in no way (namely, in the sacred) sense was (and is not) a grave.
In short: Stalin never said this phrase. Moreover, he did not write. Apocrypha.

The writer answered me V.L. (Levashov) -Wednesday, July 09, 2008 at 08:15:45
The phrase came from the memoirs of Chief Air Marshal A. Golovanov. In the early 1970s, October published his memoirs. Several chapters were given to me for freelance editing. In the early 1970s, October published his memoirs. Several chapters were given to me for freelance editing. I read it and said: "I won't edit it, it's a hymn to Stalin." They answered me: "And you edit it so that it becomes clear even to Kochetov." Well, edited, a bad thing is not tricky. The times were no longer vegetarian, but Stalin had not yet reached the point of frank apologetics. After my editing, Kochetov hoarded the manuscript for a long time, but did not dare to publish it. Later, the book was published in Voenizdat, and the phrase about a pile of garbage came into use.

Editor Wednesday, July 09, 2008 at 09:29:35: Thanks for the valuable information. But you, dear Viktor Vladimirovich, are you sure that the phrase was in the manuscript? Maybe it's still folk art?

Seven years have passed since these discussions, and now much has finally become clear. The only word that could belong to Stalin in the phrase about the garbage and the grave is "ruthlessly."

The memoirs of Alexander Evgenievich Golovanov "The Far Bombardment" were published by Kochetov in the magazine "October" in these years:

1969, № 7; 1970, № 5; 1971, № 9, 11; 1972, № 7.

That is, the publications went with long breaks in five issues over three years! A separate book, also very abbreviated compared to the manuscript, was published in the Military Publishing House only in 1997, in a tiny edition of 600 copies. There was nothing about Stalin's grave.

Later, in 2004, the book came out again, in a more full version. It is also available online: http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/golovanov_ae/index.html
There is really nothing about the grave in it. But there is something similar, so to speak, "in theory".

I will quote this part.

“It was only on December 7 (1943) that the Tehran Conference was announced in the newspapers.

On December 5 or 6, Stalin called me and asked me to come to his dacha. When I arrived there, I saw that he was walking in an overcoat thrown over his shoulders. He was alone. After saying hello, the Supreme Commander said that he had apparently caught a cold and was afraid that he would get pneumonia, because he always endured this disease with difficulty. After walking around a bit, he suddenly started talking about himself.

- I know,he began- that when I'm gone, not one tub of dirt will be poured on my head.And, walking a little, he continued:- But I'm sure that the wind of history will dispel all this ...

Needless to say, I was surprised. At that time, it did not seem likely to me, yes, I think, and not only to me, that anyone could say bad things about Stalin. During the war, everything was associated with his name, and this had clearly visible reasons.

As you can see, instead of garbage, there is a tub of dirt, and instead of a grave - the head of the leader. The wind that will dispel all this abomination is still the same.

The situation is unusual: Stalin, returning from the conference Big Three in Tehran, physically unwell (sick for two weeks), but politically and morally triumphant. For no reason at all, the young General Golovanov (he was then 39 years old) was talking in private about his death and posthumous glory somehow out of order. And Stalin's philosophy was not the same, and psychology (his own death was a complete taboo), and not in his style.

Why such attention to this "Stalin's phrase"? Because with its help now they want to show how wise the leader was. Even when he foresaw the anti-patriotic revelry of perestroika and the fifth column of national traitors. And he knew that all this abomination would be swept away. It is to them. Or his reincarnation, this case- Putin. He is the name of Russia, he is the blacksmith of victory, he is the hope of rebirth. I quote an indicative entry of an ordinary blogger on the occasion of the anniversary of the Anschluss of Crimea:

"Musical greetings from artillery fathers to proud sons: Artillery march." Artillerymen, Stalin gave the order. Musical greetings from tank fathers TO PROUD SONS: March of Soviet tankers. "When Comrade Stalin sends us into battle." Greetings to money-grubbers, fools, alarmists from Stalin: Order No. 227 "Not a step back."

I will now quote Stalin's words on the topic of art and life, where he could flash with metaphors, tropes, comparisons, talk on an existential topic about death, the wind of history and other metaphysical concepts. But we will read only mournful party-official nonsense about class politics and the triumph of socialist ideals. Below are excerpts from his speech at a meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, delivered at about the same time as the words attributed to him about the wind of history - January 31, 1944.

Tov. Dovzhenko wrote a film story called "Ukraine on Fire".
In this film story, to put it mildly, Leninism is being revised, the policy of our party on basic, fundamental issues is being revised. Dovzhenko's film story, which contains gross errors of an anti-Leninist character, is a frank attack on the policy of the party.

First of all, it is very strange that in Dovzhenko's film story "Ukraine on Fire", which should have shown the complete triumph of Leninism, under the banner of which the Red Army is now successfully liberating Ukraine from German invaders, there is not a single word about our teacher the great Lenin.

And this is no coincidence. It is no coincidence that this is because Dovzhenko revises politics and criticizes the work of the party to defeat the class enemies of the Soviet people. And, as is known, this work was carried out by the party in the spirit of Leninism, in full agreement with the immortal teachings of Lenin.

Dovzhenko opposes the class struggle here. He tries to defame politics and everything practical activities party to eliminate the kulaks as a class. Dovzhenko allows himself to mock such sacred concepts for every communist and truly Soviet person as class struggle against the exploiters and the purity of the party line.
Dovzhenko is unaware of the simple and obvious truth for all Soviet people that without the liquidation of the exploiting classes in our country, our people, our army, our state would not be as powerful, combat-ready and united as they turned out to be in the current difficult war against the German imperialists.

Dovzhenko writes about our personnel:
“Oh, what is it doing? Tell me why are we so rotten? - the wounded young man with a broken leg was crying. - Comrade commander, what a program! The highest in the world. And here we are, look! Bring the wounded, thrash your mother, come on! - cried.
Cars flew by autumn leaf».

Dovzhenko says that after the liberation of the captured by the Germans Soviet power we “…will no longer, it’s true, neither teachers, nor technicians, nor agronomists. The war will come out. Only investigators and judges will remain. Yes, healthy as bears, but the practiced ones will return!
Dovzhenko does not see and does not want to see the obvious and simple truth that our party, Soviet and military cadres are flesh and blood, blood from the blood of the Soviet people, that they are in the forefront of the fighters against the fascist invaders, selflessly, heroically fighting in the ranks of the Red Army. army and in partisan detachments. Dovzhenko is at odds with the truth here, too. And the truth is that Soviet people trusts our officers and generals, party and Soviet workers, and loves them, for they are his best people. This, by the way, is one of the important sources of the strength and stability of our Soviet system.

Ukrainian girl Olesya addresses with these words to an unfamiliar tanker she met on the road: “Listen,” Olesya said, “spend the night with me. The night is already falling. If possible, do you hear? She put down the bucket and walked over to him.

- I'm a girl. I know if the Germans will come tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, torture me, abuse me. I'm so afraid of this. I beg you ... let it be you ... Spend the night with me ... "

Where did Dovzhenko see such girls in Ukraine? Is it not clear that this is a rabid slander on Ukrainian people, on Ukrainian women.
Intolerant and unacceptable for the Soviet people is the frankly nationalist ideology, clearly expressed in Dovzhenko's film story.

Stalin I.V. C cleansing. - T. 18. - Tver: Information and Publishing Center "Soyuz", 2006. P. 332–342. http://goo.gl/Hlvr7p

Dovzhenko, also not God knows what writer, has at least "Cars flew by like an autumn leaf." Comrade Stalin is just a set of miserable cliches of a political propagandist and the lexicon of a prosecutor from the top three. Stalin wrote this speech himself (like most of his writings). could show literary talent. Nevertheless, he wrote poetry in the seminary. Tell me: could the author of this speech talk about the wind of history that will blow the garbage on his grave? Just purely stylistically? In no case.

Back to Tehran 1943

Roosevelt lived in the premises of the USSR Embassy in Iran, it was connected by passages covered with tarpaulin (so that no one could see who was going where from the outside) with the nearby British Embassy. Everywhere, where possible, everything was stuffed with microphones, especially Roosevelt's apartments. There was a round-the-clock wiretapping, and Stalin knew everything that Roosevelt and Churchill and all their entourage were talking about. This filled him with inexplicable joy and pride: he "beat them like a child." Listening to enemies, friends and comrades-in-arms was Stalin's favorite pastime since the beginning of his General Secretariat in 1922, when a Czech communist specialist in automatic telephony installed a wiretap in all the apartments and offices of members of the Politburo (on completion of the work he was shot (see Memoirs of Stalin's secretary Boris Bazhanov. http://lib.ru/MEMUARY/BAZHANOW/stalin.txt). Therefore, Stalin always knew who was breathing what, what he had in mind and what his connections were. At first he took various organizational measures to eliminate the danger, and then simply shot dubious allies.

In order not to return to the topic of Stalin's triumph on the occasion of wiretapping, let's turn to the memoirs of Beria's son Sergo ("My father is Lavrenty Beria"), who at that time was a student of the Leningrad Military Academy:

“Stalin asked how the studies at the academy were going, and immediately got down to business:

I specially selected you and a number of other people who do not officially meet with foreigners anywhere, because what I entrust to you is an unethical business ... He paused and emphasized:

But I have to... In fact, it is now being decided main question: whether they will help us or not. I have to know everything, every nuance... I chose you and the others for this very purpose. I chose people I know and trust. I know that you are dedicated. And here is the task before you personally...

All conversations between Roosevelt and Churchill were to be tapped, transcribed and reported daily to Stalin personally. Where exactly are the microphones, Iosif Vissarionovich did not tell me. Later I learned that conversations were being tapped in six or seven rooms of the Soviet embassy, ​​where President Roosevelt was staying. All conversations with Churchill took place there. They usually spoke to each other before the beginning of the meetings or after them.

Dialogues between Roosevelt and Churchill, the chiefs of staff, were processed first. In the mornings, before the meetings began, I went to see Stalin.

The main text that I reported to him was small in volume, only a few pages. That was exactly what interested him. The materials themselves were translated into Russian, but Stalin made us always have at hand and English text. For an hour and a half every day he worked only with us. It was a kind of preparation for the next meeting with Roosevelt and Churchill. http://militera.lib.ru/bio/beria/06.html

Grave of Beria's son Sergo Gegechkori in Kyiv (maternal surname)

Let's return to the lines about tubs of dirt on the leader's head. Stalin after the Great Terror was no longer a leader. He was God. And God cannot die. He is lonely, yes, but he is immortal. In Galich's "Poem about Stalin" his psychology is shown quite accurately. There Stalin compares himself with Christ and tells Him:

Weak in soul and mind, not strong,
You believed both God and the king,
I won't repeat your mistakes
I won't repeat any of them!
There is no saint in the world,
To raise a spear against me,
If I die, what can happen,
My kingdom will be eternal!

It's talking about death here. subjunctive and as a theoretically possible ("may happen"), but practically improbable event. But even in this incredible case, no one will dare to raise a spear against God and His kingdom will be eternal without a break for heaps of garbage on the grave or a tub of dirt on the head. There is nothing about a tub of dirt on Stalinist sites. There's more about the pile of rubbish on the grave.

This is understandable: nevertheless, the dirt and slops on the head of the leader somehow completely reduce the image. In addition, the wind would have smeared the dirt on the face and messed up everything around. Therefore, they usually quote about the grave with garbage and the wind of history. The rubbish is light, a gust of wind will carry it away and the grave will become as fresh as new.

Where the quote about the grave, garbage and wind came from has long been known. It is from Felix Chuev's "documentary" story "One Hundred and Forty Conversations with Molotov". This work was published in 1991, but it hit the Internet relatively recently, from the second half of 2008. This phrase is in the same paragraph as this episode:

Several times I found out from Molotov the details of Stalin's death. I remember walking in the forest, having not really achieved anything, I asked a clearly provocative question:
- They say that Beria himself killed him?
Why Beria? Could be a Chekist or a doctor, - Molotov answered. – When he was dying, there were moments when he regained consciousness. It was - he writhed, there were different such moments. It seemed to be starting to come into its own. That's when Beria kept Stalin! Woo! Was ready...

I do not rule out that he had a hand in his death. From what he told me, and I also felt… On the podium of the mausoleum on May 1, 1953, he made such hints… Apparently, he wanted to evoke my sympathy. Said, "I removed it." It seems to have helped me. He, of course, wanted to make my attitude more favorable: "I saved you all!" Khrushchev hardly helped. He could guess. And perhaps ... They are still close. Malenkov knows more.

More, more.
... Shota Ivanovich (Kvantaliani, a historian by education, was present at half of Chuev's meetings with Molotov - V.L) conveys the story of the former First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia, A. Mgeladze, about his meeting with Beria immediately after Stalin's funeral. Beria laughed, cursed Stalin: “The coryphaeus of science! Ha ha ha!"
– Stalin himself, I remember, said during the war: “I know that after my death they will put a lot of garbage on my grave. But the wind of history will ruthlessly dispel it!”

24.08.1971, 09.06.1976

Let's look at the date of the interview. There is not one, but two dates: August 24, 1971 and June 9, 1976. Wow! What does it mean? Molotov, as well as Kvantaliani, repeat the same thing with a gap of 5 years? Verbatim? So end-to-end - first about the violent death of Stalin and then about the garbage and the wind of history? Moreover, in the presentation of Chuev, Molotov speaks about the liquidation of the luminary of sciences many times and at different times, but about garbage and wind only once, but under two dates. This is understandable, because without death there can be no grave, and without a grave there can be no garbage.

More examples:

Chuev - Was Stalin poisoned?
Molotov - Possibly. But who will prove it now?

22.04.1970
Chuev: It is absolutely certain that he did not die a natural death ...
- This is not excluded - agrees Molotov.
(30.6.1976)

... Chuev: A writer friend of mine brought from Paris a book by A. Avtorkhanov "The Mystery of Stalin's Death" and gave it to me to read. I, in turn, gave it to Molotov, and a few days later I came to hear his opinion.
“She is so dirty,” Molotov says. - He draws everyone in what a robber form! There is some truth, of course, here. You read it - it gets a little creepy. Bulganin played a small role. But Malenkov, Beria and Khrushchev, they were the core of this trend.

Chuev (read from Avtorkhanov): Khrushchev, in a radio speech on July 19, 1964, said: “In the history of mankind there were many cruel tyrants, but they all died from an ax just as they themselves supported their power with an ax.” (Chuev comments further) He cites the versions of I. G. Ehrenburg and P. K. Ponomarenko, which largely coincide. At the end of February, Stalin convened a meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee on the issue of the "doctors' case" and the deportation of Soviet Jews to a separate zone of the USSR. Stalin's proposals were not supported, after which he fell unconscious. Beria remained silent there, and then also moved away from Stalin

Molotov: That Beria was involved in this case, I admit. He frankly played a very insidious role.
13.01.1984

So there is death and the grave. But did Stalin talk about this?

Golovanov claims that Stalin told him about the wind of history in private and names the date: December 5 or 6, 1943. Molotov, in Chuev's retelling, names only the period "during the war", but he also presents Stalin's revelation as being said only to him and purely confidentially. Which of them composes? Both? Or Chuev came up with?

Golovanov finished his memoirs "The Far Bombardment" in 1969. In the same year, Chuev began to go to interviews with Molotov. Chuev knew Golovanov at that time, he collected materials about the pilots and wrote about them. He also wrote an essay about Golovanov. It is more than possible that Chuev read Golovanov's memoirs in the manuscript and saw there a paragraph about the wind of history. Stalinist Chuev really liked this wind so much that he decided to slip it on Molotov. We have already seen above that the phrase about the grave and garbage does not at all correspond to the image of Stalin. And his style. These are not his words, not his vision of himself. But in the same way, this is not Molotov's style.

Molotov always speaks official-party words, alien to the gloomy poetics of the paragraph about the grave and garbage. Even when we are talking really about the infernal events of the Great Terror. That's where it was possible, it seemed, to give free rein to the colors of hell, to depict horrors, passions, dying revelations, all kinds of Dostoevism. Nothing like this. As they say, "despite some shortcomings, in general, great successes have been achieved." Read for yourself:

- How to understand the 37th year?

“I believe that there were both shortcomings and mistakes,” says Molotov. – How could they not exist when there were enemies in the very bodies that were investigating.
As for the line, they called me on the question of reinstatement in the Party, I said that I defended and continue to defend the policy of the Party of the 1930s in the same way as before. The fact that there were mistakes, of course, there were. I think later they will say how each of us was wrong. In one way or another. Without this, it could not have been.

- Couldn't Stalin have guessed that so many people could not be enemies of the people?
- Of course, it is very sad and sorry for such people, but I believe that the terror that was carried out at the end of the 30s was necessary. Of course, maybe there would have been fewer victims if we had acted more carefully, but Stalin reinsured the matter - not to spare anyone, but to ensure a reliable position during the war and after the war, for a long period - this, in my opinion, was. I do not deny that I supported this line. I could not understand each individual person. But such people as Bukharin, Rykov, Zinoviev, Kamenev, they were connected with each other. Stalin, in my opinion, led a very correct line: let the extra head fly off, but there will be no hesitation. Think about it, this policy was the only saving policy for the people, for the revolution, and the only one consistent with Leninism and its basic principles.

“Solzhenitsyn writes,” says Kvantaliani, “that Stalin himself nominated Yezhov and himself forced him to kill the party cadres.
- This is not true. Yezhov was a fairly prominent worker who had come forward. Not tall, thin, but very assertive, strong worker. And when he was in power, they gave him strong instructions, he was drawn, and he began to cut according to the plan. Yagoda paid the price for this before him. It doesn't take long for the person to show up. But here they broke firewood, of course. To say that Stalin did not know about this is absurd, but to say that he is responsible for all these affairs is also wrong, of course.

The Party and the Soviet state could not allow any slowness or delay in carrying out the punitive measures that had become absolutely necessary. For gross abuses of power, People's Commissar of Internal Affairs Yezhov, exposed in some gross distortions of party policy, was then sentenced to highest measure punishment.

(Kvantaliani) - If they took, say, Tukhachevsky, well, a thousand, well, two, well, ten thousand, well, one hundred thousand - then the number exceeded, and most importantly, it exceeded against any desire from above, people began to write at each other, and hell -those who are already all sorts of bastards ...
“There were many mistakes, many,” agrees Molotov. “And who could have arrested, besides Stalin? Tupolev dragged 50 people behind him. All design bureaus worked. After all, they made cars in prison ... True, Tupolev said about Stalin: “Scale! Swipe! Master!"
- And Petlyakov was sitting, and Stechkin was sitting, and Glushko ...
- Myasishchev was sitting. You can add: Shakhurin was sitting.

Why were Tupolev, Stechkin, Korolyov imprisoned?
They were all sitting. We talked too much. And the circle of their acquaintances, as one would expect ... They did not support us ...
The same Tupolev could become dangerous enemy. He has great connections with the intelligentsia hostile to us. Tupolev from that category of intelligentsia, which is very much needed Soviet state, but in their hearts they are against it, and along the line of personal ties they carried on dangerous and corrupting work, and even if they did not, they breathed it. Yes, they couldn't help it!

Here you need to find a way how to master this business. The Tupolevs were put behind bars, the Chekists were ordered: provide them with the best conditions, feed them with cakes, everything you can, more than anyone else, but do not let them out! Let them work, design the necessary military things for the country. This is the right people. Not by propaganda, but by their personal influence, they are dangerous. And it is also impossible not to take into account the fact that at a difficult moment they can become especially dangerous. You can't do without it in politics. They cannot build communism with their own hands.

“But people don’t see meat all over the country.
- Well, to hell with him, with meat, if only imperialism would die!

Well, could such a person as Molotov talk about the "wind of history"? Could not. As well as his godfather Stalin.

Chuev, who published all this, says that he recorded his conversations with Molotov on a tape recorder. So. Let's listen to Chuev himself:

How were our meetings? Usually I came to the dacha in Zhukovka, he met me in the hallway - warmly, at home:

Who is there, Comrade Felix arrived?

We sat at the table, ate lunch, walked through the forest. (“I was the Presovnarkom, and then they overheard me, let's go for a walk ...”).

This means that the conversations took place during walks in the forest, because Molotov was afraid of listening. And here with Felix Chuev, he suddenly stopped being afraid. At that time, portable voice recorders were not produced in the USSR. So he could carry a fairly large (like a briefcase) reporter's. With a cassette for only 20 minutes. Let's say. And where are these records? No, it is no coincidence that the genre of conversations with Molotov is defined as fiction and documentary. The fact that Molotov was villainous is documented fact. But the grave, garbage and wind are the arts brought by Chuev.

In order to estimate the extent to which Golovanov, who was the first to remember what Stalin told him about the wind of history, should be trusted, you need to briefly look at him life path. He's writing:

“I myself, as they say, faithfully served my people, and my whole life was in plain sight. Already in 1919, as a boy, I fought. He was in special forces - CHON, then in famous division them. Dzerzhinsky. Fought with Basmachi in Central Asia.

At 21, he already wore four sleepers on his buttonholes - a colonel according to later concepts. Well, and further: in 1923, the district committee of the Komsomol was sent to study. In 1924, the Provincial Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks sent him to work in the organs of the GPU in the city of Gorky. He took part in the arrest of Boris Savinkov. He worked in the authorities from 1924 to 1933, in special departments, in operational work, from commissioner to head of department.

That is, a very noticeable "organist" c personal experience executions. And suddenly he wanted to fly like a goblin in a swamp and he became a pilot, where he also reached some heights - he became the chief pilot of Aeroflot. And in 1941, Air Force Commander-in-Chief Smushkevich advised him to write a letter to Stalin about the organization of long-range bomber aviation, which would fly using radio navigation devices. Stalin received him personally, gave him a lieutenant colonel, and things went smoothly. It is only strange that at the age of 21 Golovanov was already with four sleepers, like a colonel, and at 37 he starts with a lieutenant colonel.

Well, at 21 he was a Chekist-shooter, and here he is a pilot, here ranks are more expensive. Then the career rushed up like a surface-to-air missile. Three years later, the lieutenant colonel, having run all types of generals as a record-breaking sprinter, has already received the rank of air chief marshal! As they write in his biographies - the youngest marshal in the world (at 40 years old). In fact, it was strange: the undersized, pockmarked, dry-handed man had an instinctive aversion to stately, healthy fellows. Golovanov was a meter ninety tall, what is the leader next to him with his 1m.62 cm.? But then everything came to the Stalinist norm. In 1948 there was an inexplicably sharp dive. Stalin removes Golovanov from the post of commander long-range aviation and sent to study at the academy general staff. There have never been marshals there, only senior officers and junior generals.

A disciplined marshal graduates with honors from the academy. And what? Comrade Stalin sends the Air Chief Marshal to study at the land officer courses "Shot"! This course is for juniors and intermediates. officers. Ho and it takes the air marshal for granted. At the age of 50, he crawls with young animals in a plastunsky way. He who is born can fly and crawl. Finishes great. Next, perhaps, comrade. Stalin would have sent him to the sergeant's school, but he did not have time - he died not without the help of his faithful comrades-in-arms.

Then Beria noticed the marshal and began to lure him into his department. But he didn’t have time either - this fighter against imperialism was swept up by his own people and shot without delay. They wanted to imprison the suspicious Golovanov, as if he were dealing with a reptile, but, finding nothing reprehensible, they were thrown into the position of deputy in some research institute of aviation. And in 1966, they were completely sent to a meager pension, so the marshal and his wife lived in their garden and wrote memoirs with a panegyric to Stalin. Golovanov died in 1975 at the age of 71. He lived an incredibly long life for Stalin's favorite and a young nominee.

See for yourself what was the fate of the young favorites who commanded Soviet aviation before Golovanov.

Yakov Ivanovich Alksnis in 1931 at the age of 34 was appointed commander of the Red Army Air Force. November 23, 1937 Alksnis was removed from all posts and arrested. On July 28, 1938, he was sentenced to death on charges of participating in a military conspiracy. The sentence was carried out, he was 41 years old.

Yakov Smushkevich: from November 19, 1939, at the age of 37, head of the Red Army Air Force. On June 8, 1941, he was arrested on charges of participating in a military conspiratorial organization. On October 28, 1941, he was shot in the village of Barbysh, Kuibyshev Region, at the special section of the USSR NKVD Directorate for the Kuibyshev Region, on the basis of the order of the People's Commissar of Internal Affairs of the USSR L.P. Beria No. 2756/B dated October 18, 1941. He was 39 years old.

Pavel Rychagov, since August 1940, at the age of 29, was appointed head of the Main Directorate of the Red Army Air Force. June 24, 1941 arrested and charged with conspiracy. On October 28, 1941, by order of Beria, a group of arrested officers was shot without trial, including 30-year-old P.V. Rychagov. Together with Rychagov, his wife, deputy commander of the special-purpose air regiment, Major Maria Nesterenko, was shot, accused of "being Rychagov's beloved wife, she could not help but know about her husband's treasonous activities."

Yes, and after Golovanov, the young Alexander Novikov became Chief Air Marshal. His comrade. Stalin imprisoned, did not have time to shoot everything for the same reason of his sudden and unexpected death for himself, but nevertheless Novikov served 6 years.

Comrade Stalin did not leave alive ANY of the top commanders of Soviet aviation. Except Golovanov. So we see what kind of happiness came to Marshal Alexander Golovanov. And why was he so immensely grateful to Comrade. Stalin for the fact that he only incredibly humiliated him by sending him to the "Shot" courses. He carried out only a civil penalty.

This wholesale pestilence of Soviet flyers cannot be an accident. Yes, that was a real Marxist pattern. How can this extermination of their own Stalinist falcons be explained? I think for two reasons.

1. All of them were medal handsome men, an elite breed, one might say, of Aryan sires. And they came from the bottom, but you go. Just like the nobleman Tukhachevsky. Maybe the bar was pampered? Let's look at them.

Yakov Alksnis

Yakov Smushkevich

Pavel Rychagov, similar to Tukhachevsky

For comparison - Mikhail Tukhachevsky

Alexander Novikov

Alexander Golovanov

1. In all of them, in connection with the rapid rise from rags to riches, a Napoleon complex quickly arose. Bonapartist manners. They believed, apparently, that they were knee-deep in the sea, waist-deep in the sky. And that with such military talents, they themselves could become leaders. Maybe they didn't think so. But Stalin thought so of them. The pilot-chief is a suspicious person. Can look out for strategic secrets from above. Might fly overseas. But the most dangerous thing is that he can order the air armada to dive into the Kremlin, where at that time the window is lit - Comrade Stalin works all night long for the good of the whole country. Therefore, it will be correct to destroy the poisonous shoots before committing a state crime, at the stage of intent. Which was rigorously done.

To what extent can one trust the memoirs of A. Golovanov, in which for the first time the thought of the Stalinist philosophy of death, tubs of dirt and posthumous retribution came through? Not in too big. Golovanov writes that it was Stalin who instructed him to organize a flight from Baku to Tehran to meet the Big Three in 1943. But Stalin himself, as well as Molotov and Voroshilov, did not fly in Golovanov’s plane, but in another one with pilot Viktor Grachev, Beria’s personal pilot. 80 people were awarded for this heroic flight. All - except Golovanov. Modesty? However, he accepted other awards and titles without objection. The flight was, but, it seems, without filling from the brilliant commander comrade. Stalin. They brought security and other personnel. There is information from the participants of that conference that comrade. Stalin did not fly, but rode in a special armored car. 80 people were awarded for the flight. And the car weighed 80 tons. Well, coincidence. In the same way, the current Korean leader of the peoples, Kim Jong-un, never flies; he moves around the globe in his personal armored train.

Wiki in the article about Tehran-43 says: "As usual, Stalin refused to fly anywhere by plane. He left for a conference on November 22, 1943. His letter train No. 501 proceeded through Stalingrad and Baku. Stalin rode in an armored twelve-wheeled spring car."

Stalin's translator V. Berezhkov wrote that Stalin arrived in Tehran by train.

Another source says: "Churchill and Roosevelt arrived at the conference by plane, the Soviet delegation led by Stalin reached Tehran by letter train via Stalingrad and Baku. Stalin was located in a separate armored car weighing more than 80 tons." http://www.aif.ru/society/history/1031871

In general, the method of delivery of Comrade. Stalin to Tehran is not a very important issue for history. Not as important as the luminary's possible philosophizing about death and immortality. Stalin, of course, did not say anything of the sort. Neither Golovanov nor Molotov in the arrangement of the poet and admirer of the leader Chuev. This is a myth.

The question is, why did Golovanov come up with Stalin's phrase about a tub of dirt on his head after death and the wind of history that will dispel the dirt (garbage in Chuev's version)? And this is to emphasize the special trusting relationship with the leader. Golovanov does not tire of repeating that he personally submitted to Stalin. Nobody else. That Stalin often received him in all alone. That their spiritual closeness was so great that this superman, a celestial, shares with the young commander of long-range aviation the most intimate: his posthumous "re-being." And so the myth was born.

Golovanov's dying words are extremely indicative. According to the memoirs of his wife Tamara Vasilievna, "his last words were:" Mother, what scary life... ". I repeated it three times ... I began to ask:" What are you? What you? Why do you say that? Why a terrible life?!" And he also said: "Your happiness that you don't understand this..."

Yes, Tamara Vasilyevna would have been horrified if she knew about some of the exploits of the faithful and at what cost he deserved the title of chief marshal. What did he fancy? The pleading eyes of those being shot? The contemptuous smile of Boris Savinkov, meanly lured to the USSR, from whom Golovanov takes away parabellum (and kept it)? Dark tasks ordered by Stalin, such as the delivery of the doomed Marshal Blucher to him by plane? Or writing for Stalin words about his posthumous unfading glory, this myth about the wind of history that will dispel the dirt about his crimes?

However, the myth is sometimes more accurate than wingless protocol records. As, for example, Stalin's alleged words "There is a person - there is a problem. No person - there is no problem." After all, Stalin also said nothing of the sort. It is a myth. These words were coined by Anatoly Rybakov and put into Stalin's mouth in the novel Children of the Arbat. Stalin did not say, he did so. And so these words became the best aphorism of that era. And the myth of the posthumous resurrection of Comrade. Stalin also accurately reflects the state of mind of the people in today's Russia. It is no coincidence that Stalin was called "the name of Russia", it is no coincidence that it is with his second coming that the "common man" connects the establishment of order and the establishment of justice. At worst, with his ersatz substitute V.V. Putin. Stalin annexed entire countries to the USSR he created, built a huge socialist camp. And Putin is only Crimea. And everything is not decided either by South Ossetia with Abkhazia, or Pridestrovye, or the DPR with the LPR. Well, the trouble is the beginning.

Recently, a survey was conducted in Russia. It was necessary to answer the question: knowing everything about mass repressions, about the monstrous victims of collectivization, the Holodomor, about Great Terror, the number of those who died in the Second World War (this is the tubs of dirt and garbage on the grave), would you now accept and support the Stalinist methods of governing the country? Answer: 57 percent would support. More than half of the country would like a new Stalin. And even better - the old one. As soon as science matures and revives. These patriots do not know that Stalin's body was burned and the ashes scattered to the wind. According to the same wind of history that dispelled "tubs of dirt on the head" and heaps of garbage on the grave of comrade. Stalin.

P.S. In March, voting continued on the subject of the desirability of Stalin's coming. As a result, more than 110 thousand people voted, and only 15 percent were in favor of Stalin's methods, and 81 were against. Well, this gives hope, although we should not forget that the advanced part of the population involved in the Internet voted. And the whole hinterland is "zatokrymnash". see http://echo.msk.ru/polls/1507786-echo/results.html

And here is this ZatoKrymNash on the anniversary (a good neologism from Facebook: on the anniversary) to the question of the possibility of applying nuclear weapon for the sake of joining the Crimea, he answered: "for" 62 percent (!) Stalin.

See also material