The Soviet Union

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10587
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Soviet Union

Post by blindpig » Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:48 pm

(This was originally posted in Spanish because the translation kept 'flipping' at the linked site. It is translated to English on my machine after a few seconds, your experience may vary...)

EL NIVEL DE VIDA EN LA UNIÓN SOVIÉTICA
Publicado el 21 septiembre, 2018por Bitacora de octubre en Economía, Historia, URSS

El mejoramiento del nivel de vida de los soviéticos, tras la Revolución de Octubre y tras la implantación de una economía planificada, se puede observar mediante la evolución del índice de desarrollo humano (IDH)1.

Del único país que formó parte de la Unión Soviética (URSS) del que tenemos datos de su IDH desde 1870, es de Rusia, la mayor de las repúblicas que formaban la URSS.

De acuerdo con los datos ofrecidos por Max Roser (2018), en 1913, último año del que tenemos datos de Rusia durante el zarismo, el IDH de Rusia era de un 0,12. Esta cifra representaba un 31,58% del nivel de Nueva Zelanda, un país con un IDH históricamente alto, que en 1913 tenía uno de un 0,38.

En 1970, el IDH de la RSFSR (República Socialista Federativa Soviética de Rusia) era de 0,5. Es decir, una cifra 4,2 veces mayor que en 1913 y un 92,59% del nivel de Nueva Zelanda, que en ese año tenía un IDH de 0,54.

El IDH de la RSFSR era de 0,52 en 1990, un 88,14% con respecto a Nueva Zelanda.

Tras la adopción de una economía de mercado por parte de Rusia, el IDH cayó hasta un 0,48 en 1995. En 2010, el IDH de Rusia era el mismo que en 1990, veinte años atrás. Para 2015, el IDH de Rusia, representaba el 66,28% del nivel de Nueva Zelanda.

Gráfico 1: Evolución del índice de desarrollo humano (1870-2015):

Image
Fuente: Max Roser (2018).

Otra mejora tras la implementación de una economía planificada se puede encontrar en la evolución del producto interno bruto (PIB) per cápita2.

El Maddison Historical Statistics Project (2018) aporta datos sobre el PIB per cápita histórico en términos reales, en dólares a precios constantes de 2011, de distintos países. Usaremos la serie llamada Real GDP per capita in 2011US$, multiple benchmarks (CGDPpc), es decir el PIB per cápita real expresado en dólares estadounidenses a precios constantes de 2011. Esta serie utiliza además varios años base (benchmarks). Esta serie sería las más apropiada para comparar niveles de ingreso entre países.

Las anteriores estimaciones del Maddison Historical Statistics Project usaban el método Geary-Khamis, con 1990 como año base (benchmark). El uso de un único año base para series históricas tan largas puede generar distorsiones a medida que nos alejamos del presente ya que el cálculo no incorpora cambios en las pautas de consumo o en los precios relativos.

Además, el método Geary-Khamis puede sufrir el efecto Gerschenkron, es decir, puede producir estimaciones sesgadas para aquellos países cuyo gasto y estructura de precios difieren sustancialmente del promedio internacional, que tiende a estar dominado por países de altos ingresos (Rangelova, 2007).

El Imperio ruso poseía en 1913 un PIB per cápita de 2.825$. Esto representaba un 39,66% del nivel de Nueva Zelanda, que en 1913 tenía un PIB per cápita de 7.123$.

En 1989, la Unión Soviética alcanzó su máximo histórico en su PIB per cápita, con 20.389$, un 101,06% con respecto a Nueva Zelanda, que poseía en ese año un PIB per cápita de 20.174$. La URSS para 1989 multiplicó su PIB per cápita por 7,22 veces con respecto a 1913, Nueva Zelanda lo hizo por 2,83 veces en el mismo periodo, España por 3,58 veces y Estados Unidos (EEUU) por 4,54 veces.

En 2016, el PIB per cápita de los Estados postsoviéticos, tras adoptar una economía de libre mercado, representaba un 53,19% del nivel neozelandés.

Gráfico 2: Evolución en escala logarítmica del PIB per cápita real, PPA (US$ a precios constantes de 2011) con múltiples benchmarks (1885-2016):

Image
Fuente: Maddison Historical Statistics Project (2018).

Otro de los logros del socialismo en la URSS, fue la sanidad. La asistencia médica era totalmente gratuita en la Unión Soviética (Crouzet, 1961, pp. 275).

De acuerdo con los datos recopilados por Max Roser (2019), la esperanza de vida durante el zarismo, en 1900, era en Rusia de 30,5 años, inferior a la media mundial de ese entonces de 32 años.

Desde entonces, y tras la implementación de un sistema de salud estatal por iniciativa de Nikolai Semashko, la esperanza de vida aumentó hasta los 59,4 años en 1953, y hasta los 68,4 años en 1965, 15,2 años superior a la media mundial. Hasta ese entonces, la esperanza de vida había aumentado en Rusia con respecto a 1900 en 37,9 años, y se había más que duplicado, mientras, la media mundial había aumentado en 21,2 años.

Para 1987, la esperanza de vida aumentó muy ligeramente, representando para ese año 68,8 años, 5,3 años superior a la media mundial.

Tras la adopción de una economía de mercado, la esperanza media en Rusia, se redujo considerablemente, siendo en el año 2002, 3,8 años inferior al nivel de 1987. En el año 2010 la esperanza de vida en Rusia se había situado en los niveles de 1987.

Tabla 1: Esperanza de vida, en años, en el Mundo y en Rusia (1900-2019):

Media mundial Rusia Esperanza de vida de Rusia como porcentaje de la media mundial
1900 32 30,5 95,31%
1953 47,3 59,4 125,58%
1965 53,2 68,4 128,57%
1987 63,5 68,8 108,35%
2002 66,9 65 97,16%
2010 69,9 68,7 98,28%
2019 72,6 72,6 100%
Fuente: Max Roser (2019).

En 1913, con el zarismo, 269 de cada 1.000 infantes, morían antes de llegar al año de vida (Popov, 1972, pp. 9). Para 1985, esta cifra había descendido hasta 22 de cada 1.000 (Gèze et al., 1986, pp. 92). Esto supone que, en 72 años, la tasa de mortalidad infantil se redujo en más de 12 veces (ver la tabla 2).

Cabe destacar que la mortalidad infantil en 1985 era algo superior al resto de países desarrollados y de Europa del Este debido a que las repúblicas soviéticas de Asia Central tenían una mortalidad infantil históricamente elevada que hacia elevar la media del país. Por ejemplo, la tasa de mortalidad infantil por cada 1.000 nacidos vivos era en 1988 de 13,1 en la República Socialista Soviética (RSS) de Bielorrusia o de 11,5 en la RSS de Lituania, frente a los 48,9 en la RSS de Tayikistán (Goskomstat, 1988).

Tabla 2: Tasas de mortalidad infantil, por cada 1.000 nacidos vivos, en el Imperio ruso y en la URSS (1913-1985):

1913 269
1940 184
1950 81
1957 45
1965 27,2
1968 26
1985 22
Fuentes: Popov (1972, pp. 9), Gèze et al. (1986, pp. 92) y OMS (1963, pp. 50).

La URSS salió de la mortalidad infantil catastrófica del zarismo de una forma más rápida que por ejemplo España, reduciendo para 1965 su mortalidad infantil con respecto a 1913 en un 89,89%, frente al 84,06% de España (ver el gráfico 3).

Gráfico 3: Evolución de la mortalidad infantil en España y en los territorios soviéticos (1913-1965):

Image
Fuentes: Territorios soviéticos de Popov (1972, pp. 9), Gèze et al. (1986, pp. 92) y OMS (1963, pp. 50); España de Gómez Redondo (1985, pp. 104-105).

Entre 1913 y 1969 el número de camas de hospital en la URSS se multiplicó por 8,15 veces, pasando de 1,3 camas, por cada 1.000 habitantes, en 1913, con el zarismo, a 10,6 camas en 1969 (Popov, 1972, pp. 9-10). En 1970 había en la URSS 10,6 camas por cada 1.000 personas, frente a las 8,2 de los EEUU (Smith, 1977, pp. 89).

En 1970 la URSS tenía la mayor proporción de médicos por habitante del mundo, contando con 23,8 médicos por cada 10.000 personas, frente a los 15,8 de los Estados Unidos (Smith, 1977, pp. 89).

La URSS consiguió erradicar completamente enfermedades como la viruela, la peste, el cólera o el paludismo y redujo enormemente la incidencia de la poliomielitis, la difteria o la tos ferina (Popov, 1972, pp. 9).

La estatura promedio de los hombres rusos nacidos en 1913 era de aproximadamente 1,67 metros, inferior a los 1,72 metros de los hombres estadounidenses en 1910 (Brainerd, 2006, pp. 12). A fines de la década de 1960, los hombres en la Rusia soviética y en los Estados Unidos alcanzaron una misma altura promedio, de aproximadamente 1,77 metros, y la altura femenina en la Rusia soviética excedió a la de las estadounidenses en aproximadamente un centímetro (Brainerd, 2006, pp. 15). La URSS logró aumentar la estatura de sus ciudadanos durante un proceso de industrialización sin que la estatura de estos descendiera, cosa que no ocurrió por ejemplo en el Reino Unido o los Estados Unidos, durante sus procesos de industrialización (Brainerd, 2006, pp. 17).

Otro logro del sistema soviético fue llevar la sanidad a los lugares mas inhóspitos y que anteriormente no pudieron disfrutar de este servicio:

❝Los servicios sanitarios actuales de la URSS son el resultado de cuarenta años de evolución, experiencias e investigación. La complicada estructura resultante de esta evolución comprende gran número de instituciones y elementos funcionales estrechamente relacionados entre sí, que forman un sistema unificado que se extiende a todas las disciplinas sanitarias y cuyas ramificaciones alcanzan a todos los centros de población que constituyen las 15 repúblicas de la Unión llegando hasta las más pequeñas y remotas aldeas y zonas agrícolas.❞ (OMS, 1963, pp. 9).

Todos estos avances en sanidad pudieron ser observados por Smith (1977):

❝Viajando a Asia Central y otros lugares tuve la impresión de que el éxito general de los cuidados sanitarios soviéticos estaba entre los más espectaculares logros del sistema en medio siglo, desde que Lenin declara: «O los piojos derrotan al socialismo, o el socialismo derrota a los piojos.» Las epidemias han sido ampliamente dominadas. La mortalidad infantil ha bajado a niveles cercanos a los de los quince países más avanzados. La esperanza de vida es de setenta años.❞ (pp. 89).

Si bien es cierto que durante los años setenta la esperanza de vida ralentizó considerablemente su crecimiento en algunas repúblicas soviéticas y en la URSS en general, en las cinco repúblicas soviéticas de Asia Central, en la RSS de Azerbaiyán o en la RSS de Georgia mantuvo un crecimiento sostenido y superior al de algunos países desarrollados (ver la tabla 2).

La ralentización de los indicadores de salud en la URSS desde los años 70 puede ser explicado por la infraestimación de la mortalidad infantil en las etapas previas, como muestra este estudio, por la mejora de los registros de nacimientos y defunciones en las regiones menos desarrolladas (Brainerd, 2006, pp. 17-18), el amento en el consumo de alcohol (Brainerd, 2006, pp. 20) o por la reducción del gasto en sanidad, del 5,3% del total del presupuesto del Estado en 1975, al 4,6% en 1985 (Urban, 1988, pp. 24).

Tabla 2: Evolución de la esperanza de vida entre 1960 y 1986:

1960 1986 1986 (1960= 100)
RSS de Armenia 65,97 69,21 105
RSS de Azerbaiyán 61,04 65,02 107
RSS de Bielorrusia 67,71 71,55 106
RSS de Estonia 67,90 70,09 103
RSS de Georgia 63,65 70,20 110
RSS de Kazajistán 58,37 68,91 118
RSS de Kirguistán 56,13 65,29 116
RSS de Lituania 69,85 72,08 103
RSS de Letonia 69,79 70,62 101
RSS de Moldavia 62,00 66,77 108
RSFSR 66,06 69,39 105
RSS de Tayikistán 56,15 63,95 114
RSS de Turkmenistán 54,47 62,61 115
RSS de Ucrania 68,30 69,79 102
RSS de Uzbekistán 58,84 66,27 113
Suecia 73,01 76,93 105
Noruega 73,55 76,24 104
Nueva Zelanda 71,24 74,11 104
Cuba 63,83 74,57 117

Fuente: Banco Mundial (2018).

La educación de los soviéticos también mejoro con el socialismo, el analfabetismo se redujo ampliamente gracias a campañas como el Likbez.

En el Imperio ruso, la tasa de alfabetización de las personas entre 9 y 49 años era del 28,4% en 1897, siendo del 16,6% para las mujeres y del 40,3% para los hombres (Bhola, 1984, pp. 48). Por su parte, la tasa de alfabetización en las zonas urbanas era del 57% mientras que la de las zonas rurales era del 23,8% (Bhola, 1984, pp. 48).

Para 1939, la tasa de alfabetización en la URSS pasó a ser del 87,4%, la tasa en las mujeres pasó a ser del 81,6%, en los hombres al 93,5%, en las zonas urbanas al 93,8% y en las zonas rurales al 84% (Bhola, 1984, pp. 48).

Para 1970, el analfabetismo en las personas entre 9 y 49 fue prácticamente erradicado en la URSS. En ese año, la tasa de alfabetización era del 99,7%, siendo del 99,7% para las mujeres, del 99,8% para los hombres, del 99,8% en las zonas urbanas y del 99,5% en las zonas rurales (Bhola, 1984, pp. 48).

Como se puede observar la URSS consiguió reducir ampliamente el analfabetismo, además consiguió reducir las diferencias entre hombres y mujeres y entre zonas urbanas y zonas rurales. La educación también llego a zonas marginadas por el zarismo. En Tayikistán en 1897 solo el 2,3% de los ciudadanos entre 9 y 49 años sabían leer. Para 1939 la cifra pasó al 82,8% y en 1959 al 96,2% (Bhola, 1984, pp. 54). En Uzbekistán en 1897 la tasa de alfabetización era del 3,6% solamente. Para 1939 pasó al 78,7% y en 1959 era ya del 98,1% (Bhola, 1984, pp. 54). En las distintas repúblicas soviéticas, los alumnos eran libres de elegir el ruso o su propia lengua materna como su idioma de alfabetización (Bhola, 1984, pp. 48).

De acuerdo con los datos recopilados por Max Roser y Esteban Ortiz-Ospina (2018), en 1870, la tasa de alfabetización en Rusia, de las personas de ambos sexos de 15 años o más, era de un 15%, la mitad que en España. Por su parte, los años promedio de escolaridad, entre 15 y 64 años, eran de 0,15 años en Rusia frente a 1,58 años en España, unas 10,5 veces menos en la Rusia zarista comparado con España.

Para 1990 la tasa de alfabetización había pasado a ser de un 97,99% en la RSFSR, un porcentaje mayor que en España. Los años promedio de escolaridad pasaron a ser de 10,21 años en la Rusia soviética, frente a los 7,51 años de España.

Entre 1870 y 1990 el analfabetismo se redujo en 6,53 veces en la Rusia soviética, en comparación con las 3,2 veces que se redujo en España. Por su parte, los años promedio de escolaridad aumentaron en 68 veces en la Rusia socialista, frente a las 4,8 veces que aumento en España (ver la tabla 3).

El socialismo consiguió en la URSS reducir más rápidamente el analfabetismo que otros países como España, para comparar, si el zarismo hubiera seguido existiendo, eliminar el analfabetismo habría tomado entre 150 y 300 años (Bhola, 1984, pp. 40).

Tabla 3: Evolución de la tasa de alfabetización y los años promedio de escolaridad entre 1870 y 1990:

1870 1990
Rusia zarista España RSFSR España
Tasa de alfabetización (15 años o más, ambos sexos) 15% 30% 97,99% 96,49%
Años promedio de escolaridad (entre 15 y 64 años) 0,15 1,58 10,21 7,51
Fuente: Max Roser y Esteban Ortiz-Ospina (2018).

En 1973, el salario mínimo era de 70 rublos, el doble que en 1963 (Heffer y Launay, 1992, pp. 118). En 1955, el salario medio3 era de 71,8 rublos, pasando a 86,7 rublos en 1962 y a 185 rublos en 1984 (Jones y Moskoff, 1989, pp. 147).

En todo el país, los ahorros personales en los bancos aumentaron de 10.900 millones de rublos en 1960 a 46.600 millones en 1970, pasando a 156.600 millones en 1980 y a 202.100 millones en 1984 (Chernyshova, 2013, pp. 30). Esto equivalía a que en 1984, de media, los ahorros personales por persona en la Unión Soviética ascendían a 739,48 rublos4.

Tabla 4: Distribución de los trabajadores en la Unión Soviética según su salario como porcentaje del total (1946-1986):

Salario, en rublos 1946 1956 1968 1976 1981 1986
Menos de 80 86,9% 70,3% 32,3% 15% 6,3% 4,85%
80-100 6,9% 13,1% 21,1% 14,5% 13,5% 11,2%
100-140 4,2% 10,1% 25,5% 25,9% 24,6% 21,1%
140-200 2% 3,9% 14,5% 27,5 36,2% 29,5%
200-300 0,7% 1,9% 4,4% 12,7% 17,9% 22,7%
300-400 0,3% 0,4% 1,1% 2,4% 4,2% 7,4%
Más de 400 – – – 1% 1,9% 3,1%

Fuente: Batchikov, Glasev y Kara-Murza (2007, pp. 83).

El porcentaje de trabajadores soviéticos que se podrían considerar con unos ingresos insuficientes (maloobespechennost)5 descendió desde un 86,9% en 1946, a un 4,85% en 1986 (ver el gráfico 4).

Gráfico 4: Evolución del porcentaje de los trabajadores soviéticos con un salario inferior a 80 rublos (1946-1986):

Image
Fuente: Batchikov, Glasev y Kara-Murza (2007, pp. 83).

En el periodo comprendido entre 1987 y 1988, antes de las reformas de Gorbachov hacia una economía de mercado, la pobreza, entendida como unos ingresos mensuales inferiores a 120$ PPA por persona, era por ejemplo en las repúblicas soviéticas bálticas (Estonia, Letonia y Lituania) o en la RSS de Bielorrusia cercana a la del Reino Unido, de alrededor al 1% (Milanović, 1998, pp. 68-69). En las repúblicas soviéticas de Asia Central (Kazajistán, Kirguistán, Turkmenistán y Uzbekistán) la pobreza era menos de la mitad que en Brasil o que en otro país túrquico como Turquía (Milanović, 1998, pp. 68-69).

Para el periodo comprendido entre 1993 y 1995, tras la adopción de una economía de mercado, la población viviendo por debajo de esta línea de pobreza se multiplicó con respecto a al periodo socialista de 1987-1988 por 23 veces en las repúblicas bálticas, por 32,03 veces en las repúblicas eslávicas (Bielorrusia, Moldavia, Rusia y Ucrania) o por 33,73 veces en Rusia (ver la tabla 5).

Tabla 5: Incidencia en la pobreza y número de pobres (línea de pobreza: 120$ PPA per cápita mensuales):

Incidencia en la pobreza (porcentaje) Pobres (millones)
1987-1988 1993-1995 1987-1988 1993-1995
Repúblicas bálticas (n= 3) 1% 29% 0,1 2,3
Estonia 1% 37% 0,02 0,6
Letonia 1% 22% 0,03 0,6
Lituania 1% 30% 0,04 1,1
Repúblicas eslávicas (n= 4) 2% 52% 3,5 112,1
Bielorrusia 1% 22% 0,1 2,3
Moldavia 4% 66% 0,2 2,9
Rusia 2% 50% 2,2 74,2
Ucrania 2% 63% 1 32,7
Asia Central (n= 4) 15% 66% 6,5 30,7
Kazajistán 5% 65% 0,8 11
Kirguistán 12% 88% 0,5 4
Turkmenistán 12% 61% 0,4 2,4
Uzbekistán 24% 63% 4,8 13,3
Brasil 33% – 48,3 –
Turquía 31% – 16,7 –
Reino Unido 1% <1% 0,6 0,5
Fuente: Milanović (1998, pp. 68-69).

En el periodo comprendido entre 1956 y 1989, todos los percentiles aumentaron su renta de manera más o menos homogénea, superior al 2% anual en todos los casos, el crecimiento fue ligeramente superior en los percentiles más pobres, por ejemplo de un 3,2% anual en el P25 comparado con el 2,1% en el P90. Tras la adopción del capitalismo por parte de Rusia, en el periodo comprendido entre 1989 y 2016, el crecimiento real de la renta fue a parar en los percentiles más ricos, hasta el P55 el crecimiento medio anual en este periodo fue negativo y hasta el P92 el crecimiento fue menor al periodo socialista, el crecimiento real de la renta en el P99,9 fue del 6,2% anual por ejemplo. Con estos datos se puede llegar a la conclusión que los únicos que ganaron con la transición al capitalismo en Rusia fueron los más ricos, mientras los más pobres perdieron con el cambio, a diferencia de en el periodo socialista, donde fueron los que más ganaron (ver el gráfico 5).

Gráfico 5: Tasas de crecimiento real anual de la renta nacional, antes de impuestos y transferencias, por percentil en Rusia:

Image
Fuente: Novokmet, Piketty y Zucman (2017, fig. 9b).

En 1905 el 10% más rico de Rusia poseía el 46,88% de los ingresos, mientras el 50% más pobre poseía el 16,74% y el 40% intermedio el 36,38%. Para 1980 el 10% más rico pasó a poseer el 21,0% de los ingresos totales en la Rusia soviética, el 50% más pobre el 31% y el 40% intermedio el 47,97%. En 2015 el 10% más rico de la Federación de Rusia poseía el 45,52% de los ingresos totales, el 50% más pobre redujo su porcentaje al 16,99% y el 40% intermedio al 37,49% (ver el gráfico 6).

Gráfico 6: Participación en el ingreso en Rusia (1905-2015):

Image
Fuente: Novokmet, Piketty y Zucman (2017, fig. 8c).

Durante el zarismo, en 1905, en Rusia el 1% más rico poseía el 17,99% del ingreso total, este porcentaje alcanzó un mínimo histórico del 3,45% en 1980 durante el socialismo y volvió aumentar hasta un 20,24% en 2015, tras la adopción del capitalismo (ver el gráfico 7).

Gráfico 7: Participación en el ingreso del 1% más rico de Rusia (1905-2015):

Image
Fuente: Novokmet, Piketty y Zucman (2017, fig. 8b).

El coeficiente de Gini en Rusia pasó del 0,55 en 1905 con el zarismo, al 0,28 en 1988 con el socialismo y volvió a aumentar con el capitalismo al 0,55 en 2015 (Novokmet, Piketty y Zucman, 2017, fig. 10c).

Las mujeres pasaron a tomar un papel activo en la sociedad soviética, reduciéndose la desigualdad entre géneros. Casi una tercera parte de los jueces ordinarios soviéticos eran mujeres, una tercera parte de los parlamentarios eran mujeres, un 70% de los doctores en medicina eran mujeres y un 85% de las mujeres en edad de trabajar trabajaban en 1974, comparado con el alrededor del 50% en los EEUU (Smith, 1977, pp. 152).

La Unión Soviética llevó a cabo un política de estabilidad de precios. Gracias a esto, entre 1960 y 1981, el índice de precios de consumo (IPC) aumentó de media un 1,52% anual en la URSS, frente a un 7,52% anual que aumentó en los EEUU (CIA, 1984, pp. 14).

Gráfico 8: Evolución del índice de precios de consumo en la URSS y en los EEUU (1970-1981):

Image
Fuente: CIA (1984, pp. 14).

Gracias al aumento de los salarios y a la estabilidad de precios, desde mediados de los años 60, los soviéticos experimentaron un aumento significativo en su nivel material. En 1965, por cada 100 familias, 32 tenían un televisor, para 1981 eran 95 familias (Chernyshova, 2013, pp. 186). Para 1985, 99 de cada 100 familias en la URSS tenían televisión y radio, tanto en zonas rurales como urbanas, incluso uno de cada diez hogares, en las zonas urbanas, tenían dos televisores (Chernyshova, 2013, pp. 186). En 1965, 17 de cada 100 familias tenían una nevera, para 1985, tanto en zonas rurales como urbanas, eran 92 familias de cada 100 (Chernyshova, 2013, pp. 186). En 1981, el 78% de los hogares urbanos tenían una lavadora, frente a apenas un tercio en 1965, para 1985, tanto en las zonas urbanas como rurales, un 72% de las familias tenían lavadora (Chernyshova, 2013, pp. 186). En 1965, un 11% de las familias soviéticas tenían una aspiradora, y un 4% una grabadora, para 1981, esta cifra aumentó a un 39% y a un 33% respectivamente (Chernyshova, 2013, pp. 186).

Todo esto también fue gracias al aumento de la producción de bienes de consumo. La producción de televisores aumentó de más de 3,5 millones en 1965 a más de 8 millones en 1981, en el mismo periodo, la producción de frigoríficos aumentó de 1.675.000 a casi 6 millones, la producción de aspiradoras pasó de 800.000 a 3.359.000, incluso, productos relativamente modernos como las grabadoras aumentaron su producción de 453.000 a 3.216.000 (Chernyshova, 2013, pp. 187).

Entre 1956 y 1976, se construyeron en la Unión Soviética 44 millones de nuevas viviendas, más que en ningún otro país del mundo (Smith, 1977, pp. 92). Entre 1981 y 1985 se construyeron 10.028.000 pisos (Urban, 1988, pp. 29). El tamaño medio de los apartamentos soviéticos pasó de 42,3 metros cuadrados en 1960 a 56,4 metros cuadrados en 1985 (Urban, 1988, pp. 28). La construcción de viviendas en Rusia, por parte de empresas estatales y otras organizaciones, alcanzó su máximo histórico en 1987, y tras la adopción del capitalismo por parte de Rusia, la producción de viviendas se desplomó, siendo la producción de viviendas en 2014 aún menor que en 1969 (ver el gráfico 9).

Gráfico 9: Construcción de nuevas viviendas en Rusia, por empresas estatales y organizaciones, en millones de metros cuadrados (1946-2014):

Image
Fuente: Smirnov (2015, pp. 148-149).

El coste de un apartamento soviético típico, de 45 metros cuadrados, para una familia urbana de cuatro personas, con baño y cocina, era de 15,58 rublos al mes en 1977 (Schroeder y Edwards, 1981, pp. 77). Estos 15,58 rublos se dividían de la siguiente manera:

Tabla 7: Distribución del coste de un apartamento soviético (1977):

Rublos
Alquiler 5,94
Calefacción y agua caliente 5
Electricidad 4
Gas 0,64
Fuente: Schroeder y Edwards (1981, pp. 77).

El precio de los alquileres de los apartamentos estatales permaneció invariable desde 1928 en la URSS (Urban, 1988, pp. 28-29). En 1985, de media, las familias soviéticas gastaban un 3% de sus ingresos en el alquiler, frente al entre 20% y 30% que gastaban los estadounidenses y británicos (Urban, 1988, pp. 29).

La alimentación de los soviéticos mejoró considerablemente desde 1913, llegando a ser, según consideraciones de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO), la séptima mejor del mundo a mediados de los años ochenta (Batchikov, Glasev y Kara-Murza, 2007, pp. 42). Según la CIA (1983) los soviéticos y estadounidenses consumían una cantidad de alimentos parecida, pero, la dieta soviética era algo mejor.

Tabla 8: Precios de un kilo/litro de distintos alimentos en la URSS (1976):

Rublos
Pan de centeno 0,24
Patatas 0,12
Tomates 0,74
Remolacha 0,13
Zanahorias 0,23
Repollo 0,18
Judías verdes 0,3
Cebollas 0,52
Naranjas 1,4
Manzanas 1,12
Peras 1
Sandias 0,3
Uvas 1,09
Carne de vaca asada 1,62
Leche entera 0,48
Huevos de tamaño mediano (docena) 1,06
Bacalao congelado 0,49
Sacarosa 0,94
Aceite vegetal 1,79
Agua mineral 0,4
REPORT THIS AD
REPORT THIS AD

Fuente: Schroeder y Edwards (1981, pp. 40-43).

El pan componía, en 1913, el 58% de la dieta de los rusos, por su parte, la carne representaba el 7% (Golubev y Dronin, 2004, pp. 24). Para 1990, este porcentaje se redujo al 23% en el caso del pan, y aumentó al 13% en el caso de la carne, para luego descender al 29% y al 10,5% respectivamente en 1998, tras la adopción de una economía de mercado (Golubev y Dronin, 2004, pp. 24). Los soviéticos multiplicaron por 2,77 su consumo anual de carne entre 1913 y 1990, para tras la adopción del capitalismo, caer un 36% el consumo de carne entre 1990 y 1998 (Golubev y Dronin, 2004, pp. 24). Entre 1913 y 1980 el consumo de pescado de los soviéticos se multiplicó por 3,75 veces (Golubev y Dronin, 2004, pp. 24).

Tabla 9: Consumo de alimentos en Rusia, en kilogramos anuales por persona (1913-1998):

Pan Patatas Verduras Carne Leche Huevos Pescado Azúcar Aceite
1913 200 75 40 27 154 48 6 8,1 1,7
1940 195 112 64 21 130 59 4,9 8,7 2,6
1952 190 190 61 24 159 69 7,3 16,2 3,7
1960 164 147 69 41 255 128 12 31 5,6
1970 144 139 82 50 331 182 18,6 41,7 7,1
1980 126 118 94 62 328 279 22,5 46,7 9,1
1990 119 106 89 75 386 297 20 47 10,2
1998 118 123 78 48 221 218 9 33 8,9
Fuente: Golubev y Dronin (2004, pp. 24).

En 1913, con el zarismo, el consumo calórico per cápita de los rusos era de 2.109 kilocalorías diarias, pasando a 3.182 kilocalorías diarias en 1990, un 150,88% más (Golubev y Dronin, 2004, pp. 24). Tras la adopción de una economía de mercado por Rusia el consumo calórico por persona paso a ser de 2.471 kilocalorías en 1998, un 77,66% del nivel de 1990 (Golubev y Dronin, 2004, pp. 24).

Gráfico 10: Evolución de la ingesta calórica diaria por persona, en kilocalorías, en Rusia (1913-1998):

Image
Fuente: Golubev y Dronin (2004, pp. 24).

Como se observa en la tabla 10, en 1981 la URSS tenia un consumo de carne superior a países como Noruega, aunque inferior a otros países como la Checoslovaquia socialista. En ese mismo año la URSS consumía 2,25 veces más pescado que EEUU y 1,22 veces más azúcar.

Tabla 10: Consumo per cápita de distintos alimentos, en kilogramos (1981):

Carne Pescado Huevos Azúcar Patatas Pan y cereales
URSS 53 18 14 44 105 138
EEUU 110 8 15 36 35 68
Noruega 50 37 11 35 70 80
Italia 77 – 11 31 41 127
España 75 – 18 27 113 76
Checoslovaquia 87 5 19 37 79 109
Fuente: CIA (1985, fig. 1).

Entre 1950 y 1970, el consumo per cápita de alimentos se había duplicado en la Unión Soviética, los ingresos disponibles se habían cuadruplicado, el consumo de productos perecederos se habían triplicado y las compras de bienes duraderos se habían multiplicado por doce veces (Smith, 1977, pp. 74).

El consumo per cápita también aumentó a un mayor ritmo en la URSS que en Occidente (ver la tabla 11). El consumo total soviético pasó de representar el 37% del estadounidense a mediados de los años sesenta, a representar un 42% en 1981 (CIA, 1984, pp. 7).

Tabla 11: Crecimiento medio anual del consumo doméstico per cápita:

1950-1980 1970-1980
Unión Soviética 3,7% 2,6%
Estados Unidos 2,1% 2,3%
OCDE 3,2% 2,6%

Fuente: Brainerd (2006, pp. 32)

Los trabajadores de la Rusia prerrevolucionaria trabajaban de 10 a 12 horas diarias, seis días a la semana, entre 60 y 72 horas por semana (Bosch, Dawkings y Michon, 1994, pp. 313). Uno de los primeros decretos adoptados inmediatamente después de la Revolución de Octubre en 1917, fue uno que establecía la jornada laboral de 8 horas diarias (Bosch, Dawkings y Michon, 1994, pp. 313). En la Unión Soviética, la jornada laboral máxima era de 40 horas semanales (Heffer y Launay, 1992, pp. 118). En la industria del carbón soviética, en 1986, se trabajaba de media 33,8 horas semanales comparado con la media de 39,4 horas semanales en el conjunto de la economía (Bosch, Dawkings y Michon, 1994, pp. 315). En 1973, las horas laboradas al año en la URSS por persona empleada eran 1.791 horas, comparado con las 2.150 horas de España, las 1.804 horas de Alemania, las 1.930 horas de Suiza o las 2.042 de Japón (Maddison, 1997, pp. 340).

Vídeo 1: ¿Dónde nació la reducción de la jornada laboral, la legalización del aborto o el sufragio universal? por RT en español (2017):


Las vacaciones garantizadas en la URSS eran de entre 12 y 48 días, de entre 24 y 48 para los trabajos más duros y de 48 días para el personal docente (Crouzet, 1961, pp. 275-276). El desempleo en la URSS fue prácticamente inexistente durante toda su historia, por ejemplo, a pesar de las reformas hacia una economía de mercado, el desempleo en la RSFSR era del 0,1% en 1991, pasando al 8,2% en 2009, ya adoptada una economía capitalista (Clark y Senik, 2014, pp. 30). El índice de satisfacción con la vida, medido de menor a mayor satisfacción de 1 a 10, era en la ciudad soviética de Tambov de un 7,26 en 1981, en la RSS de Bielorrusia de un 7,2 en 1984 y de un 6,46 en la RSFSR en 1988 (Clark y Senik, 2014, pp. 28). Tras la adopción del capitalismo, el índice cayó al 4,23 en Tambov para 1995, al 4,81 en 1999 en Bielorrusia y al 6,09 en 2005 en Rusia (Clark y Senik, 2014, pp. 28). La contaminación por persona en la URSS, sin incluir las emisiones de los automóviles, era menor que en los EEUU en 1987 (Kolstad y Golub, 1993, pp. 4).

Tabla 12: Emisiones anuales de gases contaminantes, en kilogramos per cápita, en los EEUU y en la URSS (1987):

Dióxido de azufre Óxidos de nitrógeno Monóxido de carbono
Unión Soviética 66 16 55
Estados Unidos 73 42 75
Fuente: Kolstad y Golub (1993, fig. 1).

Imágenes de la vida cotidiana en la Unión Soviética:

La ciudad de Protvino, RSFSR, Unión Soviética. 1 de julio de 1973. RIA Novosti archive, image #501537 / Vsevolod Tarasevich / CC-BY-SA 3.0Pioneros soviéticos de senderismo, RSS de Ucrania, Unión Soviética. 1 de julio de 1985. RIA Novosti archive, image #468167 / Valeriy Shustov / CC-BY-SA 3.0Sochi, RSFSR, Unión Soviética. 1 de junio de 1973. RIA Novosti archive, image #579736 / B. Elin / CC-BY-SA 3.0
Jóvenes soviéticos dibujando con tiza sobre el asfalto en Moscú, RSFSR, Unión Soviética. 1 de agosto de 1984. RIA Novosti archive, image #510243 / Igor Mikhalev / CC-BY-SA 3.0Estanque del parque Gorki, Moscú, RSFSR, Unión Soviética. 1 de julio de 1982. RIA Novosti archive, image #510373 / Valeriy Shustov / CC-BY-SA 3.0
Tiovivo en el parque Izmailovo, Moscú, RSFSR, Unión Soviética. 1 de julio de 1978. RIA Novosti archive, image #514901 / Vladimir Vyatkin / CC-BY-SA 3.0Una familia de trabajadores soviéticos en su casa de verano en Leningrado, RSFSR, Unión Soviética. 1 de julio de 1981. RIA Novosti archive, image #487609 / V. Lozovskiy / CC-BY-SA 3.0Niños soviéticos en una guardería, Moscú, RSFSR, Unión Soviética. 1 de junio de 1977. RIA Novosti archive, image #490772 / Alexander Liskin / CC-BY-SA 3.0Dos jóvenes soviéticas en el campo, RSFSR, Unión Soviética. 1 de junio de 1983. RIA Novosti archive, image #492950 / M. Yurchenko / CC-BY-SA 3.0
Apartamento típico de una familia trabajadora soviética en Kiev, RSS de Ucrania, Unión Soviética. 3 de septiembre de 1976. RIA Novosti archive, image #77629 / Boris Kavashkin / CC-BY-SA 3.0Casa de maternidad en Yakutsk, RSFSR, Unión Soviética. 1 de enero de 1981. RIA Novosti archive, image #450919 / V. Yakovlev / CC-BY-SA 3.0Pasajeros de un Ilyushin Il-62 de la empresa Aeroflot, Moscú, RSFSR, Unión Soviética. 1 de julio de 1981. RIA Novosti archive, image #871249 / Vladimir Rodionov / CC-BY-SA 3.0


Las jubilaciones masculinas en la URSS eran a los 60 años o a los 25 años de servicio y las femeninas eran a los 55 años o a los 20 años de servicio (Urban, 1988, pp. 24). Para comparar, la edad de jubilación en EEUU, España, Canadá, Reino Unido, Finlandia o los Países Bajos era de 65 años y en Dinamarca de 67 años (Urban, 1988, pp. 24). La pensión mínima para los trabajadores de collar blanco y de collar azul era de 50 rublos, y la pensión máxima era de 120 rublos (Urban, 1988, pp. 25). Los pensionistas estaban exentos de pagar impuestos (Urban, 1988, pp. 25). Los pensionistas cobraban la mitad de su ultimo salario, pudiendo llegar al 60% en algunas ocasiones (Crouzet, 1961, pp. 275). En 1985 la pensión media en la URSS era de 67 rublos al mes, debido a esto y a la temprana edad jubilación, de los 56 millones de jubilados en la URSS en 1986, 10 millones decidían seguir trabajando para optar por un salario mayor (Urban, 1988, pp. 25).

Tabla 13: Porcentaje de encuestados entre 35 y 64 años que creen que la calidad de vida era mejor en la Unión Soviética:

Armenia 71%
Azerbaiyán 69%
Rusia 64%
Kazajistán​​ 61%
Kirguistán 60%
Moldavia 60%
Ucrania 60%
Bielorrusia 53%
Georgia 51%
Tayikistán 39%
Uzbekistán 4%
Fuente: Spútnik (2016).

Notas:
El Historical Index of Human Development (HIHD) emplea cuatro indicadores: la esperanza de vida al nacer, la alfabetización de los mayores de 15 años, la tasa de escolarización y el PIB per cápita. El índice abarca números entre el 0 y 1. Contra más cercano al 1, mejor nivel de vida.
El producto interno bruto (PIB) per cápita, expresa el valor monetario de la producción de bienes y servicios, generalmente al final de un año, en un país o región, relacionado con la cantidad de habitantes de un país. Este indicador ha recibido críticas como medidor del nivel de vida o del bienestar social.
El sueldo de un trabajador soviético seguía un patrón determinado. Partiendo de un salario base, a este se le añadía una remuneración extra, si el trabajador sobrepasaba una cuota fijada, el salario se duplicaba si se superaba en un 10% dicha cuota, se triplicaba si se superaba en un 20%, y así sucesivamente (Crouzet, 1961, pp. 274-275). También existían primas por antigüedad, con un aumento salarial de un 15% al cabo de unos 5 años y un 30% al cabo de 15 años (Crouzet, 1961, pp. 275). Al ser la mayoría empresas estatales los beneficios se repartían, en parte, entre los trabajadores (Crouzet, 1961, pp. 275).
Según el Maddison Historical Statistics Project (2018) la población soviética en 1984 era de 275.330.000 habitantes.
Oficialmente las personas consideradas con unos ingresos insuficientes eran aquellas con unos ingresos inferiores a 51,4 rublos al mes (Urban, 1988, pp. 26). Economistas occidentales cifraban la tasa de pobreza en alrededor de los 70 rublos (Urban, 1988, pp. 26-27).
Bibliografía:

Brainerd, E. (2006). Reassessing the Standard of Living in the Soviet Union: An Analysis Using Archival and Anthropometric Data. Bonn: Institute of Labor Economics. Discussion Paper nº 1958.

Novokmet, Filip; Piketty, Thomas y Zucman, Gabriel (2017). From Soviets to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in Russia 1905-2016. World Inequality Database.

Urban, George (1988). Social and Economic Rights in the Soviet Bloc: A Documentary Review Seventy Years After the Bolshevik Revolution. Nuevo Brunswick, Nueva Jersey: Transition Books. ISBN 0-88738-186-3.

Golubev, Genady y Dronin, Nikolai (2004). Geography of Droughts and Food Problems in Russia (1900-2000). Kassel: Center for Environmental Systems Research. Report A 0401.

Jones, Anthony y Moskoff, William (1989). Perestroika and the Economy: New Thinking in Soviet Economics. Armonk, Nueva York: M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 0-87332-569-9.

Milanović, Branko (1998). Income, Inequality and Poverty during the Transition from Planned to Market Economy. Washington, D. C.: Banco Mundial. ISBN 0-8213-3994-X.

Heffer, Jean y Launay, Michel (1992). La Guerra Fría. Madrid: Ediciones Akal. ISBN 84-460-0133-0.

Schroeder, G. y Edwards, I. (1981). Consumption in the USSR: an international comparison. Washington, D. C.: United States Government Publishing Office.

Smith, Hedrick (1977). Los rusos. Barcelona: Editorial Argos Vergara. ISBN 84-7017-479-7.

Agencia Central de Inteligencia (1984). A Comparison of Soviet and US Gross National Products, 1960–83.

Agencia Central de Inteligencia (1985). USSR: The Food Supply Situation.

Gèze, François; Valladão, Alfredo; Lacoste, Yves; Lennkh, Annie y Paquot, Thierry (1986). El estado del mundo 1987: anuario económico y geopolítico mundial. Madrid: Ediciones Akal. ISBN 84-7600-152-5.

Popov, Georgij Alekseevic (1972). Principios de la planificación sanitaria en la URSS. Ginebra: OMS.

Chernyshova, Natalya (2013). Soviet Consumer Culture in the Brezhnev Era. Londres: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-68754-6.

Smirnov, Sergey (2015). Economic Fluctuations in Russia (from the late 1920s to 2015). Russian Journal of Economics. Vol. 1, nº 2, pp. 130-153. Moscú: National Research University Higher School of Economics.

Bhola, H. S. (1984). Campaigning for Literacy: Eight National Experiences of the Twentieth Century, with a Memorandum to Decision-Makers. París: Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura. ISBN 92-3-102167-2.

Crouzet, Maurice (1961). Historia General de las Civilizaciones: La Época Contemporánea. Volumen VII. Barcelona: Ediciones Destino. ISBN 84-233-0794-8.

Maddison, Angus (1997). La economía mundial 1820-1992: análisis y estadísticas. París: Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos. ISBN 92-64-44549-8.

Organización Mundial de la Salud (1963). Los Servicios sanitarios en la URSS: informe redactado por los participantes a un viaje de estudios organizado por la Organización Mundial de la Salud. Ginebra: OMS.

Clark, Andrew E. y Senik, Claudia (2014). Happiness and Economic Growth: Lessons from Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-872365-3.

Anatolevich Batchikov, Serguei; Iurevich Glasev, Serguei y Kara-Murza, Sergei Georguevich (2007). El libro blanco de Rusia: Las reformas neoliberales (1991-2004). Barcelona: Editorial El Viejo Topo. ISBN 978-84-96831-14-8.

Rangelova, R. (2007). Different Methodologies for National Income Accounting in Central and Eastern European Countries, 1950-1990. Bulgarian National Bank. Discussion Paper Nº 62.

Kolstad, Charles y Golub, Alexander (1993). Environmental Protection and Economic Reform in Russia. EPAT/MUCIA. Policy Brief nº 2. Madison, Wisconsin: Universidad de Wisconsin-Madison.

Bosch, Gerhard; Dawkings, Peter y Michon, François (1994). Times are Changing: Working Time in 14 Industrialised Countries. Ginebra: Organización Internacional del Trabajo. ISBN 9290145269.

Gómez Redondo, Rosa (1985). El descenso de la mortalidad infantil en Madrid, 1900-1970. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas. Vol. 32/85, pp. 101-139. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas.

https://bitacoradeoctubre.wordpress.com ... sovietica/

Google Translator

Sorry about the tables but you can figure them out or see the link.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10587
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Soviet Union

Post by blindpig » Sat Nov 14, 2020 3:36 pm

Trotsky’s Support for Fascism (1938)
November 13, 2020
NOTE: Orinoco Tribune doesn’t normally republish opinion articles over seven days old, but in this case we are making an exception.

Image

By Ludo Martens (from the book Another View of Stalin published in 1994) – Translation published on Jul 10, 2019

Translator’s Note: The original Russian language title of this article is ‘РОЛЬ ТРОЦКОГО В КАНУН ВТОРОЙ МИРОВОЙ ВОЙНЫ’, which can be translated as ‘Trotsky’s Role on the Eve of WWII’. I have used the working (English) title of ‘Trotsky’s Support for Fascism (1938)’, as this best represents the main point of the information presented. This text was posted upon the Russian language blog entitled ‘Сообщество‘ or ‘Back in the USSR’ dated 4th July, 2013. I have checked all the Trotsky quotes in English, but have retained a distinctly ‘Russian’ outlook in their translation here, as I think it is important for the understanding of this distinctly ‘Russian’ historical episode. What did Trotsky actually do? He concocted a Fourth International in 1938, and to do this he had to be seen as advocating a ‘distinct’ (and ‘unique’) set of policies. He falsely distinguished Joseph Stalin (and the Soviet Government) from the Soviet people (avoiding the inconvenient fact that Joseph Stalin was continuously ‘voted’ into office), whilst calling for his false construct of ‘the people’ to militarily overthrow Joseph Stalin (when all they had to do was just ‘vote’ him out of office). Trotsky proposed the following alliances between his followers; a) Nazi Germany, b) the Roman Catholic Church and c) all forces of reaction opposed to the USSR (this included the capitalist West, Zionist groupings and other religions, etc). Adolf Hitler wanted the total destruction of the Slavic race and the Bolshevik (Communist) ideology (which he viewed as a Jewish conspiracy), whilst the Roman Catholic Church was slightly more modest in its war aims, as it wanted only the destruction of the Bolshevik regime and what it viewed as its ‘atheist’ ideology (although the Roman Catholic Church did assist Nazi Germany in its Holocaust against the Jews both inside and outside the USSR). The other forces of reaction wanted the destruction of the Bolshevik regime and the end of Socialism in the USSR, so that modern capitalism could take its place (this was finally achieved in 1991). Trotsky, in his distorted vision, believed that he could make use of Hitler’s fascist armies (and those of its allies) in any attack upon the USSR, and then he and his clique would magically ‘take’ power from the Nazi Germans once Stalin was dead and the Kremlin in ruins! Many of Hitler’s allies, such as certain polish, Ukrainian, Estonian, Slovakian, Scandanavian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Italian, Finnish and Romanian populations, were devout Roman Catholics following the pro-fascist edicts of Pope Pius VII! Today, many Trotskyite Movements ‘hide’ this history and deny its very existence as they perpetuate the lie that Trotsky was a loyal ‘Leninist’. This is obviously untrue, as the Collected Works of Lenin demonstrate. Trotsky, in his mania for power, betrayed the Communist (Marxist-Leninist) cause and in so doing collaborated with fascism and compromised with capitalism. This is the (false) narrative that underlies most hostile Western historical narratives of the USSR, which stand in stark contrast (as they lack any practical or factual foundation), to the legitimate histories of people who actually lived in the USSR and experienced its reality first-hand (of course, we may discard the ‘paid’ testimonies of so-called ‘dissidents’ and ‘defectors’). Finally, when I have lectured on, or discussed topics in opposition to Trotsky, of all the well-researched charges I make against him, it is his collaboration with fascism that really embarrasses and upsets his modern Trotskyite devotees – after-all, they are contemporary victims of Trotsky’s historical lies – and it is on this point that I am continuously asked for an academic ‘reference’. These facts about Trotsky are well-known in Russia and have been so for decades and I have chosen the following text to convey these issues. Due to the vagaries of the internet, I have included a direct link to the Russian language article and have included the entire Russian language text following the conclusion of this translation. ACW (10.7.2019)


Throughout the 1930s, Trotsky became, without exaggeration, a world expert (and leading exponent) of anti-Communism. Even today, right-wing ideologists are studying the work of Trotsky in search of weapons against the history Soviet Union (and especially against Stalin).

In 1982, when Reagan proclaimed a new anti-communist crusade, Henri Bernard, an honorary professor at the Royal Military School of Belgium, published a book spreading the following message:

“The Communists in 1982 are the Nazis in 1939. We are weaker in front of Moscow than we were in August 1939 in front of Hitler.”

All the standard statements of Le Pen, leader of the French National Front, look like this:

“Terrorism is not an act of several madmen. The basis of everything is the Soviet Union and its secret network of international terrorism.”

“The Christian left is the pain of the West.

The synchronicity for peace demonstrations shows that they are inspired by Moscow. “

“British commandos who were going to die in the Falklands showed that moral values ​​still exist in the West.”

The tactics chosen by such recognized anti-Communists as Bernard are very interesting. This is how a man who – despite his contempt for “left Christians” – unites himself with Trotsky:

“In life, Lenin was, like Trotsky, an ordinary person … His personal life is full of nuances…

With the natural course of events after Lenin, Trotsky was to become the head of the USSR … he was the chief architect of the October Revolution, the winner in the Civil War, the creator of the Red Army …

Lenin highly respected Trotsky. He thought of him as a successor. He believed that Stalin was too rude …

Trotsky rebelled against the establishment of bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, which paralyzed the communist machine …

Artistic, highly educated, unwilling to adapt to circumstances, often foreseeing the course of events for a long time ahead, he could not get along with the main dogmatists in the party …

Stalin was a nationalist, such a feeling did not exist neither in Trotsky, nor in Lenin …

With Trotsky, foreign Communist Parties could regard themselves as a force whose sole purpose was to establish a Socialist Order. With Stalin, they worked for the Kremlin and its ongoing imperialist policy.”

We present here some of the main theses put forward by Trotsky between 1937-1940, which show the essence of his absolutely (fascistic) anti-Communist struggle. Such evidence explains why people from Western intelligence agencies, such as Henri Bernard, use Trotsky to fight the the legitimate (Marxist-Leninist) Communists. They also shed light on the class struggle between the Bolsheviks and the opportunists and on some aspects of the so-called ‘purges’ of 1937-1938.

The Enemy is the New Aristocracy, the New Bolshevik Bourgeoisie

For Trotsky, the main enemy was at the head of the Soviet Union: it was the “new Bolshevik aristocracy,” the main anti-Socialist and anti-democratic stratum of society; a social stratum who lived like the “well-off bourgeois in the United States”. Here is how he expressed it in this connection:

“The privileged bureaucracy… now represents the most anti-Socialist and most anti-democratic sector of Soviet society.”

“We blame the ruling clique for transforming ourselves into a new aristocracy, oppressing and plundering the masses… The upper bureaucracy lives about the same kind of life as the prosperous bourgeois in the United States and other capitalist countries.”

These speeches make Trotsky indistinguishable from the Menshevik leaders, when they led a counter-Revolutionary armed struggle together with the armies of the whites and the interventionists. The main and most important point is that these expressions are also indistinguishable from the expressions of the classical right as expressed within the imperialist (capitalist) States.

Compare Trotsky with the main ideologists of anti-Communists from the International Confederation of Christian Unions (ICC) – PJ.S. Serrarenz – who wrote in 1948:

“Again, ‘classes’ and rich people, thanks to Stalin… Just like in capitalist society, the elite are rewarded with money and power. This is what ‘France Ouvriere’ termed ‘Soviet aristocracy’. This weakly compares it with the aristocracy created by Napoleon “.

After World War II, the French association ‘France Ouvriere’, to which Serrarens referred, was created and directly funded by the CIA. The Lambertist, Trotskyist group has worked – and is still working – in this misinforming and Trotskyite orientation. At the same time, the ICHS, whether in Italy or Belgium, worked with the CIA directly to defend the capitalist system in Europe. This policy was pursued in part, by turning the workers against legitimate (Marxist-Leninist) Communism, and using the repulsive ‘anti-capitalist’ demagogy adopted from the Social Democrats and the Trotskyites: in the Soviet Union, according to this disinformation, there was a ‘new class of rich people’, or a ‘Soviet aristocracy’, etc.

According to Trotsky, those opposing this ‘new aristocracy, the overwhelming and plundering mass’, were ‘the one hundred and sixty million who were deeply disappointed’. This ‘people’ defended the collectivization of the means of production and the planned economy from the ‘vulgar and despotic Stalinist thieves’. In other words, excluding the ‘Stalinists’, the rest of the people were pure and only opposed Stalin! We are listening to Trotsky:

“From twelve to fifteen million privileged people are the people who organize parades, demonstrations and ovations… But apart from these favourites, there are still one hundred and sixty million who are deeply disappointed…

The antagonism between the bureaucracy and the people is measured by an increase in the cruelty of the totalitarian government …

Bureaucracy can only be crushed by a new political Revolution.”

“The economy is planned on the basis of the nationalization and collectivization of the means of production. This State economy has its own laws, which are less and less consistent with the despotism, ignorance and banditry of the Stalinist bureaucracy.”

Since, according to Trotsky, as a return to capitalism has become impossible, any opposition to Stalin’s Soviet Union, be it social democratic, revisionist, bourgeois or counter-Revolutionary, has become permissible. It was the voice of ‘one hundred and sixty million who were deeply disappointed’ which sought to ‘defend’ the generalization of the means of production from the ‘new aristocracy’. This is how Trotsky became a unifying voice of hope for all reactionary forces, anti-Socialists and fascists.

Bolshevism and Fascism

Trotsky was one of the first to put Bolshevism and fascism on a par. This idea was popular in the thirties in reactionary Catholic parties. The Communist Party was their sworn enemy, the fascist party was their most important bourgeois opponent. Once again from Trotsky:

“Fascism is winning victory after victory, and his best ally is the one who makes his way around the world, this is Stalinism.”

“Indeed, nothing distinguishes Stalin’s political methods from Hitler. But the difference in results on an international scale is significant.”

“An important part of the Soviet apparatus, which is becoming more and more important, is formed from the fascists who still have to recognize themselves as such. Comparing the Soviet regime with the fascists would be a great historical mistake … But the symmetry of political superstructures and the similarity of totalitarian methods and psychological profiles are striking …

The agony of Stalinism is the most terrible and most disgusting spectacle on Earth.”

Here, Trotsky presented one of the first versions of the most important issue of propaganda by the CIA and the fascists in the 1950s, namely the topic of ‘Red Fascism’. Using the word fascism, Trotsky tried to direct the hatred that the masses felt towards the terrorist dictatorships of big capital onto Socialism. After 1944-1945, all German, Hungarian, Croatian and Ukrainian fascist leaders, who fled to the West, put on masks of “democrats”; they praised the ‘democracy’ of the USA, the new forces of hegemonism, and the main source of support for the reaction and fascist forces in the world. These ‘old” fascists, faithful to their criminal past, developed the same theme: ‘Bolshevism is the same fascism, but even worse.’

Further, we note that by the time European fascism had already begun its wars (in Ethiopia and Spain, the seizure of Austria and Czechoslovakia), Trotsky insisted that ‘the worst and most disgusting performance’ on Earth was the ‘agony of socialism’!

Defeatism and Surrender to Nazi Germany

Trotsky became the main propagandist of defeatism and capitulationism in the Soviet Union. His demagogic ‘World Revolution’ contributed to a better strangulation of the Socialist Revolution. Trotsky promoted the idea that in the event of a fascist aggression against the Soviet Union, Stalin and the Bolsheviks would ‘become traitors’, and that under their leadership the defeat of the Soviet Union would be inevitable. Here are his thoughts on this:

“The military situation of the Soviet Union is contradictory. On the one hand, we have a population of 170 million people, awakened by the greatest Revolution in history… with a more or less developed military industry. On the other hand, we have a political regime that has paralyzed all the forces of the new society… I am sure of one thing: the political regime will not survive the war. A social regime that is the nationalized property of production is incomparably more powerful than a political regime that has a despotic character… The present perpetuators of this political regime (or bureaucracy) are afraid of the prospect of war, because they know better than us, that they will not survive in a war against their regime.”

Once again: on the same side ‘170 million’ ‘good’ citizens, awakened by the Revolution. It remains only to wonder who woke them up, if not the Bolshevik Party and Stalin: in the years 1921-1928, the peasant masses were not exactly ‘awakened’. These ‘170 million’ had a ‘developed military industry’. As if this is not the Stalinist policy of collectivization and industrialization carried out thanks to his steel will, which allowed an arms industry to be created in record time! Thanks to his exact line, his will, his ability to organize, the Bolshevik regime awakened the forces of the people, whose fate was ignorance, prejudice and the primitive labor of individuals. According to the provocateur Trotsky, the Bolshevik regime paralyzed these social forces! And Trotsky gives all sorts of absurd predictions: the Bolshevik regime certainly will not survive the war! So, two propaganda themes that were dear to the Nazis could be found in Trotsky’s writings: defeatism and anti-Bolshevism.

“Berlin knows to what extent the Kremlin clique demoralized the army and population in the struggle for self-preservation …

Stalin continues to undermine the moral strength and the general level of resistance of the country. Careerists without honour and conscience, on which Stalin is forced to rely, will betray the country at a difficult time.”

In his hatred of Communism, Trotsky incites the Nazis to wage war against the Soviet Union. He, an ’eminent expert’ on the Soviet Union, told the Nazis that they had every chance of winning the war against Stalin: the army and the population were demoralized (false!), Stalin frustrated resistance (false!) And that the Stalinists would capitulate at the beginning of the war (false!).

In the Soviet Union, Trotskyites propaganda produced a double effect. It cultivated defeatism and capitulationism, saying that fascism was guaranteed victory with such a rotten and incompetent Soviet leadership. Moreover, this propaganda called for attempts at ‘uprisings’ and murders of Bolshevik leaders ‘who will betray you in difficult times’. The leadership, which was categorically predetermined to fall during any future war, could well fall at the beginning of that war. On this instruction, Trotsky called upon his followers to unite with anti-Soviet and opportunist groups in any battle to bring-down the USSR!

In both cases, Trotsky’s provocations directly helped the Nazi Germans.

Trotsky and the Tukhachevsky Plot

In the chapter devoted to the military plot of Tukhachevsky, we will show that an extensive anti-Communist organization really existed in the personnel of the Red Army. Impressive was the position of Trotsky in relation to this phenomenon.

Here is a written testimony about Trotsky’s attitude to the Tukhachevsky case:

“Here I have to state what my relations were with Tukhachevsky where… I never considered the Communist convictions of this officer of the old guard to be serious …

The generals fought to protect the security of the Soviet Union from what was being done in the interests of Stalin’s personal security.”

“The army needs honest, capable people, as well as economists and scientists, independent people with a broad mindset. Every man and woman with independent thinking is in conflict with the bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy must lose one of its heads to save itself… A person who is a true general, like Tukhachevsky, needs independent assistants, other Generals around him, where he will evaluate each person according to his inner values. The bureaucracy needs obedient people, confused people, slaves, and these two types of people are in conflict in each State.”

“Tukhachevsky, and with him the entire pedigree of military personnel, disappeared in the fight against the police dictatorship hanging over the officers of the Red Army. According to its public characteristics, the military bureaucracy is no better than the civil bureaucracy… If the bureaucracy is considered as a whole there two functions: power and control. Now these two functions have come into sharp conflict. To ensure good governance, totalitarian power must be destroyed…

What does the new duality of power mean: the first step is the disintegration of the Red Army or the beginning of a new civil war in the country?

The current generation of commissars means control of the Bonapartist clique over the military and civil administration, and, therefore, over the people…

The current commanders who grew up in the Red Army cannot be divorced from it and have absolute authority gained over many years. On the other hand, commissioners recruited from the sons of bureaucrats who have neither Revolutionary experience, nor military knowledge, nor even ideological capital. Such is the archetype of the careerists of the new school. They are only called to command, because they are ‘alert’, that is, they represent the police in the army. Commanders show them their hatred for what they serve. The dual command regime turns into a struggle between the political police and the army, and the central authority on the side of the police…

The development of the country, especially the growth of its new needs, is incomparable with totalitarian husks; That is why we see a tendency to resist the bureaucracy in all manifestations of life… In the field of technology, economics, education, culture, defense, people with experience, knowledge of science and authority automatically reject the agents of the Stalinist dictatorship, which are mostly uncultured and uncouth cynics like Yezhov and Mehlis.”

First of all, Trotsky had to admit that Tukhachevsky and those like him were never Communists: previously, Trotsky himself defined Tukhachevsky as a candidate for a military coup like Napoleon. Moreover, wanting to preserve a possible ally in a merciless struggle with Stalin, Trotsky denied the existence of a bourgeois counter-Revolutionary opposition in the army elite. In fact, he supported any opposition against Stalin and the Bolshevik Party, including Tukhachevsky, any other disruptive elements, etc. Trotsky led the united political front with all the anti-Communists in the army. This clearly shows that Trotsky could come to power only in alliance with the counter-Revolutionary forces. Trotsky declared that those who fought against Stalin and the leadership of the party in the army actually fought for the security of the country, while the officers loyal to the party defended Stalin’s dictatorship and his personal interests.

It is noteworthy that Trotsky’s analysis of the struggle inside the Red Army coincides with the analysis of Roman Kolkovitsa from his report to the US Army. First, Trotsky opposes party measures to ensure political control in the Red Army. In particular, Trotsky is attacking the return to the army of political commissars who will play a significant political role in the anti-fascist resistance during the war and will help young soldiers to maintain a clear political line, despite the incredible complexity of the problems posed by the war. Trotsky encouraged the elite and exceptional sentiments of the military, contrary to the Party, with the aim of splitting the Red Army and provoking a civil war. Further, Trotsky declared his disposition to independence, that is, the ‘professionalism’ of officers, saying that they are capable, honest and widely thinks that their opposition to the Party will increase! Similarly, anti-Communist elements like Tokayev defended their dissident bourgeois ideas in the name of independence and broad thinking!

Trotsky declared that there was a conflict between the ‘Stalinist’ government and the government of the country, and that he supported the government. In fact, the phenomenon he describes was antagonism between the Bolshevik Party and State bureaucracy. Like all the anti-Communists of the world, Trotsky slandered the Communist Party, calling it ‘bureaucratic’. In reality, the real threat of bureaucracy came from a part of the administrative apparatus, which was not Communist in its essence, and sought to get rid of the ‘suffocating’ political and ideological control of the party, to remain forever over the rest of society and gain various privileges and benefits. The political control of the Party over military and civilian leadership was particularly aimed at combating such tendencies of bureaucratic decay. When Trotsky wrote that in order to ensure good leadership of the country the Party should be eliminated, he was the spokesman for the most bureaucratic sentiments in the State apparatus.

In general, Trotsky defended the ‘professionalism’ of the military, technical, scientific and cultural personnel, that is, all technocrats who tried to get rid of Party control and wanted to ‘limit party influence on all aspects of life’, according to Trotsky’s instructions.

In the class struggle that took place in the State and the Party in the thirties or forties, the front line ran between the forces defending Stalin-Leninist positions and those who were inspired by technocracy, bureaucracy and militarism. And it is precisely the last force that will at one time achieve hegemony over the leadership of the Party during the Khrushchev coup.

RELATED CONTENT: Left Anti-Communism: A Trojan Horse That Weakens the Working Class

Trotskyites – Provocateurs in the Service of the Nazi Germany

Trotsky aligned himself with fascism in this way; On the one hand he stated that the USSR must prepare to defend itself against a Nazi German invasion, whilst on the other, he stated that a crucial first part of this ‘defense’ has to include a ‘pre-emptive’ attack on the leadership and establishment of what he termed the ‘Stalinist leadership’ and all Soviet agencies loyal to Stalin. However, as the Nazi Germans – as Trotsky advocated – would target Stalin and his Soviet (Communist) Government, it logically followed that the Nazi Germans, Trotsky (and by implications, Trotsky’s followers and reactionary elements such as the Roman Catholic Church), were all pursuing the same objectives, if not necessarily for the same reasons. Trotsky believed that the fascist-inspired destruction of the USSR was a price worth paying for freeing the Soviet people from what he thought to be the ‘tyranny’ of Soviet Communism, regardless of the loss of life and material destruction involved in such a potential eventuality. Trotsky believed that out of the ashes of this fascist nightmare, he would emerge as the ‘new’ leader of a Socialist System entirely made entirely in his own image (the religious symbolism is striking). This is how Trotsky became a tool in the hands of the Nazi Germans. Recently, this history of Trotsky’s collaboration with fascism presented at a rally at the Free University of Brussels (ULB), after which a talkative fan of Trotsky shouted: “It is not true! Trotsky always declared that he certainly protected the Soviet Union from imperialism!”

Yes, Trotsky has always appeared to defend the Soviet Union, implying that the destruction of the Bolshevik Party would be the best preparation for defense! The essential point is that Trotsky called for an anti-Bolshevik uprising, the benefits of which the Nazi Germans would have received, and not merely a handful of deluded Trotskyites. Trotsky preached an uprising in the name of the ‘best defense’ of the Soviet Union, but he obviously took an anti-Communist position (that benefited Hitler) and mobilized all anti-Socialist forces. There is no doubt that the Nazi Germans were the first to appreciate this ‘best defense of the Soviet Union’ (as was Trotsky’s intention).

What Are the Exact Words of Trotsky on this Score:

“‘I cannot be’ for the USSR ‘at all. I am for the working masses who created the USSR, and against the bureaucracy, which usurped the revolutionary gains… The duty of a serious revolutionary is to declare quite frankly and openly: Stalin is preparing to defeat the USSR.”

“The old Bolshevik Party turned into a caste of apparatchiks…

We will defend the USSR against the imperialist enemy with all our might. However, the gains of the October Revolution will serve the people only if it shows its ability to act simultaneously against the Stalinist (Communist) bureaucracy, as we did before the Czarist bureaucracy and the bourgeoisie.”

“Only the uprising of the Soviet proletariat against the foundations of the tyranny of new parasites can save what remains in society from the gains of October… In this sense, and only in this sense, do we defend the October Revolution (and USSR) from imperialism, fascists and democrats, from the Stalin bureaucracy and from their ‘hired friends’.”

From these quotations it becomes clear that the words “we support the USSR in the struggle against imperialism” were said by an anti-Communist, who had to say them if he wanted to get even the slightest chance to be heard by the masses, ready to defend the Socialist regime to the bitter end. But only political blindness of people could hide from them the meaning of the word ‘defense’ in these quotes. This is how the traitors and enemies actually prepared the defense: “Stalin will betray, he is preparing a defeat; it means that Stalin and the Bolsheviks must be destroyed to defend the USSR.” Such propaganda perfectly suited the Nazi Germans.

Trotsky ‘defended’ the Soviet Union, but without Stalin and the Bolsheviks. He claimed the defense of the Soviet Union ‘with all his might’, that is, along with several thousand of his followers in the USSR! In the meantime, these several thousand outcasts were to prepare an uprising against Stalin and the Bolshevik Party! Wonderful defense, rest assured.

Even hardened anti-Communists, such as Tokayev, believed that Trotsky, with his writings, worked for the Nazi German aggressors. Tokayev was an anti-Communist, but a supporter of British imperialism. At the beginning of the war, he made the following confession: “The peoples of the USSR, driven by their inner feelings, in the face of mortal danger, united with the Stalinist regime… The opposing forces had hands tied; and it was a spontaneous act even with the devil to defeat Hitler”… the opposition to Stalin not only caused damage to the international struggle with the Axis countries (Rome-Berlin-Tokyo), but was equivalent to resisting all the peoples of the USSR. ”

With the approach of World War II, Trotsky’s main concern, if not the only one, was the overthrow of the Bolshevik Party in the Soviet Union. His main position was taken from the world of the extreme right: “He who defends Stalin and the Bolshevik Party, directly or indirectly, is the worst enemy of Socialism.” Here is an excerpt from Trotsky’s declaration:

“The reactionary bureaucracy must and will be overthrown. A political revolution in the USSR is inevitable.”

“Only the overthrow of the Bonapartist clique of the Kremlin can make the revival of the military power of the USSR possible… The struggle against war, imperialism and fascism requires a ruthless war against the stained Stalinism by crimes. his military power is the worst enemy of Revolution, Socialism, and oppressed people.”

When these lines were written in 1938, a fierce class struggle between Fascism and Bolshevism unfolded on the world stage. Only the far-right ideologues of French, British or American imperialism or fascism could support Trotsky’s thesis:

“The one who defends Stalinism, directly or indirectly … is the worst enemy.”

Trotsky Called for Terrorism and Armed Uprisings!

Since 1934, Trotsky has constantly called for the overthrow of the Bolsheviks through terrorism and armed uprisings.

In April 1938, Trotsky declared that an attempt on the life of Stalin and other Bolshevik leaders would inevitably happen in the USSR. Of course, he continued, individual terror is contrary to Leninist tactics. But you see, “the laws of history tell us that assassination attempts and acts of terror against brigands like Stalin are inevitable.” Here’s how in 1938, Trotsky put forward a programme of individual terror: “Stalin destroys the army and crushes the country .. Irreconcilable hatred accumulates around him, and terrible revenge hangs over his head”.

“Attempt to kill? It is possible that the regime, which, under the pretext of fighting terrorism, destroyed the best minds in the country, will eventually experience individual terror. Anyone can add that it would be against the laws of history if the robber in power were not the object of acts of revenge for desperate terrorists. But the Fourth International… should not do anything out of desperation and personal thirst for revenge, and individual terror is too much for us… Since Stalin’s personal future concerns us, we can only hope that his personal destiny is to live long enough to see the collapse of his system. But he will not have to wait long.”

So, for the Trotskyites, it would be “against the laws of history,” if someone had not attempted to kill Stalin, Molotov, Kaganovich, Zhdanov, etc. It was an ‘intelligent’ and ‘reasonable’ move for a secret Trotskyite organization to come up with such a message. It did not mention the “organization of attempted murder”; but preferred: “the revenge of terrorists on Stalin as part of the laws of history”. Recall that in the anti-Communist circles, which included Tokayev and Alexander Zinoviev, there was much talk about preparing for the attempt to assassinate the Bolshevik leaders. Everyone can easily establish that these forces were inspired by the writings of Trotsky.

Trotsky alternated calls for individual terror with propaganda of an armed uprising against the Bolshevik leadership. In general, he used a veiled and deceptive formulation of the ‘political Revolution’. During a dispute with the Trotskyite Mandel in 1989, we said that Trotsky was calling for an armed struggle against the Soviet regime. Mandel became angry and shouted that this was a ‘Stalinist lie’, since ‘political Revolution’ means a People’s Revolution, but one that is peaceful. This anecdote is an example of duplicity, systematically used by professional anti-Communists, whose primary task is to infiltrate into the ranks of the left (i.e. ‘Entryism’). Here, Mandel wanted to appeal to the audience of environmentalists. Here is the program of anti-Bolshevik armed struggle advanced by Trotsky:

“People… survived three Revolutions against the royal monarchy, the nobility and the bourgeoisie. In a sense, the Soviet bureaucracy now embodies the features of all the overthrown classes, but without their social roots and traditions. She can defend her enormous privileges only by organized terror…

The country’s defense can be organized only through the destruction of the autocratic clique of saboteurs and defeatists.”

As a true Social Revolutionary, Trotsky declared that Socialism united the exploiting features of Czarist, nobility and the bourgeoisie. But, he said, Socialism did not have that broad social base, as those exploiting forces! Therefore, the anti-Socialist masses can overthrow Socialism much more easily. It was a call to all the reactionary forces to attack the disgusting, precarious regime and to carry out the “Fourth Revolution.”

In September 1938, Austria was annexed. It was the month of Munich, where French and British imperialism gave Hitler the green light for the occupation of Czechoslovakia. In his new ‘Transition Programme’, Trotsky set the tasks of his organization in the Soviet Union, despite the fact that he himself agreed that “as an organization … Trotskyism is certainly extremely weak in the Soviet Union.” He continues:

“The Thermidorian oligarchy… is held at the expense of terrorist methods… the main political task in the USSR is still the overthrow of this very Thermidorian bureaucracy … Only a victorious Revolutionary uprising of the oppressed masses can revive the Soviet regime and guarantee its further development towards Socialism. There is only one Party capable of leading the uprising of the Soviet people – the Party of the Fourth International. ”

This document, which all Trotskyite sects regarded as the main program, contains a significant statement. When will this “rebellion” and “performance” occur? Trotsky’s response is striking in its directness: Trotsky planned his ‘uprising’ at the time of the Nazi German attack on the Soviet Union:

“The motivation for the Revolutionary upsurge of the Soviet workers will probably be given by events outside the country.”

The following quote is a good example of a dual approach. In 1933, Trotsky declared that one of the ‘principled crimes’ of the German Stalinists was to abandon a united front with the Social Democrats against fascism. But until Hitler came to power in 1933, the Social Democrats did everything they could to preserve the capitalist regime and repeatedly refused to join forces with the German Communist Party. In May 1940, eight months after the start of World War II, a great specialist in the ‘united front’ Trotsky, suggested that the Red Army would launch an uprising against the Bolshevik regime! He wrote in his Open Letter to the Soviet Workers:

“The purpose of the Fourth International… is the revival of the USSR by cleansing it from the parasitic bureaucracy. This can be done only in one way: by workers, peasants, soldiers of the Red Army and sailors of the Red Fleet, who will rebel against the new caste of oppressors and parasites. To prepare this uprising of the masses, we need a new Party… The Fourth International.”

At a time when Hitler was preparing for war with the Soviet Union, the provocateur Trotsky called upon the Red Army to carry out a coup. Such an event would have caused tremendous disasters, opening the whole country to the Nazi German tanks!





Featured image: Trotsky – Collaborator with Fascism!

РОЛЬ ТРОЦКОГО В КАНУН ВТОРОЙ МИРОВОЙ ВОЙНЫ

(The Sangha Kommune SSR)

Translation: Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD

https://orinocotribune.com/trotskys-sup ... cism-1938/

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10587
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Soviet Union

Post by blindpig » Sun Feb 07, 2021 3:26 pm

Image

‘Who ended the Holocaust?’
Posted Feb 02, 2021 by Eds.

Originally published: Strategic Culture by Martin SIEFF (January 29, 2021)

Today in the West, while hypocritical empty crocodile tears are wept over the Nazis’ victims, real history continues to be suppressed, denied and buried beneath mountains of lies.

The anniversary of the Liberation of Auschwitz on January 27, 1945 and Holocaust Remembrance Day every year have been hijacked. They have become bizarre photographic negatives of the horrors they were meant to commemorate and manipulated to insult the millions of victims and the heroic warriors who gave their lives to end such horrors

For who ended the Holocaust? Who actually liberated and shut down every one of the six great Nazi industrialized extermination camp killing centers of death at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Majdanek, Sobibor, Chelmno, Treblinka and Belzec? Why the Soviet Red Army did of course.

They did not just stroll into camps at the end of the war where the cowardly Nazi SS ubermenschen had just fled for their lives to forever after fearfully claim they were “just following orders.” No. From October 1944 when astonished and revolted Red Army soldiers and officers first uncovered the horrors of Majdanek in central Poland to the fierce battle that still cost many lives in the freeing of Auschwitz-Birkenau itself on January 27, 1945, the war was still raging, the Nazi war machine was still fiercely functioning and previous innocent blood had to paid for every yard that was freed.

Yet today, and for many years now, we have entered a world of the Great Moral Inversion. The thousands of precious lives that the extraordinarily dedicated medical staff of Marshal Ivan Konev’s First Ukrainian Front of the Red Army saved at Auschwitz alone are forgotten. Western intellectuals now proclaim a contemptible moral equivalence between those who died fighting to rescue and save, and those who killed them and all the genocide victims.

The scale of this moral inversion–this contemptible behavior that the great Sigmund Freud–whose own sisters and their families died in the Holocaust–identified as “projection,” becomes more huge and disgusting every year. We now know that in addition to the six million Jewish victims of the Nazi genocide, at least 20 million innocent Russian civilians were deliberately exterminated too in 200 smaller camps across the occupied East set up and run for that very purpose. Where are the ceremonies and heartfelt tears in the West for them?

The very commander of the heroic unit that liberated Auschwitz, the 1085th ‘Tarnopol’ Rifle Regiment of Major General Petr Zubov’s 322nd Division, was of Ukrainian Jewish origin himself, Lieutenant Colonel Anatoly Shapiro lived to the age of 92 and eventually died on Long Island in the United States. To the end of his days, he was proud of his lifetime service in the Red Army: He spent the last years of his life combatting the Big Lie of Holocaust denial by neo-Nazis.

By contrast, today in the West, while hypocritical empty crocodile tears are wept over the Nazis’ victims, real history continues to be suppressed, denied and buried beneath mountains of lies. And not coincidentally, new Nazi slugs arise from the garbage piles from Ukraine to Washington. Starting with the 2014 U.S. and European Union-backed coup that murderously toppled the democratically elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych led to the open, defiant emergence of open neo-Nazi militias and forces that continue to weld disproportionate power in Ukraine, backed by the U.S. government to this day.

New U.S. President Joe Biden has already approved the appointment of one of the open architects and champions of the infamous coup, neocon Victoria Newland, then Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, as the new Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs–the position that basically tells Secretary of State Anthony Blinken what to think. From Kiev to Moscow, Nuland has been remembered unforgettably as “The Cookie Lady” who openly handed out sweet treats on ßthe streets of Kiev to encourage the rioters who were waging revolution and war on their democratically elected government.

But what goes around comes around. Blowback of course is now happening all across the United States. The mob that blundered into the U.S. Capitol, more by luck and permission than by deliberate armed force, on January 6 was mixed with individuals who were idealistic and admirable as well as contemptible clowns. Several white supremacists among them were proudly photographed in Camp Auschwitz T-shirts. One can only imagine how such vile slugs would scream in terror if confronted with any of Marshal Konev’s brave real warriors.

The 2014 coup is now called with masterly irony in Wikipedia “The Revolution of Dignity.” That is a Big Lie even Josef Goebbels would have envied.

Scores of millions of decent, suffering working class Americans who have been crucified on the crazed policies of global liberalism, open borders and hard drugs on demand for the past half century are now being slandered and conflated with a handful of jerks and agent provocateurs. The new fascism across the West justifies itself by suppressing traditional freedoms and speech by sticking on the Innocent, labels taken from the Guilty.

According to Lev Golinkin, writing on the New York Forward news web site, well over a thousand statues to Nazi war criminals have been erected from the United States to Ukraine over the past 20 years.

“Wherever you see statues of Nazi collaborators, you’ll also find thousands of torch-carrying men, rallying, organizing, drawing inspiration for action by celebrating collaborators of the past,” Golinkin writes,

In Ukraine, where 25 percent of the Jews killed in the Holocaust died: “In 2016, a major Kyiv boulevard was renamed after [Nazi collaborator Stepan] Bandera. The renaming is particularly obscene since the street leads to Babi Yar, the ravine where Nazis, aided by Ukrainian collaborators, exterminated 33,771 Jews in two days, in one of the largest single massacres of the Holocaust,” Golinkin continued.

Yet of course, the Biden administration has made clear it is preparing to send even more lethal weapons to arm the ferociously Russian-hating regime which perpetrates such despicable measures.

This obscene farce unfolds now every year, but it is not even a constant: It is getting worse than ever at an exponentially accelerating rate of intensity. One now has to turn to calculus to grasp it.

It is surely more than an ordinary coincidence that on Holocaust Memorial Day this year, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced its latest setting of its fearful Doomsday Clock assessing the possible imminence of nuclear war.

The experts who set the clock clearly welcomed Joe Biden replacing Donald Trump as U.S. president, a predictable liberal bigotry. Yet they remained clear-eyed enough, scientific enough to recognize and publicly acknowledge that this would be no improvement at all. The setting of the symbolic clock remains at only 100 seconds to midnight, the closest setting to nuclear war in its 74 year history.

It should have been moved much closer–perhaps to only 75 seconds to catastrophe: For the intensifying phenomena on Western Holocaust denial and projection: The obsession with backing real live 21st century Nazis in Ukraine against the descendants of the very people who died to save the world from them, is now clearly linked to the blowback of emerging white supremacy and leftist anti-Russian conspiracy theories alike in the United States.

Stupid and wicked policies pursued across Eastern Europe have driven U.S. policymakers literally mad–or perhaps just even more insane–and that mania has poisoned and destroyed the fading embers of democratic due process and fair play in the United States itself. The two theaters of madness generating more wickedness are inextricably linked. They cannot be separated.

To truly be a great president and bring the peace at home he claims to cherish, President Biden needs to end at last the disastrous policies in Ukraine and elsewhere that he supported as vice president under Barack Obama. But that would be a new idea–and the new president appears to be incapable of ever accepting such things. Then the obscenity of Holocaust Remembrance Hypocrisy will continue–until its madness brings Destruction upon all.

Martin SIEFF, during his 24 years as a senior foreign correspondent for The Washington Times and United Press International, he reported from more than 70 nations and covered 12 wars. He has specialized in U.S. and global economic issues.

https://mronline.org/2021/02/02/who-end ... holocaust/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10587
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Soviet Union

Post by blindpig » Tue Mar 02, 2021 2:07 pm

The inglorious end of a former communist
03/02/2021
History lessons

On March 02, 2021 Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev celebrates his 90th birthday .

Image

Biography of M.S. Gorbacheva is well known to readers. He was born in the grain barn of Russia in the Stavropol Territory in the family of a peasant who became a collective farm combine operator. From childhood he helped his father and was so successful that he was awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor.

To work all my life on the collective farm of M.S. Gorbachev was not going to. In 1950 he entered the Law Faculty of Moscow University. Misha was a conscientious student, studied well, took an active part in the Komsomol work, in 1952 he joined the ranks of the CPSU (he became a candidate while still on the collective farm). After graduating from Moscow State University, he was assigned to the Stavropol Prosecutor's Office, but worked there for only 10 days, after which he transferred to a vacated job in the regional committee of the Komsomol. For this job he was recommended by the husband of the headmaster of the school where Misha studied.

The regional leadership appreciated Gorbachev's business qualities (which was greatly facilitated by his ability to "show" his work). Apparently, the promotion of the Komsomol worker was largely facilitated by his propaganda of the Student Production Brigades. The first such brigade appeared in the Stavropol Territory in 1955 .

Image
Apprentice production team

In 1967 M.S. Gorbachev graduated from the correspondence agricultural institute and became a certified agronomist. This paves the way for him to lead agriculture.

In 1962 , Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev switched to party work, where he was quickly promoted. He is actively supported by the first secretary of the Stavropol regional committee of the CPSU Fyodor Davydovich Kulakov (1918 - 1978), who in 1965 became the secretary of the CPSU Central Committee for agriculture, and then a member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee.

Image
M.S. Gorbachev and F.D. Kulakov

In the 1960s M.S. Gorbachev meets his fellow countryman Yuri Vladimirovich Andropov (1914 - 1983). In 1969 , Andropov offered Gorbachev the post of his deputy for the KGB, but the appointment did not take place.

Mikhail Sergeevich is well known in Moscow. In addition to Andropov and Kulakov, he is supported by Mikhail Andreevich Suslov (1902 - 1982) and Andrei Andreevich Gromyko (1909 - 1989). In 1970 , at the age of 39, M.S. Gorbachev becomes First Secretary of the Stavropol Regional Party Committee.

In the 1970s M.S. Gorbachev is offered various high positions in Moscow. For example, the posts of the head of the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the Minister of Agriculture of the USSR, the Prosecutor General of the USSR (a graduate of the Faculty of Law of Moscow State University - that sounds!). But Gorbachev refuses. The post of the party leader of the main granary of the country seems to him more promising.

Image
Mikhail Andreevich Suslov
Image
Andrey Andreevich Gromyko

Among the initiatives actively promoted by M.S. Gorbachev in the Stavropol Territory - the so-called Ipatovsky method, first tested in the Ipatovsky district of the Stavropol Territory in 1977 . Its essence is the creation of complex harvesting teams, including combines, road transport, structures serving equipment. Such a detachment "piled on" one field, reaped the harvest very quickly, then moved on to another.

The Ipatov method was actively supported by the Central Committee of the CPSU, which apparently helped to transfer Gorbachev to Moscow. At the same time, this method had its drawbacks and was not widely used in the future.

In July 1978, Fyodor Davydovich Kulakov, a member of the Politburo and secretary of the CPSU Central Committee in charge of agricultural issues, unexpectedly dies. Several candidates are proposed for his place. In the end, M.S. Gorbachev. In 1980 , Gorbachev was elected a member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee.

As Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee for Agriculture, M.S. Gorbachev oversaw the development of the Food Program, which was adopted in 1982 .

In March 1985 , Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev was elected General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee.

Image
The Pravda newspaper with a report on the election of M.S. Gorbachev General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee

About the political activity of M.S. Gorbachev as General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee has written a lot, and I will not repeat the material well known to the reader. I will dwell only on some of the conclusions.

In his views, the Soviet leader Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev was a typical representative of EUROCOMMUNISM, a political movement that emerged within the framework of the world communist movement in the 1960s. This trend included the leader of the Spanish Communist Party Santiago Carrillo (1915 - 2012), the leader of the Italian Communist Party Enrico Berlinguer (1922 - 1984), a number of leaders of the French Communist Party. There were Eurocommunists in the countries of the socialist camp as well. For example, Alexander Dubchek (1921 - 1992), who headed the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia in 1968.

The main idea of ​​Eurocommunism was to abandon the communist idea and turn the Communist parties into reformist parties that seek to improve capitalism, but do not undermine its foundations.

Image
Santiago Carrillo
Image
Alexander Dubchek

The Soviet leadership did not officially approve of the Eurocommunists, but criticized them rather sluggishly. Because the Soviet leadership of the 1960s and 1970s itself has lost its historical perspective and interest in the perspective of communism. The concept of "developed socialism" became the basis of Soviet ideology, on the basis of which it was, in principle, impossible to form a strategy for the development of Soviet society.

With all this, the obvious Eurocommunists in the West and implicit ones in the countries of the Soviet bloc did not seek to abandon leftist ideas. They remained pink. For conversations in favor of the poor after a hearty dinner are always pleasant for an intelligent and decent person.

The views of a significant part of Soviet society, tired of the everyday difficulties of the 1930s - 1950s, also evolved towards Eurocommunism. Many have secretly, and often openly, already dreamed of a prosperous life for the Western "middle class." People wanted to make good money and not choke in queues and at the same time enjoy the benefits of socialism. Desires, generally speaking, are quite natural.

But another force was growing up in the USSR, which understood very well what it wanted and did not have a penchant for sentimental phrases about "socialism with a human face." This force wanted wealth and power and understood that the social system that was established in our country after 1917 did not allow it to satisfy its claims. Therefore, she did not need socialism from any side. What was needed was pig-snout capitalism, which was established in our country after 1991.

Image
B.N. Yeltsin and M.S. Gorbachev

Was M.S. Is Gorbachev a clear supporter of this force? I don't think ... It is possible that he sincerely believed in convergence and in socialism with a human face. This explains the crushing collapse of his political career in 1991 . He did his job (I don't know how consciously) and, together with his conversations on the topic "More socialism!", Turned out to be unnecessary for the new masters of life. These owners threw the former leader into the trash as a disposable product.

A similar fate befell many Western Eurocommunists. The once huge Italian and French communist parties, having abandoned the communist ideology, disintegrated into a large number of small organizations that do not have a noticeable impact on the political life of their countries. Unlike the Communist Parties in countries such as Greece and Chile, where the communists remained communists, and did not switch to other activities that inspire many leftists in the modern world. For example, to protect the rights of sexual minorities.

Today about M.S. Very few people remember Gorbachev. You can only sympathize with any lonely old man you don't need. However, each person builds his own destiny and reaps what he sowed.

Image
S.V. Bagotsky
From the editor. We do not fully agree with the author's reflections on Gorbachev's motives and ideas. Looking back, we see how this man deliberately destroyed the foundations of Soviet society, cleared the way for capitalist relations. It is hardly possible to do this and remain a supporter of some progressive ideas ... But it is not a matter of personalities. The point is in the lines reflecting the interests of certain classes. Whatever Gorbachev thought or said about himself, he became a battering ram of the bourgeois counter-revolution in our country. Thanks to this counter-revolution, millions of lives were lost, and the country itself collapsed and was plunged into a catastrophe that continues to this day ...

If Gorbachev had not been there, the capitalists would have found another executor of their will; there were many applicants. But history turned in such a way that this man turned out to be Gorbachev. Therefore, on the day of his 90th birthday, it is this name that every honest person utters with contempt and curses.
https://www.rotfront.su/besslavnyj-kone ... ommunista/

Google Translator

Swine and traitor, he should be buried in shit. It does not matter what he 'felt', 'really believed'.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10587
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Soviet Union

Post by blindpig » Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:56 pm

Hirsch Glick - poet and underground anti-fascist
04/27/2021

Personality that will remind you why you live

April 24, 1921 marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of the Soviet poet Girsh Glick (1921 - 1944). He entered the history of Russian and world poetry with one single poem that the whole world knows.


Image
Literary group "Jung Vilne"

Hirsch Glick was born in Vilna (Vilnius), which was part of Poland at that time, in the family of a poor Jewish old man. Due to material difficulties, he could not finish high school. He worked as a salesman and factory worker. He wrote poetry at the age of 14, first in Yiddish and then in Hebrew, and established contacts with the Jung Vilne literary group. The life of a worker in a capitalist country naturally formed the leftist views of the young poet.

In 1940 Vilnius became part of Soviet Lithuania. Hirsch Glick welcomed the accession of Lithuania to the USSR and actively collaborated with Soviet publications, took part in the creation of the literary magazine "Jungvald" ("Porosl").

Image

On June 24, 1941, the troops of fascist Germany entered Vilnius. And on July 2, Einsatzgroup A arrived in Vilnius, which, with the help of local nationalists, began the targeted extermination of Jews. In July-August 1941, about 30 thousand Jews were shot in Vilnius and its environs. The rest of the Jews, including Hirsch Glick, were moved to the Vilnius ghetto. Soon an underground organization was created in the ghetto, headed by a veteran of the Lithuanian communist underground Itzik (Isaac) Vitenberg (1906 - 1943). Hirsch Glick also became an active underground member.

The weapon that young Hirsch Glick perfectly wielded was poetry, which quickly turned into songs. In 1942 he wrote the words to the song "Quiet Night", dedicated to the partisans who blew up the German train. And then he creates the main work of his life - the poem "Zog Nit Kane Mol" ("Do not say that you are going on your last journey ..."). It was set to the music of the Soviet song "Those Are Not Clouds - Thunder Clouds ...", written by brothers Dmitry Yakovlevich (1899 - 1978) and Daniil Yakovlevich (1905 - 1954) Pokrass. The song quickly went beyond the Vilnius ghetto and began to spread throughout Europe, gaining immense popularity among the Jewish and not only the Jewish population of the countries occupied by the Nazis. It was called the "Partisan Anthem", "The Anthem of the Jewish Partisans."

Image
Veteran of the Lithuanian communist underground Itzik (Isaac) Vitenberg

In July 1943, the Nazis learned about the existence of an underground in the ghetto. They managed to arrest I. Vitenberg, but the underground fighters recaptured him. Then the Nazis presented an ultimatum: either Vitenberg will be issued by the Gestapo, or the ghetto will be completely destroyed. Then I. Vitenberg himself went to the Germans and drank potassium cyanide.

In October 1943, Hirsch Glick tried to escape from the Vilna ghetto, but was captured by the Nazis and sent to the Gottfield concentration camp in Estonia. In the summer of 1944, while trying to escape from the concentration camp, Hirsch Glick was killed.

The song "Do not say that you are going on your last journey ..." is known today by the whole world. Her words have been repeatedly translated into Russian by different authors. Here is one of the translations:
Do not say that you are going to your last journey!
Let the blue sky covered with leaden rain,
But the hour of dawn will surely come,
And no one will take our life away from us!

From the countries of green palms to the lands of snow and ice
We go, and we are everywhere pursued by trouble.
We leave a bloody trail behind us.
But courage leads us, and, therefore, back into battle!

For us, the bright sun will illuminate the way forward,
And the black clouds will go beyond the horizon.
And the sun will not be able to delay its rising -
We will call him to the sky with a song again.

Bloody lines cannot be sung by a free bird.
Let death seem invincible to everyone -
We cannot be broken! And we take a gun in our hands.
The wall is around us - but we will destroy it.

Do not trust your enemies - you are not going to the last journey!
Let the blue sky covered with leaden rain,
But the hour of dawn will surely come,
And no one will take our life away from us!
Image
American singer, leftist politician Paul Robson

And at this address you can listen to the song "Don't say you're going on your last journey ..." performed by Paul Robson (1898 - 1976).
http://vcisch1.narod.ru/GLIK/Zog_nit_keynmol.mp3

S.V. Bagotsky

https://www.rotfront.su/girsh-glik-poet ... -antifash/

Google Translator

Image
The Paul Robeson tomato, developed in the Soviet Union, one of my favorites.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10587
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Soviet Union

Post by blindpig » Sat May 08, 2021 2:15 pm

Image

The Iron Curtain
May 6, 2021 Steve Lalla Hitler, Imperialism, Nazis, Stalin, World War II
By Steve Lalla – May 4, 2021

On May 3, 1945, The London Times reported on a speech in which it was claimed that a purported “iron curtain” would descend around the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Behind this supposed curtain, horrible atrocities would allegedly take place. This speech was made by acting Nazi Chancellor Lutz von Krosigk on May 2. Von Krosigk assumed this position following Hitler’s suicide on April 30, 1945.

At this time the Nazis were facing defeat. On May 2, the Soviet Red Army defeated the Nazi fascist warmongers in the battle for Berlin, taking the capital city at tremendous costs to both sides — an estimated 80,000 USSR soldiers lost their lives in this campaign. Nazi commander Weidling surrendered unconditionally to Commander Vasily Chuikov of the Red Army. On May 8, VE-Day, Nazi Field Marshal Keitel surrendered to Marshal Zhukov of the Red Army, and Nazi President Donitz also surrendered to the Soviets, marking the definitive end to the fascist Nazi regime. In the famous photo below, a Red Army soldier flies the hammer and sickle over the Reichstag (Nazi parliament).

Because in the West the population is taught from an impressionable age that the US defeated Nazi Germany and won World War 2 by dropping atomic bombs on Japan, it bears mentioning that this not really an accurate depiction at all. USSR was flanked by both Axis forces, forced to defend itself against Nazi Germany while simultaneously facing Japan’s encroachment on its East side. Meanwhile, the USSR had suffered under an economic blockade by the imperialist powers since 1917, and a military invasion supported by 13 Western powers as soon as World War I ended, resulting in severe damages to its economy and agricultural distribution. No country made greater sacrifices to fight the fascist scourge than USSR — the only other nation that came close was China.

Soviet troops accounted for 76% of Nazis killed during World War 2 (as reported by US conservative outlet Voice of America). In terms of sacrifices, USSR lost 7,000 times more civilian lives in World War 2 than the US, and over 20 times the amount of military personnel. In fact USSR sacrificed 10 times the amount of soldiers as US, UK, and France combined. The chart below provides a visual representation of the huge, often overlooked sacrifices that Communist USSR, and soon-to-be Communist China made to defeat the fascist scourge.

Image

After their 1918 invasion of Russia and ensuing economic blockade failed to topple the proletarian revolution of Lenin and then Stalin, the capitalist powers hoped that the rabid anti-communist Hitler would eliminate USSR. In hopes of finally wiping the pesky anti-imperialist revolutionaries off the map, UK signed a pact with Hitler in 1935, to force the Nazis to the East. By this time Hitler had clearly laid out his plans for enslaving the Slavic people to Germany’s East and seizing their lands for German settlement in his 1924 book Mein Kampf. In short, Hitler hoped to follow the blueprint of the British and Western European genocides that led to the creation of Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and so on, and permitted the great accumulation of capital on which their empires were built.

“Hitler’s concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history,” wrote Pulitzer Prize-winner John Toland in Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography. “He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America’s extermination — by starvation and uneven combat — of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity.”

“Occurring after the start of feverish rearmament and the reintroduction of the draft, the [1935] agreement raises Hitler’s hopes that they could reach a strategic understanding, with the recognition of Great Britain’s naval superiority and mutual respect between the two great “Germanic” empires: the British overseas empire and the continental German empire, which would be built through the colonization and enslavement of Eastern Europe… which gives the impression of endorsing an infamous program previously and clearly described in Mein Kampf,” wrote Domenico Losurdo.¹

The US waited patiently and only joined the war in 1941 to clean up the spoils. It should be noted that Communist USSR was ardently anti-fascist and anti-racist from day one of the Revolution, while we can hardly say the same of the British or US empires, on whose doctrines and “successes” Hitler based most of his theories.

“Social-Democracy in all countries therefore proclaims the right of nations to self-determination,” wrote Stalin in his best known book, Marxism and the National Question, published in 1913. “The right of self-determination means that only the nation itself has the right to determine its destiny, that no one has the right forcibly to interfere in the life of the nation, to destroy its schools and other institutions, to violate its habits and customs, to repress its language, or curtail its rights.”

Meanwhile, at that time in the Southern US, Blacks and Whites could not use the same washrooms or hotels. “A white woman can more freely pair-up with a dog than with a black man,” wrote the Chicago Defender in 1934, commenting on the lynchings that were still commonplace.

It’s common knowledge by now that 1,600 Nazi scientists and war criminals joined the US military-industrial complex immediately after World War 2 via the infamous Operation Paperclip program. In addition to giving jobs to Nazi war criminals in the nascent CIA, the US and their UK allies borrowed a few other tricks out of Hitler’s anti-communist playbook. The term “iron curtain” was certainly one of their most frequently employed. For his speech of 2 May, 1945, Nazi de facto Chancellor Von Krosigk actually borrowed the “iron curtain” metaphor from Joseph Goebbels, Nazi minister of propaganda, who used it in an article in May, 1943. Winston Churchill, the notorious racist who thought nothing of using chemical warfare and concentration camps to punish “recalcitrant natives” in the British colonies, used the metaphor in a March 5, 1946 speech now known as the Iron Curtain Speech. His first mention of the term, however, was just nine days after the Nazi minister’s speech was reported in the UK, in a telegram to US President Truman: “an iron curtain is drawn down upon their front,” wrote Churchill. “We do not know what is going on behind.” CIA Director Allen Dulles first used the figure of speech “iron curtain” in December, 1945, just a few months after the Nazis. Thus, Churchill, Truman, the CIA and the Nazis were allied in their fervent anti-communism, as they all evoked this mythical “iron curtain” to demonize the USSR.

In the West we often hear thoughtless comparisons between Hitler and Stalin. Nothing could be more offensive to the victims of actual intentional genocides perpetrated by imperialist and fascist scum, or to those who fought and died to defeat them in World War 2.

Notes

1. Domenico Losurdo, Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend, translated by David Ferreira, 2020. [link]



Featured image: File Photo

https://orinocotribune.com/nt-the-iron-curtain/

It is illustrative how much anti-communist propaganda the capitalists lifted directly from Nazi Germany, birds of a feather.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10587
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Soviet Union

Post by blindpig » Thu Jun 24, 2021 1:06 pm

Front-line writers against modern myth-making
06/22/2021

"... I was freezing, starving, I didn’t undress or wash for a week, but I remained a romantic."

June 22 of this year marks exactly 80 years since one of the most terrible and painful days in the history of our country - the attack of the Third Reich on the Soviet Union. Or, to be more precise, the attacks of a united imperialist Europe, with the financial support of transnational corporations (the products of many of which, by the way, we still consume).

Over the years, the theme of the Great Patriotic War not only does not lose its relevance - on the contrary, it only grows due to the fact that even this seemingly understandable and not amenable to ambiguous interpretation page of our history serves as a ground for speculation and the production of all kinds of false tales and myths.

Image

So "thanks" to these myths, we once "learned" that the USSR won the war solely thanks to Lend-Lease, and our soldiers, developed by Soviet designers T-34, PPSh, DShK, Katyusha, Il-2, apparently, for beauty , carried with them ...

And that, undoubtedly, we would not have coped without the "second front", and Yegorov and Kantaria dropped in the Reichstag by chance, in between the rapes of German women.

And, of course, that instead of a normal army, horse-drawn "cannon fodder" fought, with one rifle for three. And the 120 thousand guns of all calibers, 450 thousand light and heavy machine guns, over 3 million rifles and about 2 million machine guns, created by the Soviet industry annually, were probably thrown into the trash ...

And also we now know that the penal battalions won in the war (the number of which did not exceed half a million), and the remaining 34 million conscripts were not doing anything at the front.

Among all this heap of myths about mediocre marshals, blocking detachments, billions of dollars in military losses, tens of millions of raped German women and other things like that, there are also nonsense that the alleged Soviet censorship forbade writing the truth about the war.

Although one has only to look into Soviet books about the Great Patriotic War to be convinced that this is not so.

Let's give the floor to the front-line writers and front-line correspondents themselves.

Image
PETER VERSHIGORA

Received the Stalin Prize for the novel People with a Clear Conscience.
This novel describes the cases when the soldiers of the Red Army, out of hunger, resorted to such extremes: “people, gritting their teeth, stood to death. They ate everything that could be eaten in the woods. Finally, they began to cook leather harness and soldiers' equipment: belts, harnesses . "

Another way the heroes of this work tried to satisfy their hunger:
“Alpine flowers grew along the southern slope. People have tried to chew on these flowers that smell like honey. Hunger made them suck juice with a honey smell, and no one paid attention to the strange bitter taste. Half an hour later, the medical unit bustled - many of the soldiers began to vomit. Doctor Ivan Markovich found traces of poisoning . "

In his other novel, "Home Native," Pyotr Vershigora described the difficult post-war everyday life of Soviet people: "Sitting on the stove, Fedotka dreamed of bread for days and nights, of mountains of bread, black bread, albeit dry as a stone . "

And so the heroes of the book "Raid on the Sun and Vistula" were forced to deal with the lack of ammunition: “My saboteurs are eagles. But they are sitting on starvation rations, ”Fedorov lamented sincerely. “For a long time they have been boiling their“ mamalyga ”in boilers — they melt explosives from unexploded bombs and shells . ”

ALEXANDER TVARDOVSKY

Let us recall his poem "The Dumb", which describes the difficult war days:

Hungry people in the ashes
Brews unmilled rye.
And no corner to winter, no food ...


KONSTANTIN SIMONOV

Image
K. M. Simonov

We all owe Konstantin Mikhailovich for the legendary trilogy "The Living and the Dead".
In its second part "Soldiers are not born", the writer tells about what the frontline medicine sometimes represented:
"... it was dark in the dugout, one young woman performed the operation on the other - without tools and anesthesia. Silently, one after the other, she hulled out fragments of bone, sometimes looking into the face of the other, who was also silent, - emaciated from hunger, with a blue-bitten lip and large drops of sweat on her forehead, similar to the face of a woman in labor. "

In the final part of the “Last Summer” trilogy, Simonov clearly shows what was the fate of the majority of civilians during the occupation:
“There is one house from the whole village. They live in the basement. The old woman lies, does not get up, and her daughter, when she followed me, was still a woman like a woman, about forty years old. And here - from hunger and dampness and legs and arms - here ... - Sytin showed how swollen the woman's legs and arms were. "No stock, no provisions, no clothes - nothing."

In the story "Four Steps" the writer also shows how the supply situation in the unit sometimes depended on the practicality and experience of the commander:
“- We will be in Slepov's battalion - we will get hungry. He knows one thing - the war, but he doesn’t know how to feed himself or people ”.

BORIS SLUTSKY

He also described the difficult trials that befell our soldiers. Here are the lines of his poem "I spoke on behalf of Russia ...":

They were not given bread,
they were not given a cartridge,
Which day they are not allowed to sleep.
And I remind them of the Motherland.
They are silent. They sing. And they are going to a new battle.


YURI BONDAREV

Image
Yu.V. Bondarev

The action of the novel "Hot Snow" unfolds in the most difficult days of the Battle of Stalingrad, in which the writer himself was a participant as the commander of the mortar crew.
Our soldiers were glad even for such trifles:
“And when the platoon began to stretch along the road, someone thrust a hard prickly biscuit into Kuznetsov's hand.
- How hungry a beast, huh? - he heard Davlatyan's voice. - Take it. It will be more fun.
Nibbling a biscuit, experiencing a viscous-sweet satisfaction of hunger, Kuznetsov said with emotion:
- Thank you, Goga. How did you keep it? "


Yuri Vasilyevich also mentioned cases of frostbite of the Red Army:
“The guy did not open his eyes, but the meaning of the questions came to him. He groaned, and Kuznetsov, peering into his parted lips, caught:
- Five hundred meters ... ahead. In front of the beam. I could move. We decided to come here. I ran. And there the Germans are everywhere. Two cars. I couldn't shoot. Hands are frostbitten like kultykis. And they shot at me ... "


MUSA JALIL

The horrors of war are reflected in his lyric poems. For example, this is what he wrote in the poem "Disconnected Thoughts":

An absurd death, apparently, I will die:
I will be crushed by the cold, hunger, lice.
Like a poor old woman, I will die,
Freezing on an unheated stove.


BORIS POLEVOY

He is widely known primarily for the "Tale of a Real Man".
But no less truthfully front-line everyday life is described by his book Deep Rear:
“After waiting a minute, when there was no one near, the woman bent down, lifted the remaining forks, tore off the blackened sheets and began to gnaw at the white core. The frozen cabbage gritted his teeth, was tasteless and did not satisfy hunger. "

Even more clearly Boris describes the horrors of war - hunger, physical exhaustion, moral burn - in the book "We - the Soviet people":
"Hungry people who have the fourth day was not in the mouth and crumbs, moving, maintaining the order of battle, throwing forward exploration , putting out patrols on the flanks. "
“Now the main enemy was hunger. It became more and more difficult to march with each march. People were reeling, they barely trudged, and the column stretched through the forest with a long, liquid tail. At the halts, the fighters threw themselves on the frozen ground, and it took a lot of effort to raise them later. "

Image

VLADIMIR BOGOMOLOV

We are grateful to Vladimir Osipovich for the novel "The Moment of Truth", about the work of SMERSH in Western Belarus. But he has another book - "My life, or did you dream me?", Where he openly writes how the Soviet soldiers were struck by the pictures of German life, prosperous and well-fed - in comparison with what they saw in their homeland - the life of German inhabitants :
“Having found themselves in Germany after four years of bloody brutal war, devastation, hunger, soldiers and officers of the Red Army, to their surprise, saw the rich and well-fed farms of German farmers, well-organized agriculture, unprecedented agricultural and household equipment, concrete cattle yards, highway roads from village to village, motorways for eight or ten cars going in a row; saw in the Berlin suburbs and summer cottages chic two- and three-story private houses with electricity, gas, bathrooms and magnificently cultivated gardens.
Seeing this well-fed, well-organized, prosperous life of an ordinary German, the breathtaking luxury of villas, castles, mansions, estates, seeing peasant yards: cleanliness, neatness, well-being ... herds in pastures ... in village houses, wardrobes and dressers, and in them - clothes, good shoes , woolen and duvet blankets, porcelain ... having seen all this, the Soviet soldier felt the unusual novelty of all objects and surrounding phenomena and involuntarily wondered what they, the Germans, still lacked in such and such a heavenly life.


ALEXANDER BEK

Known for the work "Volokolamskoe Highway" about the battle near Moscow. There are described the cases of direct dissatisfaction of the soldiers with the commanders:
“... you are unhappy that in the presence of kitchens you were given raw meat and forced the tired to cook soup in pots. This is also done on purpose. Do you think that in battle, the kitchen will always be at your side? You are wrong! In battle, kitchens will come off, lag behind. There will be days when you will starve. Do you all hear? You will starve, you will sit without smoking - I promise you that. Such is the war, such is the life of a soldier. Sometimes you are fed up, and sometimes your stomach is empty. Be patient, but do not lose your military honor! "
The fact of the presence of military leaders who do not care too much about the soldiers is not hidden either:
“Your commander doesn't care about the fate of someone else's battalion,” I shouted, “I don't care if my people are hungry! If only he would send cartridges! If tomorrow we are killed here like chickens, your commander will not even scratch himself! "

And the cases of food shortages did not hide at all:
“In the morning a cart arrived from Khrymov's regiment. Regiment headquarters sent several boxes of ammunition and two buckets of boiled meat. I was delighted with the patrons, but looked down at the pieces of meat with contrition. Two buckets! This is for a battalion, for five hundred hungry mouths! "
Also, cases of mass diseases were not hidden:
“We all paid for the lack of restraint in food after a four-day hunger strike. People writhed with stomach pains. The battalion has lost its combat effectiveness. The sentries, the outposts, the people in the trenches, the commanding staff - everyone got sick. "

YULIA DRUNINA

Image
Yu. V. Drunina

One of her most famous poems - "Zinka" - tells about a woman at war. It contains lines like this:

Then it happened to the partisans in different ways :
Sometimes in blood and dust
Crawled on swollen knees to attack - They
could not get up from hunger.


She also has prose works, for example, the autobiographical story "From those heights", where Yulia Vladimirovna described life in the evacuation:
"I must say that in recent months the evacuees had a hard time. There were almost no stocks of cards, rags taken from home had been exchanged for food long ago. They kept only on a meager ration of bread. "

Drunina also did not hide any cases of arbitrariness of business executives in those years, or the existence of a “black market”:
“All day in Yalutorovsk, I didn’t have a crumb in my mouth. Therefore, I was especially impatiently awaiting when they would be given dry rations. But it turned out that the enterprising quartermaster decided to profit from the mobilized girls. He noted in the product certificates that we were allegedly given food three days in advance ... ".

“A train with evacuated artisans stopped at one of the halts nearby. Hungry boys poured out on the way. Some of them, like locusts, pounced on the unharvested potato field - what could the watchman do with them? Others flew up to women exchanging food for rags.
All I had left was a thick notebook. At that time, paper was valued very highly in Siberia - they stopped selling it, and schoolchildren had to write on something. And the Siberians have already used up the last scraps for letters to the front.
With my wealth, I rushed to the woman who had the last half liter of milk left. "

Image
To evacuate

And this is how Drunina narrated about the conditions of stay at the front: "She tied up bloodied, crippled people, saw corpses, froze, starved, did not undress and did not wash for a week, but remained a romantic . "

And the overnight stay for the fighters was also a whole test: “We are exhausted to the limit. Chronic cold was also tormented (fires, of course, it was impossible to make fires, they slept in the wet snow, putting one floor of their greatcoat under themselves and covering themselves with the other), and chronic hunger - because of the muddy roads our rear was torn off, feeding was once a day - cold ", That is," permanent millet soup "without salt, and black crackers."

The difficulties of rear life, the lack of food, clothing, and many elementary things were not hidden from readers. This is how Yulia Vladimirovna describes her return to Moscow after being wounded: “However, after the front, the famine seemed to be nonsense. Nobody thought about how to dress, the guys at the institute were also wearing military uniforms. "
“Once, freezing to the bone in our worn-out overcoats and desperately hungry, my fellow student and I wandered into my house.
With faint hope, I looked into my mother's pans. One has some kind of black soup. I thought it was mushroom. Terribly salty, but it doesn't matter.
Little soup, less plate. I decided to sacrifice myself, brought this plate to a friend, saying that she had eaten her portion in the kitchen. He believed.
When my mother came home from work, I obeyed the mushroom soup I had eaten. She was surprised - she didn't cook any soup.
They began to find out. It turned out that it was just ... dirty salt water from potatoes boiled in their uniforms.
Out of nobility, I gave it to a friend, and a friend of the same nobility, choking, swallowed this "treat". And he also praised: "Delicious! .."


Examples of depictions of the harsh military and post-war life in the literature and cinema of the Soviet era can be cited ad infinitum. But the conclusion is obvious: stories about the brutal Soviet censorship, which allegedly forced to write exceptionally beautiful verbal laces about the front-line everyday life, do not stand up to criticism. At the front there was everything characteristic of wartime: hunger, thirst, arbitrary rule of the chiefs, epidemics, unsanitary conditions and much, much more, which no book or film can tell about.

And we know very well that our ancestors were able, in spite of everything, to overcome all these trials. But by no means at the expense of Lend-Lease, detachments, the "second front", as the detractors of our country's heroic past are trying to instill in us. And thanks to his heroism, hard work, fortitude and fortitude.

Y. Lupikov,
Saratov branch of the ROT Front

* All photos from open sources

https://www.rotfront.su/pisateli-fronto ... -sovremen/

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10587
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Soviet Union

Post by blindpig » Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:11 pm

There is composition after composition: about the head of the Soviet Railway. during the Great War
06/28/2021
For the birthday of Ivan Vladimirovich Kovalev

June 28, 2021 marks the 120th anniversary of the birth of the outstanding head of Soviet railway transport Ivan Vladimirovich Kovalev (1901 - 1993).

I.V. Kovalev was born into a peasant family, during the Civil War he fought in the ranks of the Red Army. In 1921 he was sent to serve in the railway troops of the young Soviet republic.


Image
The head of the Soviet railway transport Ivan Vladimirovich Kovalev, who ensured uninterrupted communication during the war

In 1935 I.V. Kovalev graduated from the L.M. Kaganovich, after which he served in responsible posts in the system of the People's Commissariat of Railways (NKPS). In 1937-1939, he served as head of the Western Railway, which was of great strategic importance. Before leaving for a new place of work, the new head of the road was received by I.V. Stalin, who allowed him to call him personally if necessary.

On the Western Railway I.V. Kovalev faced an acute problem of a shortage of drivers and made a sensible decision: to train drivers from among the assistants of drivers and stokers. Driver assistants and stokers, who agreed to study as a driver on the job, began to receive an additional increase in their salaries. This, of course, was a violation of financial discipline, but the authorities turned a blind eye to it. Winners are not judged!

I.V. Kovalev vigorously defended his subordinates from the overly vigilant NKVD workers. Local excesses took place. One of the engineers whom I.V. Kovalev defended him from arrest, there was Konstantin Sergeevich Zaslonov (1910 - 1942). During the war years, he became an underground member, and then - a major partisan commander. In November 1942, Konstantin Zaslonov died in battle. He was posthumously awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union.

Image
Partisan Konstantin Zaslonov, Hero of the Soviet Union, posthumously

In 1939, during the conflict on the Khalkhin-Gol River, I.V. Kovalev supervised the delivery of troops and weapons to the area of ​​hostilities.

Before the war, I.V. Kovalev took the post of Deputy People's Commissar of the State Control of the USSR and, in this capacity, supervised the work of transport.

In the life of our country, railway transport was of great importance. This was due, on the one hand, to the immense territory, and, on the other hand, to the poor development of road transport and the network of highways. In the pre-war years, the People's Commissar of Railways of the USSR was, as a rule, a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. Since 1935, this post was occupied by the third most influential (after Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (1879 - 1953) and Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov (1890 - 1986)) Soviet politician Lazar Moiseevich Kaganovich (1892 - 1991). Prior to his appointment, the railway transport was a mess, but with the help of tough (and, in many cases, brutal) measures, Kaganovich managed to turn the tide and restore relative order. Negligence in the line of duty was qualified by him as deliberate sabotage.

Image
Lazar Moiseevich Kaganovich with Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin

L.M. Kaganovich achieved a significant increase in the salaries of railway workers. And not just salaries. Railway workers were provided with housing, good medical care, and other benefits valued in Soviet life. The NKPS even had its own general education schools, which since 1936 were not at all subordinate to the People's Commissariat of Education. Children of railway workers studied there.

But, at the same time, mistrust of specialists created many problems. These problems were not only in transport, but also in the entire heavy industry, which, after the death of Grigory Konstantinovich Ordzhonikidze (1886 - 1937), was led by L.M. Kaganovich.

Heading the People's Commissariat for Heavy Industry, Sergo Ordzhonikidze preferred to praise and encourage good workers, and L.M. Kaganovich preferred to scold and punish. This created a difficult environment in which subordinates were afraid to take responsibility and take initiative. Apparently, the Soviet leadership and personally I.V. Stalin understood this. In January 1939, the unified People's Commissariat for Heavy Industry was disbanded. Instead, several sectoral commissariats were created, headed by young engineers. Exactly the same operation was carried out with the People's Commissariat of the Defense Industry, which was headed by brother L.M. Kaganovich Mikhail Moiseevich Kaganovich (1888 - 1941).

Image
Grigory (Sergo) Konstantinovich Ordzhonikidze during the Civil War

The attack by fascist Germany on the Soviet Union posed two new and most serious tasks for the Soviet railway workers. First, it was necessary to ensure the delivery of troops and weapons to the front, as well as the export of the seriously wounded to the rear; secondly, it was necessary to ensure the evacuation of Soviet industry to the eastern regions of the country. The first task was to be solved by the Combat Transportation Directorate under the People's Commissariat of Defense, which was headed by Lieutenant General Nikolai Iustinovich Trubetskoy (1890 - 1942). But he and the Directorate led by him were not at the height of the tasks facing them. General Trubetskoy was removed from his post, put on trial and shot. On July 8, 1941, Ivan Vladimirovich Kovalev was appointed head of the Combat Transportation Directorate.

During the war, the post held by I.V. Kovalev, in terms of his importance and influence, really corresponded to the post of People's Commissar. And we have every right to include him (along with Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich Malyshev (1902 - 1957), Ivan Fedorovich Tevosyan (1902 - 1958), Dmitry Fedorovich Ustinov (1908 - 1984) and others) among the Stalinist military-industrial commissars who ensured the victory of the Soviet people over Nazi Germany.

The first step of the new chief was an inventory of all rolling stock. Every locomotive and even every carriage was registered. All of them were renumbered and local railway chiefs were ordered to regularly report to the center information about the location and fate of each transport unit.

Image
Baku oil - to help the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War


Taking responsibility, I.V. Kovalev allowed the railway workers, if necessary, to violate one of the basic railway laws: at each moment of time on each stretch (section of the railway track between two sidings) there could be only one train. Violation of this law increased the likelihood of an accident, but in certain situations this had to be tolerated. During the war years, there were cases when the distance between trains following each other was only tens of meters.

In the first months of the war, enemy aircraft did not actively bomb the railway targets. The invaders hoped for a quick victory, after which the entire Soviet railway economy would pass into their hands. And, if possible, undisturbed. The enemy limited himself to bombardment of key stations and, with German pedantry, bombed them exclusively at 9 o'clock in the evening. In response, Kovalev issued a simple order: to withdraw trains and locomotives from the hub stations at 7 pm, and return them back by midnight. And to quickly restore the tracks at the station, use the "cabin" - pre-prepared ready-made blocks of the railroad bed. As a result, losses were minimized. However, after the war became protracted, the enemy changed tactics.

In the summer and autumn of 1941, over 2 million people were delivered to the active army by rail. The total volume of military traffic during the Great Patriotic War is estimated at 20 million wagons.

Image
Ilya Muromets armored train built in Murom in 1942

On February 14, 1942, a joint meeting of the State Defense Committee and the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) was held, at which it was decided to create a Transport Committee, which was personally headed by I.V. Stalin. The idea of ​​creating such a Committee belonged to I.V. Kovalev, who, of course, was included in its composition. In March 1942 L.M. Kaganovich was relieved of his duties as People's Commissar of Railways of the USSR. Lieutenant General Andrei Vladimirovich Khrulev (1892 - 1962) was appointed the new People's Commissar, who also held the posts of Deputy People's Commissar of Defense and Chief of Logistics of the Red Army. As a result, the work of railway transport has improved. One of the important innovations was the creation of mobile locomotive columns of 15-20 locomotives, working in isolation from a specific depot and easily transferred over long distances. However, it was difficult for General Khrulev to carry out such a wide range of duties, and L.M. Kaganovich was returned to the post of People's Commissar. But the style of work of Lazar Moiseevich did not meet the new requirements.

In December 1944 I.V. Kovalev was appointed People's Commissar of Railways of the USSR.

Few of the leaders dare to make their deputy a person who surpasses his boss in abilities and business qualities. I.V. Kovalev was a rare exception.

In the 1920s, a young telegraph operator Boris Pavlovich Beschev (1903 - 1981) worked at a railway station in the Volga region. On duty, he had to receive and process a large number of telegrams about the movement of trains. The telegraph operator took a creative approach to his duties and began to think about how to optimize transportation. And then he shared his thoughts with his superiors. The implementation of these considerations has had a great effect. The telegraph operator was assessed and sent to study at the Leningrad Institute of Railway Engineers, from which he graduated with honors.

Image
Head of the North Caucasian, Oktyabrskaya and Kuibyshevskaya railways Boris Pavlovich Beschev

Before the war and during the war B.P. Beschev was the head of the North Caucasian, October and Kuibyshev railways. He became famous as a generator of brilliant ideas that allowed him to successfully solve both current and future problems. In the railway circles he was nicknamed "The Prophet".

Becoming the people's commissar of railways, I.V. Kovalev suggested B.P. Beschev, the post of his deputy and head of the leading headquarters - the Main Directorate of the movement. In April 1948 B.P. Beschev replaced I.V. Kovalev as Minister of Railways of the USSR and held this post for 28 years. Under his leadership, a large-scale modernization of Soviet railway transport was carried out, many projects were implemented. After the death of B.P. Beschev, Western experts called him one of the three Great Railwaymen of the XX century.

The main task of the People's Commissariat of Railways (transformed in 1946 into the Ministry) was the restoration of railways. A significant part of them was destroyed, and the surviving ones were badly worn out due to intensive exploitation. On the initiative of I.V. Kovalev, a four-year plan for the restoration of the USSR railways was adopted. "Why a four-year-old, and not a five-year-old?", = Asked the People's Commissar I.V. Stalin. “Because, Comrade Stalin,” the People's Commissar replied, “that during the war years we quickly built temporary tracks on sleepers not impregnated with creosote. They will rot in four years. " Comrade Stalin was satisfied with this answer.

Image
Great Patriotic War poster

For merits in organizing military transportation during the Great Patriotic War I.V. Kovalev was awarded two very high military leadership awards of the USSR: the Order of Suvorov of the first degree (decree of 06/29/1945) and the Order of Kutuzov of the first degree (decree of 03/08/1945).

“We are rewarding you with the highest military leadership orders, because we equate your work during the war with the leadership of successful strategic operations,” I.V. Kovalev said. Stalin.

In 1945 I.V. Kovalev took part in the Potsdam conference as a transport expert. By his order, the train on which the Soviet delegation was traveling to Germany was driven by a new type of locomotive - a diesel locomotive. I.V. Stalin became interested in the diesel locomotive, he was especially struck by the locomotive brigade in white shirts and on tour. The locomotive drivers looked very different. As a result, I.V. Stalin approved the idea of ​​mass production and widespread introduction of diesel locomotives proposed by Kovalev.

Image
Transfer of tanks in a train to Berlin. 1945 g.

Diesel locomotives were invented by the Russian engineer Yuri Vladimirovich Lomonosov (1876 - 1952). He proposed his idea to V.I. Lenin and Lenin became interested in her. However, after the death of Vladimir Ilyich and the emigration of Yu.V. Lomonosov's work on diesel locomotives in the USSR stalled. In the 1930s, diesel locomotives were produced in small series and the leadership of the NKPS, in particular L.M. Kaganovich, looked at their future with skepticism. But after the war, largely thanks to I.V. Kovalev and B.P. Beschev, interest in diesel locomotives has increased. In 1948, a prototype of the TE2 diesel locomotive was built at the Kharkov Heavy Engineering Plant, and then a prototype of the TE3 diesel locomotive. In 1956, the TE3 diesel locomotive began to be produced in large series.

The construction of electric locomotives also developed. In 1946, a large electric locomotive plant was built in Novocherkassk, which began the serial production of locomotives using an external source of electricity.

Since the 1950s, a gradual but steady displacement of steam locomotives by diesel and electric locomotives began.

Image
Diesel locomotive TE3

In April 1948 I.V. Kovalev would be relieved of his duties as the People's Commissar of Railways of the USSR and was sent to China as the head of a group of advisers helping to restore the economy destroyed by a long-term war.

Returning to the USSR in 1950, I.V. Kovalev worked in various economic positions, then taught at the Military Academy of the General Staff. From 1969 to 1985 he worked at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the USSR Academy of Sciences. After retirement, he remained a consultant at the General Staff of the USSR.

In 1969 I.V. Kovalev published in the publishing house "Knowledge" the book "Transport in the decisive operations of the Great Patriotic War."

I.V. Kovalev passed away on May 28, 1993.

S.V. Bagotsky

https://www.rotfront.su/idyot-sostav-za ... ve-sovets/

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10587
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Soviet Union

Post by blindpig » Sun Oct 10, 2021 10:01 pm

Possible successor to Stalin?
10/10/2021
The history of the country could have turned out a little differently

October 10, 2021 marks the 120th anniversary of the birth of the outstanding figure of the Communist Party and the Soviet state, Alexander Sergeevich Shcherbakov (1901 - 1945) .


Image
Alexander Sergeevich Shcherbakov

A.S. Shcherbakov was born in the town of Ruza near Moscow in a working class family. In 1907, his family moved to the city of Rybinsk. In Rybinsk, Alexander Shcherbakov graduated with honors from a four-year school; from the age of 12 he worked in a printing house, and then on the railway.

Shcherbakov took an active part in the revolutionary events of 1917 . In the spring of 1917, he created a revolutionary youth organization in Rybinsk, which soon switched to Bolshevik positions. In 1918 he became a member of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks).

In the early 1920s, A.S. Shcherbakov studied at the Communist University. Ya.M. Sverdlov, for some time was at party work in the Nizhny Novgorod Territory, then again at the Institute of Red Professors, after which, as one of the best graduates, he was sent to work in the apparatus of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b).

Among the nominees of the 1920s, there were different people. Some of them were not too eager to clutter their brains with knowledge, believing that adherence to the most advanced ideology will automatically solve all problems. But there were also those who studied very hard, trying to fill the gaps in education. Alexander Shcherbakov also belonged to such nominees.

In 1934 , the Congress of Soviet Writers was held, at which a resolution was adopted on the creation of the Union of Writers of the USSR. A.S. Shcherbakov took an active part in the preparation and was appointed Organizing Secretary of the Union of Writers of the USSR. That is, he became the political curator of Soviet literature.

“Our young literature will find, in your person, a strong, intelligent, caring leader,” wrote A.S. Shcherbakov Maxim Gorky.

Image
Writer Maxim Gorky

In 1935, Comrade Shcherbakov headed a delegation of Soviet writers at the International Congress for Peace and Culture in Paris. At the same time A.S. Shcherbakov took over as head of the Department of Cultural Education of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b).

In 1935-1938 A.S. Shcherbakov worked as the second secretary of the regional committee of the CPSU (b) in Leningrad , and then as the first secretary of the regional party committee in Irkutsk and Stalino (Donetsk). In these areas, under the leadership of Shcherbakov, a purge of the party apparatus was carried out, accompanied by large-scale repressions. I do not presume to judge whether the local leaders were enemies of the people, but outrage in these areas was happening more than enough. And the update of the manual was quite timely.

November 2, 1938 A.S. Shcherbakov took the post of first secretary of the Moscow regional committee and the city committee of the CPSU (b).

In the early 1930s, the Moscow party organization was headed by Lazar Moiseevich Kaganovich , who initiated a large-scale modernization of the capital. In the mid-1930s, he was replaced by Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev. After the translation by N.S. Khrushchev to Ukraine, the Moscow Party organization was headed for some time by Alexander Ivanovich Ugarov (1900 - 1939). He proved to be a weak leader and was soon fired from his job and then repressed. After that, A.S. became the first secretary of the Moscow City Party Committee. Shcherbakov.

Image
Lazar Kaganovich - member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks from 1930 to 1957

As is known from a number of memoirs, I.V. Stalinthere were doubts about the nomination of A.S. Shcherbakov for the post of head of the Moscow Party organization. The fact is that there were signals from "well-wishers" on Shcherbakov. In the end, Stalin ignored these signals. But, as a counterweight, Georgy Mikhailovich Popov (1906 - 1968), an ambitious and absurd man, was nominated for the post of second secretary of the city committee. After the death of Shcherbakov, Popov at one time headed the Moscow City Party Committee. In this post, he managed to quarrel with everyone with whom he could only, and, in the end, was fired from his job. For some time he was ambassador to the Polish People's Republic, where he quarreled with the Polish leader Boleslav Bierut (1892 - 1956), after which Popov was recalled back to the USSR. The third member of the team that led Moscow was Vasily Prokhorovich Pronin (1905 - 1993), an excellent business executive and organizer,

Moscow in the late 1930s was a problem city. During the post-revolutionary years, its population increased by several million people. This population had to be provided with food, housing, electricity. Urban transport was also a serious problem. The construction of the metro eased transport problems, but only slightly. And the first secretary of the city party committee had to deal with all this every day.

Under Shcherbakov, the modernization of the capital continued. In the early and mid-1930s, in the process of this modernization, many architectural objects of the previous centuries were demolished in Moscow. Shcherbakov slowed down this process.

Image
Moscow 1930s

In 1939, at the XVIII Congress of the CPSU (b) A.S. Shcherbakov was elected a member of the Central Committee and the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the party, in March 1941 he became a candidate member of the Politburo and secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b). At the beginning of the Great Patriotic War on June 24, 1941, Comrade Shcherbakov was appointed head of the Soviet Information Bureau, and in 1942 he replaced Lev Zakharovich Mekhlis (1889 - 1953) as head of the Main Political Directorate of the Red Army and Deputy Minister of Defense of the USSR.

Previously, propaganda work was carried out largely formally, for show. The appointment of Comrade Shcherbakov to the post of secretary of the Central Committee of the party in charge of propaganda put an end to this frivolity. They took up propaganda seriously and began to think seriously about its effectiveness. Unfortunately, the traditions laid down by Shcherbakov were later largely lost: in the last years of the existence of the USSR, propaganda work was carried out quite formally.

In the fall of 1941 A.S. Shcherbakov made an outstanding contribution to the organization of the defense of Moscow. In Moscow, 12 divisions of the people's militia were formed, a large-scale construction of defensive structures was organized, on which hundreds of thousands of Muscovites worked, and the production of military products was launched at the enterprises of the capital. More than two million Muscovites and more than two thousand organizations were evacuated from Moscow.

On October 16, 1941, a rumor spread in Moscow that the capital of the USSR would be surrendered to the Germans. The panic began. Many top executives left their jobs and fled from Moscow.

The next day, A.S. Shcherbakov. He said that no one was going to surrender Moscow to enemies and called on Muscovites to defend the capital. At the direction of Shcherbakov, several prominent executives who tried to flee Moscow were fired from their jobs and expelled from the party. Some were even brought to trial. On October 19, a state of siege was introduced in Moscow.

On November 7, 1941, a military parade was held in Moscow, which was broadcast to the whole world. Troops passing through Red Square were sent directly to the front. During the parade, A.S. Shcherbakov stood on the podium of the Mausoleum next to I.V. Stalin.

Image
Parade on November 7, 1941 in Moscow

To improve the supply of Muscovites with food, at the suggestion of A.S. Shcherbakov, Muscovites were allocated plots for vegetable gardens, enterprises were advised to create their own subsidiary plots. More than 200 thousand families received the land for vegetable gardens. Among Muscovites A.S. Shcherbakov was highly respected both as a leader and as a person.

As the head of the Sovinformburo A.S. Shcherbakov had his own channels for obtaining information about the situation at the fronts and often reported this information to Stalin before the leaders of the General Staff.

The documents that Shcherbakov prepared were often signed by Stalin without additional questions - he was sure of their quality.

In December 1942 A.S. Shcherbakov, a purely civilian man, was awarded the military rank of lieutenant general, and in September 1943 the military rank of colonel general.

A distinctive feature of almost all Soviet leaders in the 1930s - 1940s was their very high efficiency. However, A.S. Shcherbakov stood out even against this background. It was said that he could work 24 hours a day, knowing no sleep or rest.

Until 1944 A.S. Shcherbakov actually acted as secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) for ideological work. That is, it took second place in the purely party hierarchy. Andrei Aleksandrovich Zhdanov (1896-1948), who officially held this post, was in Leningrad and was overloaded with Leningrad affairs. After, at the end of 1944, the state of health of Comrade. Shcherbakova greatly deteriorated, A.A. Zhdanov was recalled from Leningrad and concentrated his forces on ideological work in the central apparatus of the CPSU (b).

Image
Joseph Stalin - the leader of the USSR from 1924 to 1953

As you can see, the development of theory and the development on its basis of a strong strategy for the socio-economic development of the country was the main task of the Communist Party. A great personal contribution to this work was made by A.S. Shcherbakov.

The range of duties performed by Comrade Shcherbakov during the war years gives reason to believe that I.V. Stalin saw in him the future leader of the All-Union Communist Party and prepared him for this post. In this capacity, A.S. Shcherbakov had no alternative: A.A. Zhdanov was inferior to him in organizational skills and efficiency, Georgy Maksimilianovich Malenkov had no experience of independent leadership of large regions, Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev lacked culture. And Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria was not so much a party leader as a statesman and head of large-scale programs. That is why during the war years A.S. Shcherbakov was sent to different areas of work, which gave him the opportunity to acquire a variety of experience necessary for the future leader of the party. However, everything turned out differently.

May 9, 1945 I.V. Stalin phoned the sick Shcherbakov at his dacha, congratulated him on his victory and wished him a speedy recovery. After that, Alexander Sergeevich felt a surge of strength and went to Moscow, walked through the streets and squares filled with jubilant people. The next day, May 10, Comrade Shcherbakov died. He was buried in Red Square near the Kremlin wall.

Image
Victory Banner over the Reichstag

It is said that at the end of the war, Shcherbakov's assistant asked his boss what he would do after the war.


"I will sleep, - said Alexander Sergeevich, - I will sleep for a long, long time ...". And then he added: "And I will not wake up ..."

On the Internet, you can find the most controversial reviews about A.S. Shcherbakov. Some authors admire him, others throw mud at him.

A.S. Shcherbakov was very disliked by N.S. Khrushchev, who became First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU in 1953. It is possible that this is due to the fact that Nikita Sergeevich saw in Shcherbakov a strong competitor in the upcoming struggle for the highest party post. In 1957, on the initiative of N.S. Khrushchev, the decisions to perpetuate the memory of Shcherbakov, adopted in 1945, were canceled.

Image
Nikita Khrushchev - First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU in 1953-1964

The reasoning of some authors about A.S.'s drunkenness cannot but cause surprise. Shcherbakov. Drunkenness is completely incompatible with the volume of work that Comrade Shcherbakov performed during the Great Patriotic War. Although it is quite possible that to relieve stress, Alexander Sergeevich could sometimes take small doses of strong drinks. Let the one who has never drunk anything stronger than kefir be the first to throw a stone at him.

The writer Korney Ivanovich Chukovsky (1882 - 1969) was very indignant that Comrade Shcherbakov once covered him with a multi-storey mat. To complete the picture, I would like to know what exactly Alexander Sergeevich swore at the respected representative of the creative intelligentsia. Maybe for the cause. Although, in any case, the use of profanity does not adorn the party leader. I do not know of other examples of rudeness on the part of Shcherbakov.

A.S. Shcherbakov had three sons. The elder Alexander (1925 - 2013) became a test pilot and was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union, the middle one, Konstantin (born 1938), became a writer, the younger Ivan (born 1944), a major physicist. For many years I.A. Shcherbakov headed the General Physics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, at present he is the academician-secretary of the General Physics Department of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Children of A.S. Shcherbakov became good specialists and worthy people. As, however, were the children of most party leaders of the 1930s - 1940s. Which, by the way, characterizes their parents well. The children of some later Soviet leaders were different. I'm not even talking about the children of the “new Russians”.

Alexander Sergeevich Shcherbakov entered the history of the Soviet country as an outstanding party and statesman, whose political potential was not fully realized due to his untimely death.

S.V. Bagotsky

https://www.rotfront.su/vozmozhnyj-preemnik-stalina/

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10587
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Soviet Union

Post by blindpig » Sat Oct 30, 2021 2:26 pm

School of revolution, school of life
10/29/2021
From the history of the Komsomol
From the editor. We publish the main stages of the history of the Komsomol in connection with the next anniversary of the organization.
From the very beginning of the 20th century, young workers were drawn into the revolutionary movement: they read Marxist literature, studied the theory of scientific socialism, and became active participants in strikes and demonstrations. Working youth organizations emerged in Petrograd, Moscow, Kiev, Kharkov, Yekaterinburg, Rostov-on-Don, Tula, Vladimir.


On October 29, 1918, the 1st All-Russian Congress of Workers 'and Peasants' Youth Unions opened in Moscow, which established the RKSM (later the Komsomol). 176 delegates represented 22,100 members of youth unions. During the years of foreign military intervention and the Civil War, the Komsomol carried out three All-Russian mobilizations to the front. According to incomplete data, the Komsomol organizations sent over 25,000 fighters to the ranks of the Red Army.

In October 1920, the 3rd congress of the RKSM opened in Moscow, the focus of which was V. I. Lenin's speech on the tasks of the Youth Unions - a program document on the communist education of youth.

JV Stalin spoke at the 8th Congress of the Komsomol (May 1928). In his speech, he called on the Komsomol members to raise the combat readiness of the working class; rise to the fight against bureaucracy, deploying criticism and exercising control from below; master the science of building socialism.

“There is a fortress in front of us,” Stalin said. - It is called, this fortress, science with its many branches of knowledge. We must take this fortress at all costs. This fortress must be taken by the youth if they want to be the builder of a new life, if they want to become a real replacement of the old guard. "

During the Stalinist five-year plans, Komsomol members built Dneproges, Magnitogorsk and Kuznetsk metallurgical plants, Gorky and Moscow automobile plants, Stalingrad, Kharkov and Chelyabinsk tractor plants, the Moscow metro, Donbass and Kuzbass mines, canals and railways, factories and collective farms, organized collective farms work, erected in the taiga Komsomolsk-on-Amur and other cities, eradicated illiteracy and cultural backwardness.

During the Great Patriotic War, hundreds of thousands of young men and women voluntarily joined the ranks of the Red Army, became partisans and underground fighters. In the rear, the movement of the "two-hundred" gained wide popularity during the war years - to work for themselves and for the guy who went to the front; transition to multi-station service; front-line youth brigades with their motto "Work like a front-line!" Komsomol members and youth contributed over 800 million rubles to the country's defense fund, and 308 million rubles to the fund for helping orphans.

More than 3.5 million Komsomol warriors, including over 100 thousand girls, were awarded orders and medals of the Soviet Union. 7000 Komsomol members and pupils of the Komsomol were awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union.

Image

In the postwar period, the Komsomol remained a serious creative and political force in the USSR. A school of life for several generations of Soviet people. Komsomol members built spaceships, nuclear-powered ships, new cities, nuclear power plants, BAM ...

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the bourgeois counter-revolution in the USSR entered an open phase. Following the fall of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Komsomol in September 1991, an Extraordinary Congress was held, which announced the dissolution of the organization, due to "the exhaustion of its historical role."

However, not all of the Soviet youth thought so. After the execution of the Supreme Soviet in October 1993, it became obvious that the bourgeois regime could not be overthrown by a cavalry swoop; it is necessary to move from rallies to persistent and painstaking revolutionary work, which cannot be done without the participation of young people.

Image


And in February 1997 in Perm. The I Constituent Congress of the RKSM (b) took place. The organization was named the Revolutionary Communist Youth Union (Bolsheviks). It was decided that the RKSM (b) has organizational independence, but stands on the ideological positions of the RKWP party. Today the revolutionary Komsomol participates in trade union activities, organizes street protests, conducts ideological training.

T. Rakhimov, E. Khokhlova

https://www.rotfront.su/shkola-revolyut ... la-zhizni/

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

Post Reply