Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Similar Documents
The emergence and development of weeklies in European countries and the United States of America. The originality of socio-political weekly magazine-type publications and weekly supplements of federal newspapers. Comparative analysis newspaper content.
thesis, added 05/25/2017
The concept of a children's periodical. Age and psychological features of modern children's audience. Features of electronic periodicals. Russian press system. Analysis of children's electronic periodicals on the Internet.
term paper, added 05/28/2016
The concept, essence and characteristics of the socio-political press. Methods and technologies for influencing target audience in socio-political journalism. Assessment of the level of demand and impact on the audience of socio-political publications.
term paper, added 03/18/2014
Types of information and sources of its receipt. Functional purpose of official publications. Scientific, normative production and practical publications and general typological classification of educational publications. The ratio of newspapers and magazines in the system of journalism.
term paper, added 12/21/2011
The reasons for the appearance of glossy publications, the first editions of the world. Directions, genres and audience of modern glossy publications, forecast of their position on modern market presses. Typology of women's publications in Russia, changes in their content over time.
thesis, added 07/11/2015
Estimation of compliance of the reference apparatus of periodicals with theoretical requirements. Definition of the apparatus of publication. Determining by the number of points which journals meet the standards of periodicals in terms of design, quality of the reference apparatus.
term paper, added 01/11/2010
Literary-artistic and socio-political magazine "Neva", its creation and history of development. The influence of political censorship on the specifics and principles of publication. The content of the journal "Neva" in the Soviet and post-Soviet times, the organization of the study.
term paper, added 01/18/2009
Mass-political electronic publication: An electronic publication containing a work of social and political themes, agitation and propaganda in nature and intended for a wide range of readers.
Another type of resource is the websites of public organizations and political parties. The most informative sites of the Yabloko movement, the Democratic Union, the Liberal Democratic Party, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Union of Right Forces, the United Russia party and others. As a rule, the site of a political party contains constituent documents (program, charter, declarations), materials of congresses and plenums, publications of the party press or the press of a given political direction, data on the work of the party faction in State Duma, regional branches and information about admission to the party, a forum, a chronicle of the activities of the party, sometimes publications of brochures and books, information about personalities (party leaders), databases, information and publications of documents on the history of the party. Since the archives of public organizations are even less accessible than departmental archives, the publication of these sources on official websites provides very important information for studying the modern social movement and the political spectrum. When publishing party documents on websites, evidence of their authenticity is of great importance. Thus, the program documents of the Russian Democratic Party "Yabloko" on its website - the program, charters, democratic declaration (2001) - are given with the date and place of publication and changes, but without indicating the place of storage of the original and its publication.
Important information about the development of the modern socio-political process (in addition to the resources of parties and movements) can also be found on the websites of socio-political figures. A resource of this type, in addition to the biography of the figure, contains the publication of his articles, interviews and statements, opinions and statements on topical issues. More informative sites (for example, M. Arbatova, Yu.N. Afanasyev) contain publications of books, photos and videos. Publications of the writings of political figures are rarely published on websites for copyright reasons. Interesting materials feedback with a politician. On B. Nemtsov's byte, in addition to the publication of press materials, his interviews, documents of the Union of Right Forces, there is a section "reception" for communication with B. Nemtsov. Unfortunately, the "archive depth" of a political figure is usually small and rarely contains publications earlier than 2000.
Examples of Mass-Political electronic publications:
Website of the Russian Democratic Party "Yabloko" (http://www.yabloko.ru/). The site contains program documents, an extensive archive of publications in the press about the party (since 1990), electronic publications of party publications, speeches and press conferences of party leaders, texts of speeches by members of the Yabloko faction in the State Duma and other materials.
The official server of the information service of the party "Democratic Union" (http://www.ds.ru). The site contains program documents and statements of the party, photo, video, audio archive, information about the leaders of the party, texts of speeches, articles and books by V.I. Novodvorskaya, materials of the party newspaper "Free Word", materials of the party archive since 1988.
Official site of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (http://www.ldpr.ru/). The site contains a chronicle of the party's activities, program documents, a biography of V.V. Zhirinovsky and an extensive archive of his publications, including even songs, texts of bills and materials on the activities of the LDPR faction in the State Duma, issues of periodicals - the newspaper "LDPR", "It was in the Duma", "It's interesting", messages from the party press center, information on the activities of the party in the regions, photoarchive.
The official website of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (http://www.kprf.ru/) contains very diverse information. In addition to program documents and materials of congresses and plenums, materials of the press center, electronic library and information about the structure and composition of the party, the site contains a number of databases, links to personal pages of party leaders and other information.
Website of the party "Union of Right Forces" (http://www.sps.ru/).
Website of the party "United Russia" (http://www.edinros.ru).
Website of the "People's Patriotic Union of Russia" (http://www.npsr.ru/), the movement "Walking Together" (http://www.idushie.ru/), the Democratic Party of Russia (http://www.demparty .ru), Russian Christian Democratic Party (http://aha.ru/~rcdp); websites of the movements "Public Consent" (http://www.soglasie.org/), "Russia" (http://www.dv-rossia-seleznev.ru/), the Conservative Party of Russia (http://www.kpr .ru/); websites of political clubs and associations - "Just Cause" (http://www.pravoedelo.spb.ru/), "Working Democracy" (http://www.1917.com/). There are also sites of regional branches of all-Russian parties and movements.
Sites of A. Shokhin (http://www.shohin.ru/), G.N. Seleznev (http://www.seleznev.ru), A. Chubais (http://www.chubais.ru/); A.A. Under Berezkin (http://www.nasled.ru/); K. Titova (http://titov.samara.ru/); Yu.M. Luzhkov (http://www.lujkov.ru/); G.A. Yavlinsky (http://www.yavlinsky.ru/); I. Khakamada (http://www.hakamada.ru/); site of M. Arbatova (http://www.arbatova.ru), site of B. Nemtsov (www.nemtsov.ru
Filipp Bobkov HOW TRAITORS WERE TRAINED THE HEAD OF POLITICAL COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE WITNESSES... eksmo Moscow algorithm 2011 Bobkov FD How traitors were trained: The head of political counter-intelligence testifies... / Philip Bobkov. - M.: Eksmo: Algorithm, 2011. - 240 p. - (Court of history). ISBN 978-5-699-45985-8 Army General Filipp Denisovich Bobkov fought dissidents for over 20 years, being the head of the 5th Directorate of the KGB of the USSR He collected a huge amount of material about the activities of the "fifth column" of the West in the Soviet Union Bobkov alone one of the few who knows how the traitors were “prepared” and even calls them by name. It is no coincidence that with the beginning of perestroika, General Bobkov was sharply criticized by Russian liberal circles and in January 1991 was relieved of his post. One of the key projects for the destruction of the USSR was the “Lyota Plan”, developed by the US CIA shortly after the end of World War II. It was named after a French general who fought in Algeria at one time. General Lyauté called for the planting of trees along the Algerian roads, so that after many years, when these trees grow, the French could rest in their shade. The American "Lyota Plan" provided for the creation in the Soviet Union of a powerful, Western-oriented stratum among the intelligentsia and in the upper echelons of power. At the right moment, “when the trees grow large,” a favorable situation will arise for the United States to deliver a mortal blow to the USSR ... The information provided by the author is unique and in many ways shocking, but all of it is based solely on verified data. © F. D. Bobkov. 2010 © Algorithm-Izdat LLC, 2011 © Design. OOO Eksmo Publishing House, 2011 ISBN 978-5-699-45985-8 Foreword RUSSIA IN DANGER A meeting of experts recently took place at the Moscow Institute of Socio-Political Research. There were representatives of America, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Israel. The topic of discussion is US Public Law 86-90 “On Enslaved Nations”. This law was passed by the US Senate and House of Representatives in Congress on July 17, 1959. It was approved and approved by President Eisenhower. It would seem: “deeds for a long time past days , legends of antiquity deep”, “smell of naphthalene”. Nothing of the kind - this law is alive, actively operating, it is referred to, the present is compared with it and the future is connected. This law (sometimes also called a resolution) lists “enslaved nations” – more than two dozen of those whom Russia “deprived of national independence” “through direct and indirect aggression”. Even half a century ago, the list evoked a feeling of some kind of absurdity, since both real and unknown countries, such as, for example, Idel-Ural, Cossackia, went there, separated by commas. Today, the countries of this list are simply amazing: Cuba, North Korea and the People's Republic of China, which have retained their communist orientation to this day, have been named - were they enslaved by Russia? Are they experiencing her tyranny now? Next on the list are the countries that at the time of the publication of this law belonged to the socialist camp, as well as the former republics of the USSR. It is said that all the peoples of these countries, including those like Idel-Ural, always see “the United States as the citadel of human freedom” and still “seek their guidance in their liberation and independence. ". Also in the law-resolution one can literally read the following: “Since 1918, the imperialist policy of Russian communism has led to the creation of a vast empire, which is an ominous threat to the security of the United States and all the free peoples of the world.” If we correlate everything with the time when these lines were born, all generalizations and vagueness can be justified by the Cold War - war is war. But the ax of the Cold War, which, it would seem, according to the logic of its own nature, should have been buried in the same Belarusian forest where the country of the Soviets was buried, actively “cuts off the heads” of any creative processes aimed at strengthening the modern - Exchange of Russia. Without changing either the vocabulary or the essence, every year, starting from 1959 and to this day, in the third decade of July, “in pursuance of the said law,” the United States voices a proclamation in defense of the enslaved peoples. This creates a legal basis for America's intervention in the internal affairs of both Russia and individual states that gained independence in 1991 - the former republics of the USSR, as well as the entire Commonwealth (CIS) as a whole. These are not empty words, but real actions: it is no coincidence that the second name of this law in America itself sounds like: “The Law on the Dismemberment of Russia”. b * * * A split, fragmented, truncated Russia is a deep and centuries-old dream of a number of states - Russia's enemies. Slogans, flags, “labels on the axes of war” changed, but the reason did not change, and Emperor Alexander III explained it well in his will to Nicholas II: “They are afraid of our immensity.” Looking back at history, one can see how this fear grew into aggression among the Tatar-Mongols, Livonians, Lithuanians, and Swedes. Let's take Napoleon and the wars - Crimean, Japanese, let's dwell on the First World War, the goals of which were formulated before it began, in 1914, in the memorandum of Kaiser's Germany. It said that the conquest of Russia "... will probably cost us one million people ..." But "Russia ... will have to put up with the loss of land, especially when we cover her rear for further expansion into Asia ... If such Thus, the surplus energy of three generations of Germans will be directed to the colonization of the East...”. England spent a lot of effort in order to push Germany to implement this plan, and later to unleash a civil war inside Russia. Until now, there is a stable expression: "The power in Russia was seized by the Bolsheviks." But how did they do it? They had many slogans, but the main one, which was in tune with the mood of the people, which allowed the Bolsheviks to come to power, was the slogan “Peace to the peoples!”. The provisional government after the February Revolution continued the war, Kerensky launched a mass offensive, leaving people to certain death, total defeat - and the Bolsheviks said what the soldiers' mothers said: "Stop the war!" By that moment, in October 1917, Russia had already collapsed, crumbled into pieces, which were pulled away like marauders by 14 states. And again, it was England who completely initiated the White Guard movement. “People ask me why we support Admiral Kolchak and General Denikin,” Churchill said in July 1919, “they formed an army at our instigation and, no doubt, to a large extent with our money.” A civil war “at the instigation” from outside is always one goal: the collapse, pulling apart a large country into pieces, control over its territories. The history of the USSR knows many such "instigations" - "enslaved nations", which the United States has been looking for for half a century - one of the clearest evidence of this. The Bolsheviks succeeded in restoring the Russian state almost to its former size. Later, the Soviet people, at the cost of heroic efforts, managed to defend not only their country, but also to liberate the whole world from the fascist conquerors. I will not now dwell on the role of the same British at the beginning of the Second World War. But let me remind you that a year after the war, the well-known speech of the master of admonishment, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, was delivered in Fulton. He called for the use of force against the USSR, and immediately, as long as there are no atomic weapons there. American President Truman was also in a hurry. In a report prepared on his instructions, it was said, in particular: "For the rapid crushing of the USSR in a war ... the United States must be ready to wage atomic and bacteriological warfare." 8 The creation of the atomic bomb in the USSR froze these plans, but did not cancel them - the Cold War began, or, as it was also called, the psychological war. As early as 1950, US National Security Council Directive 20-1 stated that “psychological warfare is an extremely important weapon for promoting dissent and betrayal among the Soviet people; it will undermine his morality, will sow confusion and create disorganization in the country...” Documents in their roll call through space and time sometimes say an order of magnitude more than any words of the narrator: October 25, 1995 at a closed Bill Clinton said at the meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “Over the past ten years, the policy towards the USSR and its allies has convincingly proved the correctness of the course we have taken to eliminate one of the strongest powers in the world, as well as the strongest military bloc ... We have achieved what President Truman was going to do with the Soviet Union by means of an atomic bomb...” * # * Today, the question of the existence of Russia is again on the agenda. One can learn to see the “fuses” and respond to them in time only if one has enough strength to understand their mechanism in detail. It is known that the images of the past promote the projects of the future. Today, Russia lives in several coordinate systems and is dominated by the one in which the Soviet past is painted with solid black paint - without halftones. But the truth, snatched from the context of events and the state of the environment in which 9 these events took place - worse than lies, because formally it can be taken as true. Here I recently heard such a speech: again, they say, we are going into isolation, before we have time to look back, how again our special services will lower the iron curtain ... But the expression "iron curtain" was first used by Goebbels in his article in February 1945: “Iron Curtain” against communism”. Churchill in his Fulton speech only repeated this expression... Forty-five years of service in the state security agencies allow me to see the most painful moments of our history in all their contradictory diversity - to see, despite the euphemisms of various kinds of "incitement". As he wrote in the 18th century Georg Lichtenberg, “Our weaknesses no longer harm us when we know them.” Chapter 1 "MAIN POINTS" USSR So, I want to tell you about what I know. If you look at yourself from the outside, you can see how difficult and in many ways fateful for humanity the 20th century “did not pass me by”. There is such an expression that is fashionable today in scientific, political and journalistic circles: “reference points” are the points on which the measurement scale is based, for example, the International Temperature Scale Celsius is built on them - freezing point (0 ° C) and boiling water (100°C). The temperature of the past century, its freezing and boiling points, can be partly studied by me as a visual human aid. Judge for yourself: I was born a year after Lenin's death, in the ninth year of the life of the Soviet Union. It can be said almost without exaggeration that the childhood of socialism in our country coincided with my early childhood. Those who lived under Lenin and survived the First World War and the October Revolution, by the time I was already leading a conscious life, were not yet old, full of strength and energy people. I know firsthand what today both the Russian and the world press calls the terrible word “Holodomor”: in 1932, as a seven-year-old boy, I was happy, like a delicacy, watermelon peels, which my father got somewhere. And he, along with the neighbor's children, collected algae and shells on the shore of the pond, and my mother selected something for the table from this ... My family lived in Makeevka - this is one of the large industrial cities of Donbass. By the way, hunger seized not only Ukraine, our city was packed with a mass of starving people from the Kursk region, who, fleeing, moved here from Russia in search of a piece of bread. They spent the night on a large smoldering mountain - there was a place in Makeevka where coke was burned. When the coke dies out, the heat remains for a very long time, and in winter people slept on this man-made mountain. A trolley appears from above - they run in all directions, passed - they went back to their warm "sleeping places" ... Famine seized many regions of Russia, it especially crushed people in Belgorod and Kursk regions . But activists from the Communist Party of Ukraine in the early 1990s, for some reason, called for perpetuating the memory of the Holodomor only in Ukraine. In 1934, the famine began to recede, and our childhood took on the usual features of Soviet schoolchildren in the mid-thirties of the 20th century - pioneer bonfires, songs, hikes, school, circles. What has captured our thoughts? First of all, pride in the country of the Soviets, the first and only country of socialism in the world. It was a time when working people rose to an unusually high social level. It is difficult to find in today's day an analogue of such a nationwide recognition of labor exploits, as it was in the years of our childhood. Any child in the vast expanse of the USSR could, without hesitation, name the names of the heroes of production 12, the leaders of shock communist labor. We, the children of Donbass, were happy with the fact that the most popular people in the country turned out to be our countrymen: the miners Izotov and Stakhanov, the tractor driver Angelina, the machinist Krivonos, the family of the metallurgist Korobov. It is unlikely that the children of miners, whose youth fell on the 90s, will be able to imagine this - their fathers were forced to knock their helmets on the asphalt in the capital of our country in order to draw the attention of the authorities to their plight. People were not paid salaries for months, children in kindergartens in mining towns fainted from hunger. And I want to immediately emphasize here that during the years of Soviet power, from the mid-1930s, there was practically no such thing. Of course, I'm talking only about peacetime, not about wartime. Uncertainty about the future in peacetime appeared among the population of the USSR only from the moment when politicians of various stripes began to rock the country ... When, in the heat of perestroika rhetoric in the late 80s and early 90s, they how, along with communism, against which it became fashionable and prestigious to oppose, a unique and powerful country was dying.... * * * The tatel, I hope, will refresh our memory of our recent history. I went to the ninth grade of the school when the Great Patriotic War began. By the autumn of the first 13th war year, the Germans approached the Donbass, people hurriedly left Makeevka. The Donyuzhgaz trust, where my father used to work, was evacuated to Perm, and we decided to catch up with him at the family council. To say that it was difficult is to say nothing, it was worse than any modern thriller... Human memory is amazing: even the hottest battles are already at the front, where I was wounded twice and where I saw thousands and thousands of deaths. , did not haunt me for the rest of my life as much as the road of refugees. But I began to remember it especially often, in all details in the early 90s, that is, almost half a century later. I began to remember when homeless children began to appear on the streets of Moscow and the word “homeless” first appeared - people thrown into the street, because under socialism it was nonsense! The story of even one such person, if it got on the pages of the communist press, which is scolded today by all and sundry, would shock the entire population of the republics of the USSR. In the 1990s, seeing almost every step of the way kids begging for money for bread, and old people forced to sell cigarettes near the subway, seeing also ragged, downtrodden, dirty people, greedily expecting something then they will be undernourished and the rest will go to them, - I recalled the barge. When the Germans literally approached Makiivka, my father and I left the city, reached Stalingrad and decided to try to get out on a barge to Perm. The flow of people literally brought us there with him, the barge was already overcrowded, but the refugees who tried to get into it were almost a thousand times larger than the area of its side. People, as best they could, tried to get on it, climbed up and stood, almost on one leg, could not resist and fell into the icy November Volga. There was no one to save them. The barge was supposed to go up the river, and when she went, no one foresaw, did not imagine that the ice would go so early - and she got up in the morning. And it was absolutely impossible to break through to it, because there was no icebreaker at hand. For three days on a barge frozen in ice, people survived as best they could without food and water, many fell ill. And then an icebreaker made its way to us, all the “hostages of ice” were transferred to the passenger ship “Timiryazev”. We were immediately given hot tea and food. We ate and after half an hour everyone fell asleep... I think that this situation is incomparable with the “total non-rescue” that we all saw on the streets of our native country 50 years later. During the hard times of the war, a barge with refugees was rescued, we were taken to the town of Kamyshin, and my father and I walked further along the railway tracks, mostly on foot. In total, if we consider that we left the house in October and reached Perm in December, we walked for more than two months. And everywhere, at the stations, in the cities, as soon as we showed the document that we were getting out of the city occupied by the Germans, we were fed, and they also gave us food for the journey. Such was the concern for people, and this was during the war. And even in peacetime, under Soviet rule, such phenomena as homeless people and homeless children did not exist at all. And we saw people outside of life and "non-rescue", as already mentioned, only in the 90s, that is, when the system of this power was destroyed ... When the era of the life of the USSR ended. But I’m talking about the “reference points” of the century, and we have two more wars ahead, where everything is like on the Celsius scale - the 15th hot front of the Great Patriotic War and the invisible front of the Cold War ... I will gradually tell in my book everything that one way or another, it will help to find the answer to the main painful question that torments me: why did the people, who defeated fascism and liberated not only their country, but also a number of European countries from the German invaders, lose in cold war? Why did he allow the collapse of the Soviet Union? Any answer here would only be the tip of the iceberg, but there is one overarching concept that explains a lot. Surprising as it may sound, this is the concept of faith. Yes, despite all the mistakes and excesses Soviet power , in 1941 faith in the Soviet power was simply colossal. The words “The socialist fatherland is in danger!” they raised everyone to the "holy and right fight" - it was an absolute unity of people inhabiting the world's first country of socialism, ready to defend their Soviet way of life at any cost. And we won. And by the end of the 1980s, this faith was trampled on.... By that time, the pejorative word “scoop” became almost a common place in conversations, instead of the proud and clear definition of “Soviet man”. The press, then still Soviet, called their country a "prison of peoples." But after all, the prisoners, having learned that the guards were attacked by the enemy, are unlikely to go to fight for their freedom - the country in the 41st went to the front in unison. * * # What happened before the 41st, where did this single spirit of faith come from? What was Soviet life conceived, what happened in the 16th country? Let's try to look into the origins of Soviet power, let's ask ourselves: what brought it to life? Before the October Socialist Revolution of 1917, there was the well-known February Revolution in the same year. And in the spring, speaking before Parliament, British Prime Minister Lord David Lloyd George (the press of those years called this man "the coachman of Europe") declared that "The goal of the war has been achieved." This statement was made in connection with the news about the February Revolution and the overthrow of the tsar in Russia. The British parliamentarians gave a standing ovation to what was said. But if all subsequent rhetoric of hatred towards Russia after the October Revolution was devoted to the theme of the communist system, then why was the British parliament so happy about the overthrow of the tsar, why did the Prime Minister of England consider this fact the goal of the First World War? Here we can cite the well-known words of Clausewitz: “Russia is not a country that can really be conquered, that is, occupied... Such a country can only be defeated by internal weakness and the action of strife. To achieve these weak points of political existence is possible only through a shock that would penetrate to the very heart of the country. The February revolution penetrated to the heart, first of all, because it deprived Russia of traditional statehood. The provisional government did not hear the aspirations of the people, exhausted by the war, exorbitant land rents and taxes of the peasantry. The provisional government was not oriented towards the people at all: it looked towards the West. But the individualism inherent in the West could not take root and did not take root in Russia, where the spirit of collectivism and soviets lived from time immemorial. The Bolsheviks, however, were able to eventually come to power because, unlike the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, they had a basis and support among the people. They were the only force capable of eliminating the causes of mass indignation: finally, to stop the war, to give land to the peasants, power to the Soviets. And most importantly, to bring the country out of chaos, to restore statehood and order. Let's remember that it was with the February Revolution that the disintegration of the country began. When the Bolsheviks came to power just seven months later, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and other territories that were part of tsarist Russia had already declared their independence... After 70 years, the situation repeated itself, and you and I were already eyewitnesses to it... That is, at the moment of the beginning and at the moment of the end of Soviet power, the country was equally divided, scattered, it was pulled apart by pieces by all and sundry... And for more than 90 years ago, and quite recently, at the end of the last century, according to the instructions of Clausewitz and many, many other of his followers, who are still quite numerous today, Russia was destroyed from within, fanning national conflicts. It is very important to understand here that before the February Revolution there were no such conflicts in the multinational united Russia. There were not even inter-religious wars - people believed differently and respected each other's faith, they were united. Let's remember how many people the Catholics killed in order to conquer Europe. Let's remember the St. Bartholomew's night: 10 thousand dead Parisians, let's also remember the Hussite wars. There was nothing even close to similar in our country. Travelers from Europe were amazed in the 16th century by the fact that they came across mosques in a Christian country. If the Catholic Church met in Europe, then the country was Catholic and any other religion was banned under pain of the Inquisition ... There is interesting fact: Islam as a religion appeared in the IX-X century. In Russia, the Tatars, Bashkirs, and other Muslim peoples celebrated the millennium of their religion, while today's Muslims in Europe count only a century of the existence of Islam. Because from generation to generation, people who were forcibly converted to Catholicism, for example in Spain, passed on to each other who they really were. And only a hundred years ago it became possible to say it out loud: “we are Muslims”. I repeat: Russia did not allow anything like this, the issue of religion was never resolved by force, and therefore there were no interethnic, interfaith strife on the territory of our country. They began in the same way as the civil war, according to a special, let's remember the good word that Churchill picked up for the topic - “instigation” .... The Bolsheviks, in fact, managed to reassemble the former multinational imperial state, but to build everything that February 1917 “dropped” on its way. The only exceptions were the Baltic States, Finland and Poland. * * * I will invite readers to carefully compare two quotations: “England used the European states as “excellent infantry” in the war,” this was said in the middle of the 19th century by German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Quote two: “Russian White Guards fought for our cause. This truth will become unpleasantly sensitive from the moment the White armies are destroyed and the Bolsheviks establish their dominance throughout the vast Russian Empire ”, - so already at the end of the second decade of the 20th century, said the Minister of War of England, Winston Churchill. One gets the feeling that a subject of the British crown undertook to illustrate the guess of the German chancellor with new historical examples at that time. Indeed, "good old England" lived in just such a strategy, perhaps convinced by what Thomas Carlyle once formulated: "It is the duty of all continental powers to make war in the interests of England." The First World War was unleashed by England. The rapid development of the two countries - Russia and Germany - before the war was not in her interests. And if at the beginning of the First World War the role of “excellent infantry” for England was performed by France, then another “infantry” went on. Stirring up Germany's exorbitant appetites and endlessly cunning and systematic inciting her against Russia turned the Germans into England's "toy soldiers". But even within Russia itself, “excellent British infantry” was found - this is the White movement. There is no other logic in past history. Any other motivation fails as soon as we start to seriously consider the facts. Consider: England helps the revolutionaries in tsarist Russia and rejoices when their cause wins. The king is overthrown. And literally a year after that, the same England begins 20 just as zealously to help the White Guards, who declare aloud (it doesn’t matter now what really drives them) the need to revive precisely tsarist Russia. No logic? In this scenario, it really does not exist. But it is absolutely clearly outlined in something else: tsarist Russia or proletarian - whatever - should, from the point of view of England, be broken into small pieces, consist of stumps, and it was possible to break it, as we have already said here, the easiest way from within. Any statehood is a force, therefore, when it was a tsarist state, England helped the forces fighting against the tsarist autocracy. And when the Bolsheviks headed by Lenin came to power, the same England began to support the forces fighting against them, because, first of all, it was from them that the intention to restore statehood came. And it was they who were the only real force that could and did it. It is my deep conviction that in our country there would be no national tragedy of fratricidal civil war, the so-called Russian turmoil, if not for England. By the end of 1917, Churchill, having called on the Entente countries to “strangle Bolshevism in the cradle”, proposed relying in this matter on anti-Bolshevik forces. The Russian officers of the tsarist army were "processed" by the British embassy in St. Petersburg, and later in Vologda, in other Russian cities. In fact, the British put together the white movement, built and fine-tuned it. On the initiative of the same England, already on December 22, 1917, a conference was held in Paris, where representatives of the Entente countries decided to open loans for the anti-Bolshevik governments of Siberia, the Caucasus, Ukraine, the Cossack regions and Finland. And the next day, an Anglo-French agreement was concluded on the division of spheres of future military operations in Russia. And so a situation arose in which Kolchak and Denikin began to live and rise in Russia on the money of England, and Wrangel on the money of France - this is the structure of the white movement. “Each cartridge fired by a Russian soldier during this year at the Bolsheviks was made in England, by English workers, from English material delivered to Vladivostok by English ships,” said the English general Alfred Knox, the chief supplier of the Kolchakovsky army, about 1919. army. Let us recall once again that in the same year Churchill justified himself in the British Parliament about the fact that too much money was being spent on Admiral Kolchak and General Denikin from the state budget. In the introduction to this book, an abbreviated quotation of these justifications to Parliament has already been given, but now it is time to give a more extended fragment: “I will answer Parliament with complete frankness,” Churchill explained. - When the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was concluded, there were provinces in Russia that did not take part in this treaty, and they rebelled against the government that signed it ... They formed an army at our instigation and, no doubt, pretty much our money. This kind of assistance was useful for us. military policy , because if we had not organized these Russian armies, the Germans would have seized the resources of Russia and thereby weakened our blockade ... Thus, the eastern front was restored by us not on the 22nd Vistula, but where the Germans were looking for food. What happened next? Bolshevism wanted to suppress by force of arms the border regions that had risen against it and resisted it at our instigation. * * * Returning to today, I want to say about the sensational film "Admiral". The film, as you know, is dedicated to Kolchak. Of course, I would not like to talk about the artistic features of this picture, but about those moods of romanticization and glorification of “gentlemen of the officers”, the expression of which this film was. The white myth began to break into the minds of Soviet people as early as the 1960s, when several films appeared on television at once, in which white officers fighting the Reds appeared as “noble knights” in snow-white uniforms with gold shoulder straps. In the 1990s, the fascination with the “former” who went “for Russia to the end” captured many people. It all came from lack of information, on the one hand, and from a massive attack on the minds of our fellow citizens, on the other. The themes of the Red Terror were endlessly exaggerated in the press and on television, and songs about lieutenants Golitsyns and cornets Obolenskys, who “had the honor” and “worn orders” were poured in abundance, almost from all cracks. Eternal values - the motherland, its glory and the love for it of the devoted sons of the fatherland - turned into an appendage to the image of the white myth and were, as it were, privatized by this myth. But in such a presentation, all causal relationships are cut. What kind of love for the fatherland can we speak of, if only in relation to the same Kolchak, if the invaders ran uncontrollably in Siberia, if they were promised Russia's gold reserves? “Not for Russia to the end”, but almost to the end of Russia itself, they were ready to give up “snow-white uniforms”: the country was actually divided, 14 Entente states already had absolute access to our natural resources. Only when the gold reserves had already been drawn out of Russia did the Allies betray Admiral Kolchak. As for the theme of the Red Terror, it is important to bear in mind that it arose in response to the White Terror. Denikin shot people no less than Tukhachevsky, and when we say that White officers were shot in the Crimea, we must not forget that during the period of Wrangel's rule, no less than Red supporters were shot there. And the cruel executions and pogroms of the Kolchakites in Siberia led to such phenomena when they could not stand even their own: entire formations went over to the side of the Reds. Let us recall, for example, the transition of Kolchak's lieutenant Govorov in 1919 to the Red Guards in Tomsk - it is known that later this man rose to the status of a Soviet marshal. Without justifying anyone in the sense of such phenomena as terror, I would only like to note that this was all during the period of the revolution. The logic of revolutions is the same everywhere - remember England in the period of Cromwell, remember the Great French Revolution. Today, a certain part of the highest echelons of power is specifically initiating an ideological campaign to criticize the Soviet past. But criticism, when it is objectively reasoned, is useful and healing. In fact, we see sheer slander, vicious anti-Soviet propaganda. Why did I choose the film "Admiral" as an example for the topic? In it, as in the example to what was said, everything seemed to come together on purpose. Whites in the film are all completely saints, reds, if they appear, they are even outwardly completely degenerates of the human race, drunkenly hungry with animal instincts ... It is not clear, however, how this admiral, who was awarded the title of Supreme Commander of Russia, with finances and full armament of England, and supported by the entire Entente, with an army of 400 thousand “officers of the last groove”, did you end up losing to such a rabble? There is no answer to this question in the film, but it is simple: the Bolsheviks could not have won the civil war if the people had not supported them in this war. And they would not have been in power without this support. Why was this support? Yes, because, first of all, it was the Bolsheviks who stopped the forced mobilization and it was they who stopped the mass flogging of hungry peasants. Because there is nothing more terrible for the people than the “spell of chaos”, and the Bolsheviks restored statehood, put things in order. Because they spoke the same language with their people... Why is the picture under discussion in a certain sense a symbolic thing? The fact is that today hardly any well-read person will be able to argue with the fact that Admiral Kolchak was a direct protege of the West, it is impossible to turn away from a large number of facts, of which only a fraction is given in this chapter. And so the film, glorifying the whites, was created in the new century again with the money of the West. Nobody hides it: in the credits there is a screen saver of the most famous Hollywood film studio “XX 25th Century Fox”. Nothing, it would seem, terrible, a trifle, just a feature film. But as a person who for many years led the defense of the USSR in the cold, or, as it is also called, in the psychological war, I see something else. Trouble is being sown from abroad in the minds of Russians, and in order not to be unfounded, I will name such a word: “Liote”. Let's make a knot for memory, remember this word, and then, when the topic touches on the middle of the last century, we will return to this topic. * * * And now let's look at the "reference points" of our history from a somewhat unusual perspective. There is no person on earth today who is not concerned about the topic of the global financial crisis. Analysts, economists, politicians and bankers tell us about the blood clots formed in the banking systems, emergency situations on the stock exchanges, about the economic collapse ... This whole tragic process that directly affects, and sometimes even breaks the fate of people around the world, is accompanied by a massive turn to what was once trampled and ridiculed. In England, for example, the complete works of the leader of the October Revolution, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, are being published. In France, the collected works of Karl Marx are bought up, they are re-published anew with circulations that have soared almost three times - and again they are bought up in the bud - a deficit. This means that humanity is not so much in the global financial crisis today - the essence of the phenomenon lies in much deeper things. What we are witnessing today is a crisis of the world order. 26 Why exactly did people who live, as we say, in the super-civilized Western countries, turn to Marx and Lenin today? In 2003, together with respected co-authors E.F. Ivanovym, AL. Svechnikov, SP. Chaplinsky, we wrote the book Modern Global Capitalism (Olma-Press Publishing House). We studied the topic there in sufficient detail and talked, in particular, about the fact that if you look closely at the course of global social events of the last century, then at the core you can see the fundamental basis - the desire of mankind to find new forms of community life, allowing to approve justice and equality in the popular, everyday meaning of these concepts. It was in the history of our country that there was a unique and indisputable fact when the belief in achieving this goal, in itself, turned out to be a powerful force that changed the world. We had in mind the fact of the October Revolution, which took place in 1917 in Russia. In addition to the one and only capitalist system dominating the world, another, still quite weak, socialist system, was born and established itself. The new state - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - occupied a sixth of the land: the Soviet government, as I said, managed to restore the geopolitical space of the Russian Empire. All peoples, with the exception of the Baltic countries, Finland and Poland, accepted Soviet power: a flexible system of territorial autonomies was supported by national minorities - thus, the territorial integrity of the country was preserved. 27 In this state, as such, there were no concepts of unemployment, begging, paid medicine and paid education. People were taught and treated at the expense of the state, they were guaranteed security and social security. Yes, during the construction of this state there were mistakes, miscalculations, unjustified facts of injustice were committed. But I never get tired of repeating in all my interviews, articles and books that this was the path of the pioneers. (Especially detailed about this in the article, which is called “The History of the Pioneers”, you can find it in my book “The Last Twenty Years”, published in 2006 by the Moscow publishing house “Russian Word”.) I emphasize again: for the first time In the history of mankind, the teaching of socialism began to turn into practice, a completely new socio-political and economic system on planet Earth. This would not have been possible if the people had not supported this system. Support was provided in the most difficult conditions of life in the country, tested by severe trials. The first of these was the war against the interventionists who broke into Russia with the aim of suppressing the power of the Soviets. Then the civil war unleashed by them is no less severe test. But the young, new government survived. It was supported, the masses of Russia believed in it. As a result, conditions were created, an opportunity opened up to go further, to develop, in modern terms, the socialist experiment. How did you see its development? Naturally, the practice of socialist construction followed from the theory of socialism and was guided by Marx's theory; it served as a compass for the pioneers. 28 It was put into practice by the leader of the revolution, Lenin. How did he determine the future of Russia and what did he say after October? He said that we had acquired the most democratic progressive power - the Soviet one. It must have a strong economic base. He saw it in state capitalism. As early as 1918, Lenin wrote in his article "On the Food Tax" that state capitalism would be a step forward for the Soviet Republic. The combination of Soviet power with state capitalism represented three-quarters of socialism. This Leninist proposition has been completely forgotten. And Lenin spoke about this clearly and in many speeches. In his most famous work “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Power”, he calls the main task the need to “learn to trade”. This is the market economy. Lenin believed that it fully exists even under socialism. The assertion that the NEP was a forced policy has been erroneously replicated. The Bolsheviks initially did not deny the market as a condition for the development of the economy. Yes, they abolished capitalist private ownership of the means of production, including the property of foreign monopolies. They thereby removed the fetters of economic and political dependence of foreign capital that invaded pre-revolutionary Russia. Having removed the "collar" from the loans and debts of tsarist Russia, they stopped the transformation of the country into a semi-colony of foreign imperialism. Yes, they won under the slogan “factories for the workers, land for the peasants”. But state capitalism was needed, because the economy had to be developed primarily through heavy industry. Without mechanical engineering, for example, the economy will not rise, and a private trader will not raise heavy industry simply by definition: under capitalism, he will only do what will make a profit in at least a year or two. Investing money in something that will give a profit in ten years is not profitable for him. That is why Lenin focused precisely on state capitalism. By the way, due to the fact that the state took over heavy industry, Roosevelt at one time brought the United States out of the crisis. After the Second World War, the coal industry was nationalized in Great Britain and, in fact, strengthened the country. We, in Russia, have an example of privatization in the 90s, when the wild market came and the once powerful and unique Soviet enterprises stopped. Unfortunately, this situation persists, by and large, until now: count how many years have passed since the beginning of the 90s of the last century, when the power of the heavy industry of the USSR was destroyed, and so it has not been restored... In the 1920s, the situation was worse: the country was in the deepest political and economic crisis, plants and factories lay in ruins, famine raged and numerous gangs raged, and a civil war was still going on. And at such a time, the Bolshevik government under the leadership of Lenin accepts and begins to implement a grandiose project - the GOELRO Plan. As early as 15 years later, by 1935, 40 power plants were built instead of the planned 30. USSR, if it had not been based on a clear calculation and the correct organization of the matter from the very beginning. How could this be done in a country where the vast majority of the population was illiterate? Let us turn to Lenin's pamphlet “Successes and Difficulties of Soviet Power”: “We must take all the culture that capitalism has left behind and build socialism out of it. It is necessary to take all science, technology, all knowledge, art. Without this, we cannot build the life of a communist society. And this science, technology, art is in the hands of specialists and in their heads.” Lenin never tired of emphasizing that socialism cannot be built in an uncultured country, that it "remains a dead letter and an empty phrase" without "combining the victorious socialist revolution with bourgeois culture." He was categorically against talking about the existence of a separate, special proletarian culture, outside of universal civilization. And he set tasks: a long cultural revolution, universal literacy, personal involvement of everyone in the construction new system world order - socialism. The well-known words “about every cook”, which the Bolsheviks allegedly allowed to lead the country, come in our mythologized mind, again from ignorance of the context of what was happening. If we follow the principles of objective historicism, then we must certainly recall here the pre-revolutionary discrimination of citizens on the basis of class, the selection of schoolchildren, which was carried out by Tsar Nicholas II. The "kukharkin's children" did not have the slightest chance of getting an education, since access to the "classical" gymnasiums was severely limited. Graduates of such gymnasiums could enter the university, as they were mostly children of representatives of the upper classes. The tsar forbade even graduates of real schools to enroll in universities, but as for the peasants, here the possibility of education for them was initially put a bold cross. If they somehow nevertheless received an education, their allotment land was confiscated from them and they were excluded from the community. This discrimination of citizens on the basis of class, Lenin, by his decision on the need to train all workers in public administration, put an end to it. At the same time, he stated: “We are not utopians and, of course, we perfectly understand that from today to tomorrow every cook will not be able to govern the state,” but he emphasized that it is important to strive to ensure that every citizen of society understands the politics of his country. This requires universal literacy, since, he said, "an illiterate person stands outside politics." He considered the poor organization of cultural work to be a serious threat to the entire construction of socialism, he believed that it was precisely on this soil that such ugly phenomena as bureaucracy, bribery, nationalism, all that hampered the development of society, ripened. It sounds, you see, relevant, but after all, few people in Russia today would think of turning, following the Europeans, to the works of Lenin. “There is no prophet in his own country” - this wise saying fits Lenin very accurately. There are many reasons for this - already after Stalin's death, Lenin's teaching was approached as a dogma, and his life was turned into the life of a saint. Further, already in the years of perestroika in the 1990s, everything was turned upside down - mockingly and slyly subjected Lenin's articles to ridicule, and his very image appeared only as the image of a bloody monster. He was only a man who had the courage to try to realize the centuries-old dream of mankind, became a pioneer in the construction of such a model of life arrangement that would be convenient for everyone - a society of equal opportunities was being built. Lenin had an amazing gift of perspicacity - almost a century has passed since the day of his death, and much of what he said at the beginning of the last century is coming true today. It is enough to recall the Leninist formula about “the struggle of the powers for the division and redivision of the world” and see an illustration at the moment of Russia’s separation from the Soviet Union, that is, once again return to the tragic 1990s with thoughts. And you can look back into the 1920s, when the country of socialism inspired and raised the working class of many countries of the world to revolution, and the Soviet communists, intoxicated with victory, were proud that “we are about to make a world revolution.” Then Lenin said that it is necessary to weigh a lot, and above all - not to be arrogant. Like, we believe that we will never be in any rearguard, but it is possible that the center of gravity of the communist movement will move to India or China, and we must be ready to survive this. Didn't survive! As soon as the center began to move, Khrushchev broke off all relations with China - in 1956. But the important thing is that Lenin could indeed have foreseen that China is now following a socialist course, and its successful development is based on the Leninist formula of people's power and state capitalism. The latest decisions of the Congress of the Communist Party of China remind us that state capitalism under people's power is two-thirds of socialism. In my opinion, the talk that socialism has been liquidated, that it no longer has a foundation, is groundless. The socialist system will develop sooner or later anyway. What China is doing is the path of socialism based on Leninist, Marxist principles. The Chinese have never renounced Marxism; in order to be convinced of this, it is enough to read Deng Xiaoping. China is carefully studying the experience of the USSR, carefully treating our socialist past, without subjecting it to any criticism. But he does not repeat our mistakes. * * * I would like to ask once again the question: why, in today's crisis of the world order, do Europeans republish the works of Lenin and Marx? The nature of the crisis is reminiscent of the one that was on earth during the First World War: on the one hand, the accumulation of a gigantic mass of wealth in European countries (and today - primarily in the United States), on the other, a gigantic gap, not only property, but also cultural, between the top and the bottom. The difference is that in the process of opposing the socialist system, the capitalist world rallied, and after the departure of the socialist system from Europe, the world fell into global capitalism. Industrial capital, without leaving the stage, yielded power to financial capital. In essence, global capitalism is the capitalism of financial oligarchs, their path to world domination, in essence, revives the world colonial system, and, accordingly, increases the contradiction not between labor and capital (as at the birth of capitalism), but between poverty and wealth. This means that practically all resources, means of production and finance are owned by an even smaller part of the planet's population than it was in the world of capitalism during the Soviet era. ...Somehow, at a time of particularly cruel treatment of the Soviet past, when even a neutral pronunciation of the name of Lenin was considered bad form in our country, I spoke to pundits at a conference. He brought to the place a quotation from Lenin's work "Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism". And everyone applauded, they said: “How wonderfully and precisely formulated.” “Then I’ll tell you now whose quote it is,” I promised, and immediately fulfilled my promise: “That was said by Lenin in 1916.” Lenin wrote that imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism, would develop in such a way that finance capital would take power in it. He will remove the industrialists from the main roles to the secondary roles, and he will take their places... Life gives us confirmation - you just have to think. It comes to mind that the world colonial system of industrial capitalism was broken by the appearance on the world stage of the socialist path of human development. Under his influence, a national liberation movement arose and developed, which led to the final collapse of the colonial system headed by the leading capitalist powers of the world. It may be that socialism, once again on the world stage, will become the main force in the struggle against the domination of the world by the financial oligarchy. After all, there are many in the world who do not want beggarly bondage... Let us recall that October 1917 at one time caused an upsurge in the revolutionary movement in many countries of the world. Reality confirmed the thesis of Marx's teaching that the proletarian revolution, having arisen in one country, will inevitably raise the entire world proletariat to fight against the bourgeoisie. In 1917, the factor of the First World War also acted: first of all, it was in the warring countries that revolutionary situations were ripening. The peoples of the world were tired of the war and they saw that the Bolsheviks in Russia came to power precisely with calls for an end to the massacre, proclaiming "peace to the peoples." Let us recall that at that time it was England who demanded the continuation of the war most of all. But in Russia, too, the Provisional Government conspired with the Allies and declared that the country would continue the war to a victorious end. This opened the way for the Bolsheviks to power. Them good example led to a revolutionary explosion in the states that were especially hard hit by the war. Here is a small fragment of the chronicle of these events: in October 1918, a bourgeois-democratic revolution took place in Hungary, and already on March 21, 1919, the Hungarian Soviet Republic was proclaimed. But it did not last long, it was suppressed by the forces of foreign interventionists in July of the same year. A powerful upsurge of revolutionary forces under the influence of October took place in Germany. In January 36, 1918, a political strike took place throughout the country demanding an end to the world war and an immediate conclusion of peace with Soviet Russia. Further events unfolded as follows: on November 3, 1918, an uprising of sailors of the navy broke out in Kiel - this was the beginning of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. Already on November 9, a general strike of workers in Berlin began, which was joined by soldiers. On the same day the Hohenzollern monarchy was overthrown. Right-wing socialists and leaders of the Independent Social Democratic Party came to power, their first movements were aimed at suppressing revolutionary phenomena. They acted provocatively: in January 1919 they themselves organized a demonstration by the workers of Berlin - unprepared and premature. This action was crushed with particular cruelty, and it was then that the leaders of the KKE, K. Liebknecht and R. Luxembourg, were brutally murdered. The German republics, proclaimed Soviet, did not last long: in Bremen from January 10 to February 3, and in Bavaria from April 13 to May 1. They were brutally defeated by the armed forces. The same fate befell the October uprising that broke out in Hamburg. By 1923, the proletarian revolution in Germany was finally crushed. New facts formed a new reality: it turned out that the time for world revolution had not yet come, capitalism was too strong. World War, which at one time served as a powerful impetus for the struggle against the bourgeoisie of the proletarians of all countries, now had a different effect: the countries that survived it weakened. It was especially hard for Soviet Russia, which also survived the civil war. The young state did not have the strength to assist the anti-bourgeois uprisings of neighboring countries. Here it is very important to understand the essence of events: yes, the revolutionary process was really growing in the world and everyone expected that the world socialist revolution was about to break out. Let us recall the lines from the poem by Alexander Blok: “We will fan the world fire on the mountain to all the bourgeoisie ...”. * * * But the moment came when the revolutionary fervor in the world began to fade. And at this stage, the main question arose before the Bolsheviks of Russia: “Where and how to go further? What to do in Russia and with Russia? The choice of the path led to a split in the Bolshevik Party. Stalin and the majority in the Central Committee of the CPSU(b) realistically assessed the prospects for a "world revolution". They wanted it to win, but they understood that there were no conditions for its implementation, there are not even prerequisites at the moment. Russia had to take on the role of a match and burn to the ground in order to sustain the fire of the world revolution - sober-minded politicians could not allow such a fate. Then a solution appeared as a way out of the situation: the question was raised about the possibility of building socialism in a single country. Trotsky and his followers saw in this a rejection of Marxism, they even saw a betrayal of the cause of the revolution. I believe that such a split in the Bolshevik Party was also caused to a certain extent by the illness and death of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. It was not the development of the state, but the struggle for power that warmed up Stalin's opponents, because the logic of sacrificing Russia for the sake of the 38th world revolution was not justified in any way, it did not promise anything positive for the country. And yet, the question of the further development of the state was called the basis of the split in the Bolshevik Party. One way: to sacrifice Russia for the sake of the world revolution, to subordinate all the resources of Russia to this cause. Second: building socialism in a single country. For this purpose, it was first necessary to avert the misfortune: a weak, impoverished state could easily become prey for the new system of capitalist powers that hated it. It was necessary to preserve and ensure state independence, and for this, in as soon as possible transform the country's economy, prepare it for the inevitable trials. At the same time, not to collude with the world bourgeoisie, but to attract the sympathies of the world proletariat to the construction of socialism for peaceful purposes. I repeat, these two paths are the basis of the split in the Bolshevik Party. After the death of Lenin, Trotsky and a number of other socialists could not agree with the strengthening of the role of Stalin in the leadership of the party, and it was he who initiated the second path. That is why this path itself did not suit the Trotskyists: they fought Stalin and were ready to sacrifice the country for this purpose. Stalin understood that the possibility of building socialism in a single country is, to a certain extent, a departure from the teachings of Marx and Lenin about the world revolution. But both Marx and Lenin always said that theory is not a dogma, while practice dictated just such a necessity. Already in the last year of Lenin's life, and after his death, it was especially clear that a military march was being prepared against the Soviet state. The international situation demanded constant mobilization readiness to defend, if not save, the country. The threat of armed interference in her life was not eliminated in any way. And the stake on rebellions within the country was not removed from the agenda - they were constantly instigated by foreign anti-Soviet centers. It was necessary to decide the question: either we will defend ourselves, or we will lose our independence. We had to decide: either we stop developing the socialist state, bow to the West, receive foreign investment, but at the same time dependence on foreign capital, or comprehensively strengthen and develop this state, consolidate what we achieved in October 1917: building socialism in one country. The second option, according to which the development of the country went, did not arouse enthusiasm among the states that predicted the death of the socialist state from the first days of its formation. Fury in the world of capital intensified when the cry of the British workers "Hands off Russia!" taken over by the peoples of other countries. Of course, the enemies of the socialist system could not put up with this, our country found itself in political and economic isolation. They didn’t give us anything on credit and didn’t sell anything for cash: they decided to wait until we suffocated ourselves. The country was in the grip of an economic and diplomatic blockade. We did not have any economic or financial support - no support from anywhere. We relied only on what we have, but what did we have? Ruins... This is where the cruel economic policy came from - it was necessary to strengthen the state, and this required an incredible mobilization of internal resources, forced to violence against the economy, over the objective laws of economic development. The strengthening of the state required a serious development of the economy, and above all of heavy industry. Industrialization “requires colossal investments, and, as the history of industrially backward countries shows, heavy industry cannot do without colossal long-term loans ... Without development heavy industry, we cannot build any industry, we cannot carry out any industrialization,” Stalin wrote in one of his articles. - And since we did not have and do not have any long-term loans, or any long-term loans, the severity of the problem becomes more than obvious to us. This is exactly what the capitalists of all countries proceed from when they refuse us loans and credits, believing that we will not be able to cope with the problem of accumulation on our own, we will break loose on the question of the reconstruction of heavy industry and will be forced to go to them. to bow, to bondage ... ". * * * The NEP policy in such a situation could no longer be effective - you cannot build large-scale industry with its help. The only source of funds for industrialization was Agriculture. The situation in the countryside after the revolution was not easy. The division of the land of the landlords and other large proprietors enriched the peasants with land, but the possibility of processing the tithes of this land received into ownership became more difficult. The vast majority did not have most elementary implements of agricultural labor, draft forces - plows, harrows, horses. 41 Newly minted landowners had to cultivate their plots by hand. This led to a decrease in productivity, to a sharp decline in grain production. Thus, a nutritious broth was created for the growth of the kulaks in the countryside: the peasants, deprived of tools of labor, sold or rented their tithes for a pittance, while the kulaks used the destitute people in plowing. Thus, the principle of the work of peasants on landowners' estates was revived. With their labor, the peasants replaced the lack of equipment and working cattle. For the critics of the Soviet period, by the way, one of the most weighty arguments was the theme that pre-revolutionary Russia provided the world powers with bread. Like, there was so much of it that selling abroad helped to save the surplus from destruction, and the Bolshevik government reversed the development of a prosperous and prosperous country. But if we recall the truth of history, the landowners had surplus grain, and the vast majority of the peasants were starving in the meantime, and the great writer Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy spoke best of all about this. Let's remember his article “On the Hunger”, he wrote it after visiting the black earth districts of the Tula region: heavy and bitter; Everyone eats this bread - both children, and pregnant women, and nursing women, and the sick ... The farther into the depths of the Bogoroditsky district and closer to Efremovsky, the situation gets worse and worse ... Almost everyone has bread with quinoa. The quinoa here is unripe, green. That white nucleolus, which is usually found in it, is completely absent, and therefore it is inedible. Bread with quinoa cannot be eaten alone. If you eat one piece of bread on an empty stomach, you will vomit. From kvass, made on flour with quinoa, people go crazy. Here, the poor yards ate their last meal in September ... ". Let us recall his own words: "The people are hungry because we are too full." So, in pre-revolutionary Russia, they exported bread, which was cultivated for the landlords by half-starved peasants. They had enough of their own reserves, at best, until February. And then they went into debt bondage to the same landlords and wealthy neighbors - to the kulaks. And the same principle began to operate in the countryside after the revolution. At the same time, in order to strengthen the state, to grow industrial production and the rise of agriculture needed money. There were two ways to do this: to allow the kulaks to enrich themselves by taking land from the individual farmers. But this would be against justice and would mean that in the Soviet country there is a class of the oppressed. And the second way: land cooperation, which was later replaced by collectivization. Collective farms made it possible to introduce equipment, unite peasant labor, thereby increasing the level of land cultivation. But the kulaks prevented such a state policy, which led to irreparable consequences. Those were hard years. There were many unjustified victims. But there would be an order of magnitude more if it were not possible to squeeze everything out domestic funds to create heavy industry. The people would not have become at all as such in 1941. * * * But in order: after the National Socialists came to power in Germany, the threat of war became even more real than before. Speaking on February 4, 1931, Stalin said his famous words: “We are 50-100 years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it or we will be crushed.” It was an absolutely accurate realistic forecast: if exactly ten years later, by February 1941, the defense industry of the USSR had not reached the level of advanced countries, our country would hardly have been able to withstand the onslaught of Nazi Germany in a few months. The Soviet people would simply be exterminated or turned into slaves by the German "supermen". Fascism was fed by the West, primarily by Great Britain and the USA. He served them as a force directed against the Soviet Union. And the fact that war with Germany was inevitable was realized even by us, pre-war children. But besides the threat from the west, aggression was also ripening in the east. By the end of the 1930s, Japan was already unleashing armed conflicts, there were battles on Lake Khasan in 1938, and a year later, military operations on the Khalkhin Gol River in Mongolia. The Anti-Comintern Pact, signed by Germany, Japan and Italy in those years, created the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo axis, openly directed against the USSR. Under these conditions, the defense of the fatherland became a priority - society rallied, mobilized for shock creative work. And this meant subordinating, first of all, the economy, to the development of industry capable of ensuring the production of defense means, creating a strong army equipped with modern weapons. Defensiveness demanded sacrifices, the rejection of the planned development of the economy. All this did not give the socialist experiment any conditions, 44 except for life in constant mobilization readiness. The people believed in the cause to which they gave their strength, trusted the authorities and did not doubt the correctness of the chosen path. This was shown in their works even by foreign writers. In 1931, Theodore Dreiser, in his book Tragic America, wrote about the impression made on American workers by the successes of the Soviet people, the achievements of the socialist state. He called the Soviet Union "a joyful country of exploits", "a truly social country where spiritual life progresses" and where a precious "feeling of national camaraderie" unknown to the capitalist system was created. Many outstanding progressive foreign writers visited the USSR in the 1930s. Among them were Barbusse, Aragon, Nekse, Becher, Feuchtwanger, Rolland, and many others. B. Shaw carefully got acquainted with the life of the USSR, he sharply condemned the “blind reckless campaign to discredit the USSR” carried out by the reactionary press. He addressed his compatriots with an appeal to “support those currents that require a policy of peace, the establishment of trade relations, lasting friendship and understanding of a great workers' republic”. With deep respect and sympathy, Shaw wrote about the peaceful creative activity of the Soviet people; the books "Stalin" by A. Barbusse and "Two Worlds" by M. Nekse also told about the historical labor exploits of the peoples of the USSR. Y. Fuchik, who called his book about the USSR: “In a country where our tomorrow has already become yesterday,” said in the preface to it: “This book is not written about paradise, but about the Soviet Union, not about miracles, but about you, Soviet workers whom I saw on the scaffolding of the majestic building of the new society. 45 About you, about the people who fulfill the five-year plan... I saw the plan of great works in your hands. A man-made miracle happened: already by 1936, labor productivity in industry exceeded the level of tsarist Russia by more than 2.5 times in terms of annual output and more than 3.5 times in terms of hourly output. In terms of industrial production, the USSR came out on top in Europe and second in the world. * * * It is impossible to overestimate the external threat that hung over the USSR in the 1930s. It suffices to refer to Hitler's Mein Kampf, which, with the growing popularity of the author in Germany, became on a par with the Bible in terms of circulation. In Russian translation, this book appeared before the start of the Great Patriotic War and was distributed strictly among party workers - for study. Quite clearly it indicated the direction in which it was necessary to expand the living space for Germany: “We, the National Socialists, quite consciously put an end to the entire German foreign policy of the pre-war period. We want to return to the point where our old development stopped 600 years ago. We want to put a stop to the eternal German drive to the south and west of Europe and definitely point the finger towards the territories located in the east ... When we talk about the conquest of new lands in Europe, we can, of course, have in mind first turn only to Russia and those border states that are subordinate to it. 46 It is well known that within Germany Hitler's book served as a guide to action and action was not long in coming: already at the beginning of 1934, 240 enterprises were reoriented to the production of military products. The Versailles restrictions that held Hitler back were dropped at the instigation of the British Foreign Secretary, Sir John Simon, who in May 1934 proposed that the principle of equal armaments be applied to Germany. Even the Fuhrer himself did not immediately decide to officially dismantle the Versailles system. He undertook this a year later: on March 16, 1935, the creation of thirty-six divisions in Germany, in which half a million people served, was announced. On November 5, 1937, at a meeting on the Wilhelmstrasse, Hitler revealed his militaristic plans in the most frank manner, declaring that “85 million Germans are crowded in a narrow space, suffering more than any other people ... The Germans have the right to live on a larger life space than other peoples... The future of Germany depends entirely on the solution of the problem of her living space... Expansion can be carried out only by fighting the outside world and on the condition of a willingness to take risks... The problem of Germany can only be solved by turning to arms, and this is always accompanied by the presence of risk. It was impossible not to see the German threat, but England and France were stubbornly trying to play the German card against the USSR. The pinnacle of this policy is the Munich Agreement of 1938. This is basic information: on September 29, 1938, the heads of four major European states gathered in Munich: English Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier, German Chancellor Adolf Hitler, and, of course, Duce Benito Mus from Italy. - saltines. And they made a decision, which, if you call things by their proper names, was a permission to dismember Czechoslovakia. Each of these first persons in their countries carried out a powerful propaganda attack on the minds of their fellow citizens, suggesting that without this victim - Czechoslovakia - the Second World War could begin. Therefore, they were greeted as victors after Munich - the victors gave Hitler the Czech Sudetenland, and a number of territories of this, in fact, murdered country, were divided among other states. While, after returning from Munich, Chamberlain made loud statements that "from now on the world is secured for whole generations." (Note in brackets that this speech was delivered almost on the eve of a real war.) Churchill, we must give him his due in this particular situation, was more perspicacious in his assessment of the Munich Agreement, he said: “England had to choose between war and shame. Its ministers chose disgrace in order to get war later. The only country in the world willing to help Czechoslovakia was the Soviet Union. Even before Munich, when the Nazi troops carried out an act of intimidation near the borders of Czechoslovakia, the President of this terrorized country, Benes, turned to us and received a positive answer. The USSR was ready to bring in its troops and take up positions against Germany in Czechoslovakia itself, and these positions on the German-Czech border were very strong. It was possible to fight there for months - the Germans would not have been able to do anything. But in order for the Soviet troops to enter, it was necessary to obtain permission from Poland, and this country, under pressure from England, refused, and as a result, it itself ended up in the hands of the Nazis. If we had entered Czechoslovakia, events would have unfolded differently. Even if, even after Munich, France and England would have agreed to an alliance with us, which they were repeatedly offered, there would be no “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”. But they avoided creating an anti-Hitler coalition and did everything to ensure that Germany finally attacked the USSR. And so the Soviet leadership agreed to conclude an agreement with Germany in 1939 - they left us no other way out. It was this treaty that postponed the start of the war for our country both in space and in time: the war with fascist Germany could have started two years earlier and 400 kilometers closer to Moscow. The protocols on the partition of Poland gave us the western territories of Ukraine and Belarus, and if this had not happened, the Germans would have started the war near Minsk - and when would they come to Moscow? So, it is permissible to say that this treaty allowed the Red Army to defend the capital of our country. Because of him, the German military machine began to throw all the same from the frontiers, distant from the vital centers of the USSR. This agreement, as I have already said, was saving for us - the Germans had to spend time and effort in order to pass our new territory. That is, based on the logic of the moment, everything was done correctly, but only later, in the post-war period, our age-old secrecy led to serious consequences. The protocols of 1939 had to be published and discussed in the press; this could have been done at least even in the 60s. But they were classified, and this secrecy was especially hard to come by in the 1990s, when certain circles in the Baltics created hysteria about the pact. This was the beginning of the split of the Soviet Union. For England and the United States, the Baltics were initially seen as a platform for starting the disintegration of the country. They achieved their goal, but it is surprising that the Balts themselves are not appeased about this historical document until now. They brandish the “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact” even today, I ask them the traditional question in such cases, and did the same at the recent meeting with which I began the introduction to this book - where they discussed the US law "On Enslavement nations." The Lithuanians began their speech precisely with loud statements about the pact... I told them: “Why are you making such a fuss, you give Vilnius to Poland - it’s under the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement that Vilnius was returned to you... They returned the original land, and did not snatch someone else's, but at that moment it was the Polish city of Vilna. And your capital was in Kaunas...» The Lithuanians didn't find what to answer... * * * And again I return to the main points» of our history, one of the most important - the Great Patriotic War. "German people! At this moment, a march begins, which in its scale can be compared with the greatest that the world has ever seen. I have decided today to place the fate and future of the Reich and our people in the hands of our soldiers!” - this is a fragment from the statement, 50 which was made on behalf of Hitler on June 22, 1941 by Goebbels. “Today at four o'clock in the morning, without presenting any claims against the Soviet Union and without declaring war, German troops attacked our country ... Our cause is just. The enemy will be defeated. Victory will be ours!" - this is a fragment from a statement made on behalf of Stalin on June 22, 1941 by Molotov. Everyone had a different attitude to this information. It is well known that by this time Hitler had conquered France in almost six weeks, and the “racially inferior Slavs”, as he declared in the first days of the war, would be defeated even faster. Under the cannonades of the German aviation, which bombed dozens of Soviet airfields almost in the very first hours of hostilities, few people in the world seemed unrealistic to talk about the inevitable classic blitzkrieg. But such mindsets were only outside the young Land of Soviets, but inside - millions and millions - everyone, young and old, devoutly believed in victory ... Let me give you a few more fragments from the life of my family. In December 1941, my father received an appointment from the People's Commissariat of Coal in Perm for the construction of plants No. 1-2 for underground gasification of coal in the city of Leninsk-Kuznetsky. Here I began to work with him. The German occupation threw out not only us from our native Donbass - hundreds of thousands of our countrymen found protection and shelter in congenial places, where miners and metallurgists lived. In one area only Kemerovo region (former Novosibirsk region) housed 13 evacuated factories from the Donetsk region (former Stalin region). The experience and knowledge of 51 Donbass workers turned out to be quite in demand; the war required an incredible increase in production. It was necessary to compensate for the losses caused by the occupation of the industrial regions of Ukraine and the European part of the RSFSR. This was done: if, according to experts, the gross industrial output of the USSR from June to November 1941 decreased by 2.1 times due to military losses and the process of evacuation of hundreds of enterprises, then starting from December of the same year, the fall ceased, and in March of the next, the rise in production began. The output of military products only in the eastern regions of the country reached the level of production that was in the pre-war period throughout the entire territory of the USSR. The rear forged victory along with the front, accomplishing a great mass feat. “Everything for the front, everything for the Victory” – this was the mood throughout the vast territory of the country – people were distracted from work only to listen to the initially disappointing messages from the front from the loudspeakers. And with even greater stubbornness, silently, people went to work. And they worked with redoubled perseverance, steadfastness and will. The words from the famous song: “Let the noble fury boil like a wave” reflected the general state of the Soviet people, because it was really a holy war for us - we defended the Motherland. In the very first days of the war, a mass impulse created a people's militia. Tens of thousands of Muscovites thwarted the Nazi blitzkrieg with their lives, detaining motorized and heavily armed German hordes in the battles of Smolensk and Vyazma in 1941. “They continue to resist even when surrounded, I observe this for the first time,” the famous German general Halder was amazed, 52 talking about the resistance of Soviet troops in the battle for Smolensk. “They are trying to separate our mechanized units from the infantry that follows them.” He was appalled: "Their resistance is 'fanatical and brutal.' At that time, by the way, there were no barrage detachments, about which those who want to belittle the role of their own country in the great victory over fascism are so fond of talking today. And no totalitarian regime, no repressions could have arranged so that a competition arose for those who wanted to defend their homeland with weapons in their hands. Speaking in modern terms, it was a real casting: people had to be persuaded to stay in the rear, and because of this they were very upset. But if you are a slaughterer, then you need a mine, if a metallurgist is at a factory, and they were eager to fight. This was a general state, - I am now talking about what I saw and felt myself, in which I participated. In the most difficult days of the war, in July 1942, a powerful impulse arose in Siberia, which formed a turbulent flow of the formation of volunteer units. And this was at the peak of the successes of the fascist troops, who were practically reaching the Volga. Up to two major victories in the battles of Stalingrad and on the Kursk Bulge, which, as I.V. Stalin, the backbone of the Nazi army and who put Germany in front of a catastrophe, was still very, very far away. And now, at this most critical time, people were eager to contribute to the liberation of their homeland from the invaders, knowing full well that they were risking their lives. I still remember the song that sounded literally everywhere: 53 ... Across Siberia, across the taiga expanse Our battle cry resounded, Siberian might, heroic strength Rose up for a decisive battle. The Siberian is faithful to his homeland. Engaging in battle in both heat and blizzard, He goes to the fascist beast, Like the beast went to the taiga... * * * My father went to the front as a volunteer - an ordinary armor-piercer. A few months later I followed him. Applications were submitted everywhere - at enterprises, in mines, in collective farms - an avalanche. Selection commissions were created - in our city it was headed by one of the secretaries of the city party committee, he made decisions together with the military commissar and representatives of the Komsomol. There was a selection according to the principle: what are you doing now? Many had to be begged to withdraw their application. The commission sat for a month, then the military commissar put his application on the table, the secretary of the party organization and the Komsomol - his own, and the commission left for the front along with everyone who had passed the “casting”. I was 16 years old, and I was the secretary of the city committee of the Komsomol of the All-Union Leninist Young Communist League of the city of Leninsk-Kuznetsky - this was quite an ordinary situation during the war. When the first group left, I joined this commission and acted in the same way as my predecessor, Nikolai Turov. About a year later, I happened to see him already at the front, somewhere in the Velikiye Luki region... Of course, not only volunteers came from our city, the process captured the whole of Siberia: Novosibirsk, Kemerovo, Altai, Omsk , Krasnoyarsk, Tomsk - this is how the 6th Stalinist Rifle Corps of Siberian Volunteers arose, which ended the war with the 19th Guards. Parts of volunteers were formed in the Urals and Transbaikalia, and in many other regions of the country. I emphasize - volunteers, not those who were specially called to the front, but those who of their own free will went on their own, believing in victory and ready to give their lives for this victory. A multinational country defended its homeland - the country as a homeland was felt by all the nations and nationalities that inhabited it. Without such unity, without rallying the people for the sake of victory, we would not have achieved this victory ... We Siberian volunteers had good weapons: they were given machine guns that were made at Siberian factories - they were handed over before leaving for front. There was also mortar armament - up to company mortars, which were few then. They sent a warm farewell when they passed Moscow, Voroshilov met with the activists, and Mikhailov, the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Komsomol, spoke to the Komsomol members. The explanation for this is simple - we had an absolutely volunteer corps, and it bore the name of Stalin. In addition, it was a very difficult time, it was rumored that our corps was being prepared for Stalingrad, but it was sent to the Kalinin Front. The offensive near the city of Bely served to pin down the enemy forces so that they would not leave for Stalingrad. In addition, it was necessary to eliminate the Rzhev salient, which remained after 1941 and continued to threaten Moscow. For these fights, I received my first military award in my life - the medal “For Courage”. Soon, during the battle for the Pavlinovo station, I received my first wound - a bullet wounded my arm. I was treated at the medical battalion, and a miracle happened here - my father found me. It turned out that he was serving in a neighboring division as assistant chief of staff of the regiment. I heard about my injury and, of course, sought it out. Further, we already fought together near the town of Lenino, in Belarus, together with the Polish division named after Tadeusz Kosciuszko that arrived at the front. German aviation was preparing a special strike for her, and we also got it. For the battles near the town of Lenino, I was awarded the second medal “For Courage”, and soon, in the battles near Orsha, a mine exploded near me. The body riddled with more than 40 fragments, pierced the pleura of the lungs. 32 of them are still in me... For the same battles, he was awarded the newly established soldier's Order of Glory of the third degree. I was lucky: in Moscow, at the Belorussky railway station, a team of doctors from the famous surgeon Academician Braitsev bypassed the ambulance train, they selected the seriously wounded according to their profile and sent them to the clinic. All my life I remember with gratitude the wonderful doctors of the Semashko Central Clinical Hospital of the People's Commissariat of Railways, where I lay for eight months and where I was raised to my feet. He returned to the front, caught up with his father's regiment near the city of Novorzhev. On July 13, 1944, our regiment withdrew from the defense and marched forward in the second echelon of the attackers - it was a sunny day. We were already near the village of Bolshie Grivny, the places there are beautiful, on the contrary - Pushkinskiye Gory. - That would be to finish the war as soon as possible and settle here, - said the father. It was acutely felt how tired he was, it seemed that he was haunted by some gloomy thoughts, perhaps premonitions. Two hours later, the regiment ran into a German ambush. I was about two hundred meters from my father when a Messerschmitt emerged from behind the forest. - Watch out, it's about to hit! my father called out to me. And indeed, the Messerschmitt turned around and dropped the bomb. In the place where my father had just been, there was a deep crater, wounded horses, the bodies of the dead. I found my father in a ditch, he was seriously injured. We took him to the medical battalion, and there I said goodbye to him. - Catch up with the regiment, - said the father in parting. And in the morning he was gone, he died from gangrene ... Then there were battles for Riga - we did not damage a single house in this city. We entered on October 13, 1944, went to the Daugava embankment, the buildings of the Dome Cathedral and other ancient houses, towers opened before us. Machine gunners fired at us from the rooftops. We pulled out our regimental artillery, but we had just lined up our cannons when an orderly ran in and brought an order from the command forbidding firing at old Riga. And when three or four days later our main troops entered here - they could not go in any other way than only by flowers - this is how the townspeople, who had gathered in huge numbers, greeted us. It was they who threw flowers to the liberators - it was already in the 90s that loud talk began that the German occupation had been replaced by the “Soviet occupation” ... And then the inhabitants of Riga threw flowers to the Soviet soldiers, and no one could specially organize this could, it was an impulse, real feelings. In general, they tried to discredit such a stronghold as the victory of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War from various sides - we have heard enough of everything, especially in the last 20 years! And this despite the fact that we still live in a society that uses the accumulations of the past, the merits of those who won in October 17 and May 1945, who healed the wounds of the war with their labor, led the country into a rogue leaders! * * * In continuation of the theme of attempts by any means to discredit our great Victory and the fight against falsifiers of history, I would like to tell you about the wonderful book by N.N. Yakovlev "Vlasov and the Vlasovites". In our society, the opinion has firmly established itself, as if in the past era the bitter fate of “working at the table” lay in wait only for those who, in one way or another, stood in opposition to the then authorities. Meanwhile, there were cases of a completely different, I would even say, in some way, opposite nature. Those manuscripts sometimes fell into disgrace, which, it would seem, did not contradict the ideological foundations, but, on the other hand, set themselves the goal of restoring historical truth on the basis of strict facts in order, in accordance with this absolute factual truth, to pay tribute to the unjustly defamed and undeservedly praised - lyable. At first glance, there is a certain paradox in the fact that this important clarification of our ideas about some features of the Soviet era has to be done by a person who worked for several decades in the state security system, which, according to the general opinion, was engaged in the supervision of ideological sterility. But in my book “The KGB and Power” I have already written about the very difficult relationships that developed in the so-called Andropov period between 58 Staraya Ploshchad and Lubyanka. Not all of them were as clear-cut as some believe. It is in this connection that the fate of the manuscript, the fate of the historical essay by N.N. Yakovlev "Vlasov and the Vlasovites". It just so happened that, by the will of circumstances, I had the most direct relation to the creation of this extraordinary book, and therefore I can essentially and, as they say, according to the plot, tell about its unusual fate. Nikolai Nikolaevich Yakovlev was one of the greatest Soviet and Russian historians, a bright person and, in addition, endowed with an outstanding literary gift. Many books belong to his pen, not only received recognition from readers, but also caused a wide public outcry. In general, he was a very large personality, and I am grateful to fate for bringing me close enough to this unusually erudite, interesting person, who responded vividly to the most complex, and sometimes ungrateful, not at all opportunistic, controversial topics. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what happened with the topic, which later received the name "Vlasov and the Vlasovites." The question of the Vlasov movement, and in common speech - the question of the Vlasovites, was relevant in the first post-war years, when it was firmly, it seemed unshakable, associated with betrayal, with treason to the Motherland and did not cause disagreements. At that censored time, data on the fate of former prisoners of war remained classified, and at the household level, the opinion was established that almost all of them from German captivity, as they say, “in transit” proceeded through the filtration camps to the Gulag camps. Due to the need for service, studying this issue later, I can say that the rumors undoubtedly exaggerated the scale of repressions against former prisoners of war. Here, of course, there is no opportunity to delve into the analysis of this problem, but I still want to give one episode, which gives an idea of the “supreme” approach to it, that is, Stalin’s line on this issue, which, for obvious reasons, was decisive. The episode that one of its direct participants told me about took place in the forties. years shortly after the end of World War II. At a meeting of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, which was chaired by Stalin, the floor was taken by the secretary of the Central Committee P.K. Ponomarenko and said something like this: - Iosif Vissarionovich, I am listening to the speakers, and it seems to me that they do not think at all that we may still have to fight ... Stalin immediately reacted to this very wise remark and abruptly turned the discussion into a plane that it is necessary to deal in detail with each former prisoner of war separately, and not to enroll everyone in the category of traitors and cowards. Indeed, people who went through the war are well aware of the tragic, hopeless circumstances soldiers and commanders sometimes found themselves at the front, not everyone who was taken prisoner could be accused of cowardice. As for betrayal, treason, this is a special conversation at all, a piece-by-piece account, not a mass one. Ponomarenko, who during the war years headed the Central Headquarters partisan movement 60, perhaps better than anyone else, knew this problem, since it was in his units that many Soviet soldiers and officers who were captured by the Nazis and then fled to the partisans fought heroically. Marking all former prisoners of war with the stigma of a traitor to the Motherland would mean not only perpetrating a burning injustice, but also creating a dangerous precedent for the future: in the next and imminent war, which at that time was considered almost inevitable, those who were captured would not begin to strive to return to their homeland, fearing inevitable reprisals. It was precisely this note, this danger, that Stalin keenly caught in Ponomarenko's remark. That is why he immediately reduced the conversation to the personal responsibility of each former prisoner of war. This episode is quite remarkable, as it illustrates the train of thought of Stalin himself. And, I repeat, the state policy towards former prisoners of war completely depended on his opinion. * * * Nevertheless, of course, a lot of firewood was broken, but in the 60-70s the wave went in the other direction and began to raise the former Vlasovites to its crest. The largest, I would say, solo publication on this topic belonged to the famous Don writer Anatoly Kalinin. The writer, of course, is talented, he with great artistic power told in the story “Echo of War” about one of these people who, against their will, found themselves in the ROA, in the “Russian Liberation Army”, knocked together by General Vlasov. 61 It must be said that at that time the theme of the reverberations of the war hard times was generally popular. In particular, Arkady Sakhnin published in Komsomolskaya Pravda a long essay under the same title - "Echo of War", dedicated to the discovery and clearance of a colossal hidden warehouse of German artillery shells and mines in Kursk, from the explosion of which almost the entire city. Interest in military memoirs sharply revived: by that time, major Soviet military leaders of the front-line years had begun to retire and had the opportunity to take up a pen to tell, in the words of a popular song of the war years, about friends, comrades, about fires-in- fryers, about his own vision of the great war. Against this background, the story of Anatoly Kalinin, which essentially justified the Vlasov movement, attracted attention with its historical inaccuracy, a kind of “universal grease”: they began to judge former prisoners of war as a whole, in general, en masse, declaring all of them innocent victims - instead of understanding each specific fate. I knew Kalinin well, and when I met him I expressed my doubts about this. However, we did not have a conversation. But, unfortunately, my worries were not in vain. The story “Echo of War” coincided in time with the appearance in the West of a stream of literature about the Vlasovites, and all publications hit the same target, proving that the Vlasov movement was nothing more than an uprising of the freedom-loving Russian people against Bolshevism. At the same time, the very concept of “Vlasovites” was, on the one hand, anti-historically expanded, and on the other hand, reduced to the Russian national question, which also did not correspond to historical truth. Therefore, there is a need to understand this problem in more detail... If we exclude from consideration the saboteurs who graduated from special schools and the policemen, whose number was generally small, then the layer of the so-called Vlasovites is divided into three categories. The first, relatively the largest, included those who wore German uniforms, but did not have weapons and served in the rear units, in wagon trains, who were involved in household work. As a rule, such people were forcibly used in the commands of General Todt, who headed the engineering and logistics support of the fascist army. They did not take part in the hostilities, besides, there were many partisan scouts among them who performed reconnaissance missions. These people were unjustly classified as Vlasovites, unfairly associating them with traitors to the Motherland. The second category, extremely small, consisted of inveterate bandits, former criminals, whom the Germans used as provocateurs: they dressed in Soviet uniforms and threw them into our near army rear. They started firing there, staging enemy breakthroughs, arranging a panic, and so on. Intelligence regularly reported that such groups of provocateurs were always at hand for the Germans, they were a kind of “kamikaze”, they did not surrender, knowing full well what fate awaited them. These outcasts also cannot be ranked among the Vlasovites, they had nothing to do with them. 63 And, finally, the third category is the Vlasovites themselves, that is, those who served in the “Russian Liberation Army” of General Vlasov. But in everyday consciousness, all three of the above categories were united by one concept - “Vlasovites”. Meanwhile, it is by no means harmless - not only in terms of injustice towards specific individuals, but also in the sense of a great historical untruth. The fact is that the wave of rehabilitation of Vlasov, raised in the 70s in the West, pursued far-reaching goals and was, as they say, with a double bottom. Outwardly, it seemed that Vlasov and his army wanted to liberate Russia from the Bolshevik yoke, and therefore General Vlasov is in some way an anti-Stalin, deliberately compromised by the Kremlin as a traitor, a traitor. In this plane, there was a “whitening” of betrayal in general, “ennoblement” of those who, during the years of mortal combat with fascism, fought with weapons in their hands against their Fatherland, moreover, betrayed the oath. But there was in all this propaganda fuss and the second, as it were, an underlying layer. The army of General Vlasov and the Vlasovites in general, in addition, in a clearly broad, distorted interpretation, which was mentioned above, more and more actively began to be associated with a purely national Russian phenomenon. Here, Western propagandists did a kind of reverse somersault, returning to the topic of treason, and identified the betrayal of the Vlasovites, who fought on the side of Germany, with national Russian disgrace, turning the Vlasovites into a synonym and a symbol of Russian betrayal. generally. 64 I’m not saying that it didn’t even actually correspond to the truth, since both in the ROA and among other categories of former Soviet citizens who somehow ended up in the armed forces of Nazi Germany, there were people of many nationalities, as in its time, let's say, in the Russian edition of Radio Liberty. But the insidiousness of such identification of the Vlasovites with the Russian population lay in the fact that representatives of some other national groups who fought against the USSR during the Great Patriotic War immediately seized on this thesis, which became a kind of justification for them. In particular, I know that it was adopted by the former Banderites, who claimed something like the following: yes, we fought against the USSR, but there were fewer of us, Ukrainian nationalists, than Russian Vlasovites. And the Balts, for example, whose military units fought on the side of Germany, began to use the thesis about the Vlasovites to compare their “level of betrayal” with them - as a percentage of the total number of a particular nation. In short, the lack of clarification of the question of Vlasov and the Vlasovites, attempts to rehabilitate all those who were in the ROA with a chokh, an unjustifiably broad interpretation of the very concept of “Vlasovites”, the desire to declare the Vlasovites fighters for Holy Russia and at the same time cast a shadow of betrayal on the entire The Russian people - all this was mixed up in a muddy stream of involuntary or deliberate disinformation, in which the most diverse, sometimes even opposing social, political and national forces began to “fish. 65 * * * It was around that time that we had a detailed conversation on this subject with Nikolai Nikolaevich Yakovlev. The conversation boiled down to the fact that to counter this muddy flow of disinformation and misunderstanding is possible only with a single rigorously verified truth based on irrefutable historical facts. A very energetic person with a lively mind, Yakovlev immediately, despite the complexity of the topic, became infected with its attractiveness for serious scientific research. He expressed a desire to work on it, putting forward a condition: to involve the KGB archives related to Vlasov and the Vlasovites. This request was fulfilled, and the historian had at his disposal not only the materials of the operational development of Vlasov and his closest henchmen, but also the documents of the Fourth Directorate of the NKVD, which during the Great Patriotic War was engaged in behind-the-line, behind-the-front work. This department was liquidated in 1947 as unnecessary, but its archives preserved a lot of interesting data on the activities of our sabotage groups behind enemy lines, as well as on countering the penetration of German agents behind our lines. His sphere of activity also included work against the ROA - the "Russian Liberation Army" of General Vlasov. Nikolai Nikolaevich Yakovlev plunged headlong into the study of the materials provided to him and after a while wrote a large book that comprehensively covered the topic “Vlasov and the Vlasovites”. But Nikolai Nikolaevich could not take manuscript 66 to any publishing house on his own. At that time, such complex, contradictory historical themes were preliminarily run on the Old Square and only then on instructions from the Agitprop of the Central Committee of the CPSU were accepted for publication. However, unexpectedly for me at that period, in the first half of the seventies, the publication of the book by N.N. Yakovlev "Vlasov and the Vlasovites" met quite active objections in the Agitprop of the Central Committee of the CPSU. At that time, I believe, there were several reasons, but none of them were of a fundamental nature. In my opinion, the atmosphere of those years, the unwillingness to delve into the essence of historical phenomena, simply affected. After all, the publication of the book by N.N. Yakovlev entailed some official explanations that clarify the very concept of "Vlasovites". She demanded to put up a barrier to the whitewashing, even exaltation of Vlasov himself, and, as a result, to put an end to the justification of the betrayal of some other national “heroes” such as Bandera. Finally, she restored justice to those thousands of soldiers and officers of the 2nd shock army who did not surrender together with Vlasov and his headquarters, but died a heroic death in the battles for their homeland. And so it seems to me today that the decision to return to the “preface to the preface” written by me in 1996 is justified. The preface is the introductory part of the manuscript, preserved in the home archive of the deceased professor. It allows touching the very concept of the entire book by N.N. Yakovleva: “In foreign, and in recent years in Russian literature Vlasov and the Vlasovites are thought of as if the "messianic" task of delivering Russia from Bolshevism, which was set by the Vlasov movement. But historical facts inexorably testify: there was essentially no Vlasov movement. After all, the concept of “movement” implies a certain ideology, as well as the unanimity and purposefulness of its participants. Meanwhile, the very circumstances of Vlasov's capture and his further "use" by the Germans show that the ROA was put together on the basis of not ideological, but purely selfish motivation. To begin with, General Vlasov served as commander of the 2nd shock army for a few days - for some reason, this is now stubbornly silent. This army was surrounded in the winter of 1942, but thanks to skillful artillery strikes, the command of the Volkhov Front managed to break through a corridor about one and a half kilometers wide and the army began to emerge from the boiler. However, Army Commander General Zhuravlev was seriously wounded, he was urgently evacuated to the rear, and Deputy Commander of the Volkhov Front, Lieutenant General Vlasov, was sent to replace him. When Vlasov arrived at the headquarters of the 24th shock army, the Germans again closed the encirclement. As he told me, the deputy commander of the artillery of the front, Major General Kuleshov, flew to the rescue to restore the corridor in the same way. But he found only empty dugouts and tents - Vlasov and his headquarters went to the Germans. Thus, there was no question of any surrender to the enemy of the entire 2nd shock army at all - the army continued to fight courageously, General Kuleshov was also seriously wounded, but escaped capture. Voluntarily surrendered to the Nazis only a small handful of staff officers close to General Vlasov. These circumstances predetermined the further fate of Vlasov, who agreed to cooperate with the Nazis. Initially, he did not have his own army, and it had to be recruited in prisoner of war camps. Naturally, with such a motley set, there was simply no question of any ideological considerations. In the ROA, there were mainly two categories of prisoners of war, and neither one nor the other, in my opinion, should be condemned. Some simply tried to escape from the inhuman conditions of concentration camp existence, so as not to die from cold and disease. And others immediately figured out: if you go to the ROA, then there will be an opportunity to get to the front, and this is the closest way to return to your own, to your homeland. As for those who really wanted to settle scores with the Bolsheviks, there were very few of them. It was for this reason that there was a persistent distrust of the ROA in the supreme German leadership, and Vlasov himself was used primarily for propaganda purposes. On his behalf, newspapers and countless leaflets were published, which were thrown into our near front rear - in such leaflets the scale of the Vlasov army was exaggerated, and they themselves served as a pass to pass through the front line to the Germans. It was precisely because of the distrust of Vlasov and his army that the German leadership constantly had friction regarding the use of the ROA. Himmler supervised the "movement" directly, who nevertheless considered it possible to "test" the Vlasovites in combat conditions. But this was stubbornly opposed by Hitler,
Socio-political publication
Socio-political- This is a publication of a work of social and political themes. In a mass-political publication of agitation, propaganda and educational nature, information is presented in a form accessible to a wide range of readers.
Book editions are issued most often in covers. There are few illustrations in them - up to 2% of the area of the set. Photographs are often used as illustrative material. Leaf editions occupy a large place in their volume. In addition, most of the newspapers, in terms of their content and tasks, belong to mass political publications.
reference edition
General characteristics of the reference publication
reference edition(SI) contains brief information of a scientific, propaganda or applied nature, presented, formatted and arranged in an order convenient for their quick finding, not intended for continuous reading. Kuznetsova T.V. Characteristics reference edition//Office work. - No. 2002 - No. 1.
SI are used in all spheres of human activity, from scientific work to leisure activities. They are characterized by a high degree of generalization of information, achieved with the help of a concise, concise presentation of information in the form of ready-made data, conclusions, recommendations. SI is a repository of capacitive universal and industry information presented with maximum density.
The SI differs from other types of publications in the structure of the main text. It consists of articles containing brief answers to the intended questions of a potential consumer, which have a semantic and compositional completeness. Help articles are not intended for continuous, but for selective reading, therefore they are grouped not in a logical sequence, but in an order that makes it possible to quickly find necessary information. The most commonly used alphabetical or systematic grouping of articles. The text is clearly structured not only with the help of (articles, but also sections, headings, subheadings, etc. The language (style) of SI is specific. It is concise, schematic, extremely simplified. Information is often collapsed using tables, formulas, etc. In SI abbreviations not accepted in publications of other types are used.
All types of SI, with the exception of dictionaries, illustrate. The illustrations in them carry a semantic load, allowing you to shorten the text, since a picture can often replace several pages of description.
The SI has carefully developed a reference apparatus that contributes to the search orientation of the consumer: a set of indexes, a link system containing indications like “cm” or italicized words referring to thematically related articles, reference articles containing information about articles on the topic indicated in the title, etc. d.
An important place in the system of search orientation is occupied by polygraphic means of highlighting information: font highlights, cutouts, ledges, bleeds, variable page format, bibliochrome, color code, solid short title, movable headers and footers. The SI is characterized by a two-column band.
SI is a publication, as a rule, of a large volume, often consisting of several volumes. SI are published in strong bindings, most often in full-covered fabric, sometimes in plastic. They are printed on durable yet thin paper. By functional purpose and nature of information SI is usually divided into three subspecies: encyclopedias, dictionaries and reference books.
Mr Chairman, Texas votes seventeen for Roberts and thirty-nine for Manchester!
"ROBERTS - 581, MANCHESTER - 509".
Ten - two in favor of Manchester!
Spectators began to descend from the gallery into the boxes, fistfights broke out in different parts of the hall. The police rushed to restore order.
"ROBERTS - 584, MANCHESTER - 560".
"ROBERTS - 586, MANCHESTER - 584".
Eight - six for Manchester!
"ROBERTS - 592, MANCHESTER - 592".
Twenty five - five in favor of Manchester!
The noise in the hall had reached its peak long ago, but somehow intensified in an incomprehensible way. A bunch of balloons with the letter "M" soared into the air from the ranks of the Ohio delegation. Manchester took the lead for the first time.
"ROBERTS - 597, MANCHESTER - 617".
Seven - two in favor of Manchester!
All five - to Manchester!
Terjun looked around the crowd and smiled for the first time all day.
We are holding a roll call of the abstaining states,” he announced.
Pennsylvania! repeated the man in white for the third time. - Sixty-four votes!
Refrain!
Preliminary results are announced!
The screen lit up: "ROBERTS - 602, MANCHESTER - 641."
Grace Orcott could be seen here and there in the confusion that had engulfed the stalls. In the end, she broke through to the chairman of the Texas delegation, grabbed him by the lapels of his jacket and began to shout something. The Chairman nodded fervently and pushed Grace to the microphone.
Texas wants to change its mind! Her high voice came through the speakers.
No no! roared Governor Benjamin Wilcox, bursting into the center aisle and pushing the crowd aside. - Pennsylvania is ready!
Karl Fleischer tried to clear the way and yelled wildly:
Joe, Joe, Pennsylvania for us, 53-11!
Senator Flaubert saw Wilcox approaching and ran up to the platform.
Joe, Pennsylvania is coming! he barked.
Mr Chairman! Grace Orcott's high-pitched voice rang out again.
We are for Roberts! cried Wilcox, but his cry was drowned out by the roar of the hall. Wilcox's eyes burned with a crimson fire, large drops of sweat rolled down his cheeks. Manchester's supporters poured into the aisle to block his way, and the governor, as if intoxicated, brandished his fists and rushed to the microphone. The standard-bearer of Utah, who turned up under his hot hand, fell, knocking down the flag.
Roberts! cried Wilcox. - Roberts won!
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, Grace Orcott's voice was heard again, over the hubbub of the crowd. Archie du Page folded his hands like a mouthpiece, went up to Terjun and yelled in his ear:
Joe, give Texas the floor! Texas!
The chairman's eyes turned to the Texas banner.
The word for correction is given to the lady from Texas! he barked.
Texas... Texas gives all fifty-six votes to Charles Manchester! Grace's thin voice cracked with excitement.
Texas ... - repeated the clerk, - casts fifty-six votes ...
Everything else was drowned in screaming and roaring. A new sign lit up on the big screen: ROBERTS - 585, MANCHESTER - 658. MANCHESTER WIN.
Mr Chairman! Wilcox finally reached the microphone, but the organ was already playing the Ohio anthem, and the aisles were crowded with screaming, dancing, jubilant Republicans.
On Thursday, August 17, between 4 and 7 p.m., the Associated Press teleprinter transmitted the following messages from Chicago:
“Gov. Roberts left his suite today to visit the new Republican presidential candidate. Asked by reporters about Joe Terjun's violation of the voting order, Roberts replied: “It's all over the place. Now we need to think about how to elect Manchester for president.
"President Stewart congratulated Manchester on his victory and pledged his support for his campaign."
"The Democratic presidential candidate has said he does not intend to use the issue of defense policy as a tool in the fight against the Republican candidate Charles Manchester."
“Mrs. John Manchester, the wife of the son of the Republican candidate, told reporters that she called a dozen of her acquaintances and asked to send telegrams calling for them to vote for the Treasury Secretary. “However, I could not imagine,” said Patsy Manchester, “that my call would create such a chain reaction.”
“Charles Manchester announced today that Mr. Obie O'Connell has been appointed as his campaign manager. When asked by reporters about how correctly the manager predicted the results of the vote, Mr. O'Connell replied: “One hundred percent. The last round always brings victory.
MAIN EDITION OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL LITERATURE
Compiled by A. M. Yudin
Translator A. S. Sharov
From 47 The trail of truth / Comp. A. M. Yudin; Per. from English. A. S. Sharova. - Alma-Ata: Kazakhstan, 1989. - 704 p. - (Ser. "Labyrinth")
The collection includes action-packed adventure-detective novels and stories by English and American writers. The main theme of the works is the struggle against fascism and the nuclear arms race, the disclosure and exposure of the mores of modern bourgeois society.
Wide range of readers.
С 4703000000-32 124-89
401(05)- 89
BBC 84 (0) 3
ISBN 5-615-00442
© Publishing house "Kazakhstan", 1989
Bulk- political publication
trail of truth
Compiler Alexander Mikhailovich Yudin
Editors R. B. Dobraya, T. P. Kazannikova, S. M. Paskevich, T. V. Terekhova
Painters G. M. Gorelov, L. Tetenko
Artistic editor B. Mukhamediev
Technical editor L. I. Konkova
Correctors R. G. Ermoshkina, E. M. Tleukulova
Handed over to the set 08/25/88. Signed for publication on 03.02.89. Format 84×108 1 / 32 . Paper Type No. 1. Headset Type Times. Letterpress. Uel. oven l. 39.96. Uel. kr-ott. 37, 59. Uch. - ed. l. 40.17. Circulation of the II factory 50,000 copies. (from 50001 - 100000 copies). Order No. 3022. Price 4 rubles. 60 kop.
Order of Friendship of Peoples Publishing House "Kazakhstan" of the State Committee of the Kazakh SSR for Publishing, Printing and Book Trade, 480124, Alma-Ata, Abay Avenue, 143.
Book factory of the production association of printing enterprises "Kitap" of the State Committee of the Kazakh SSR for publishing, printing and book trade, 480124, Alma-Ata, st. Gagarin, 93.
Recruited at the VTsKP GKI USSR using the SOYUZ automated process control system by operators O. Piece, A. Abuova, L. Ivanova