My assessment of Stalin
Comrades often ask: what assessment do you give to Stalin? This puts me in a difficult position, because it is impossible to characterize Stalin in monosyllables. This is a complex figure by nature, and he had a difficult path in the party and state. At different periods he looked differently: sometimes emphasizing the positive aspects of his character, then, on the contrary, in other conditions, negative traits took over. In this sense, the characterization of Stalin given by Lenin in the so-called “testament” must be considered absolutely correct and accurate, confirmed by all subsequent events.
I emphasize that it is correct now, because, firstly, when we became acquainted with Lenin’s “testament”, internally we were not quite ready for such an assessment; we were convinced that Lenin was not right in everything in his personal description of Stalin.
When you now try to characterize Stalin and determine your attitude towards him, you find yourself in a very difficult position.
First. How actually did I feel about him in certain periods of the history of our party, the early periods, say, before 1934? I not only shared the political line of the party, in determining which Stalin played a large role, but also in the methods and tactics of work I agreed with him, although at certain moments he had breakdowns, which we noticed, but such breakdowns were rare, therefore did not spoil the general relationship and trust. I trusted him completely.
Relations began to change for the worse after the murder of Kirov, during the years of unjustified mass repressions against Leninist cadres and their entourage, and in general against the broad masses of the people in 1936–1940.
Now I have a different view on many questions, because at that time we did not know a lot of facts and documents that covered Stalin’s activities. We were not sent authentic documents about the facts of repression. They sent us only those documents, as it now became clear, that were profitable to send out in order to set us up in the desired spirit. For example, protocols of interrogations of prominent comrades were sent out, in which they confessed to absolutely incredible crimes that no one could even imagine, and they signed to them. Stalin said so: “Incredible, but true - they themselves admit it.” Stalin later, trying to give a more truthful character to the testimony, sent out interrogation reports, where on each page there was the signature of the accused, in order, as he said, “to exclude falsification and forgery.”
For example, the affairs of the military: Tukhachevsky, Uborevich, Yakir and others. Somehow, not in the usual manner at a meeting of the Politburo, but in Stalin’s office, where we, members of the Politburo were invited, Stalin began to present a message that, according to the NKVD, these military leaders were German spies, and began to read out some passages from the documents. He then added that he had doubts as to how correct the NKVD report was, but they were dispelled after recently receiving a message from the Czechoslovak President Benes that their intelligence had information through their agents in German intelligence that the listed military leaders were recruited by the Germans.
It was incredible. But not everyone was amazed - it was clear that this message had been previously discussed by Stalin with Voroshilov as the People's Commissar of Defense, because he was not surprised, did not object, and did not express any doubts.
I told Stalin: “I personally know Uborevich very well, I also know others, but Uborevich is better than everyone else. He is not only an excellent military man, but also an honest person, devoted to the party and state. Uborevich told me a lot about his stay in Germany, at the German headquarters to improve his qualifications. Yes, he expressed high praise for General von Seeckt, saying that he had learned a lot from the Germans, from the point of view of military science and technology, and methods of warfare. Being already here, he did everything to rearm our army, retrain it for new methods of warfare. I rule out that he could have been recruited, could have been a spy. And why would he be a spy, occupying such a position in our state, in our Armed Forces, having such a past in the civil war?”
Stalin began to prove that it was when Uborevich was at the German headquarters for training that he was recruited by the Germans. This is evidenced by the data available to the NKVD. True, he said that this data is subject to verification. “We will include in the court,” said Stalin, “only military people who understand the matter, and they will figure out what is true and what is not.” Budyonny was put in charge. Blucher was also there. I don’t remember who else Stalin named.
We were somewhat reassured by the message that military people would look into this matter and, perhaps, the charges would be dropped.
I worked in the periphery and was not familiar with many of the facts from the Civil War and early 1920s that we know today. And the point was the following. Stalin and those who worked with him, Voroshilov, Budyonny, Egorov, Kulik, Shchadenko, Mehlis, Tyulenev, Timoshenko, Afanasenko and others, took a position against military experts in the army, that is, against bringing former officers of the tsarist army into the army for command and staff positions.
When Stalin was in Tsaritsyn, members of the Military Council were Voroshilov and Budyonny. They expelled specialists from the army and shot many. True, there were real traitors among them, but innocent people also died along with them. There were attempts to complain to Lenin, who was on the side of attracting military experts, since most of them worked conscientiously.
I did not know about the conflict between Stalin and the Cavalry Army, on the one hand, and the commander of the Western Front, Tukhachevsky, who led the attack on Warsaw, on the other hand.
The fact was that at the most critical moment, the Politburo of the Central Committee under the leadership of Lenin decided to introduce the Cavalry Army during the attack on Warsaw to support Tukhachevsky’s left flank. Stalin, being with the Cavalry Army, was against this decision and did not give the order to implement the Politburo decision.
The Central Committee insisted on its decision. Stalin persisted. He was forced to leave for Moscow. These disagreements were sorted out at a commission of the Central Committee, where Tukhachevsky and Stalin clashed. About a week passed - time was lost.
Not knowing all this, I was extremely surprised that the military court confirmed the “facts” of their espionage activities, and Tukhachevsky, Uborevich, Yakir were executed, of course, with Stalin’s consent.
Voroshilov did not take an active part in the rehabilitation of these comrades, but he also did not raise any objections. Budyonny did not speak out openly, although he was the chairman of the court.
Voroshilov and Budyonny later, even in 1960, believed that the decisions of their court were justified. Once, in a conversation with Artem Ivanovich Mikoyan, Budyonny said: “We shouldn’t have rehabilitated them.” Then, when Voroshilov was already retired, I came to him for his birthday. He and Budyonny again began to be indignant at the revision of the trial of military leaders. “They say they were not enemies,” Budyonny made an excited noise. “But you remember how they called for us to be removed from the army?” And Voroshilov agreed with him. This is their understanding of sabotage, it turns out.
It seemed to me that those catastrophic breakdowns in Stalin’s character that took place during the years of repression would never be repeated, that the victory won in the Great Patriotic War, the great authority of our country during this period, a country that was little known before, would all lead to to the fact that Stalin will take the path of socialist democracy, say, as it was in the 20s.
But this did not happen. Of course, what happened in 1937–1938 did not happen again; it was impossible now. But what caused me great anxiety was the lack of understanding of the motives for his behavior. Of course, I tried to guess what caused this, what goals he was pursuing. But these were only guesses, unconvincing for me. So I didn't have a strong opinion. For example, after the victory in the Great Patriotic War, Stalin suddenly began to seek the arrest and conviction, this time not the death penalty, as it would have been in 1938, but the imprisonment of the Minister of Aviation Industry Shakhurin (the role of Malenkov, who oversaw this industry, is unclear) , who generally worked well throughout the war, conscientiously, managed the aviation industry well, and understood the matter. (I, for example, believe that it was indecent on the part of aircraft designer Yakovlev not to find kind words about Shakhurin in his memoirs. Yakovlev did not even consider it necessary to note that Shakhurin was incorrectly repressed and then rehabilitated.)
The same fate befell the commander of the Air Force, Chief Marshal of Aviation Novikov, who successfully commanded almost the entire war and visited the fronts where the most important events took place, more than in the center.
The head of the Aviation Industry Department of the Central Committee, a communist, engineer Grigoryan, whom I personally did not know well, was also arrested, but Malenkov valued him very much, and Grigoryan was his right hand in managing the aviation industry throughout the war.
The same thing happened to Marshal of Artillery Yakovlev. Throughout the war, he headed the GAU (Main Artillery Directorate) and was responsible for all the supply of weapons to the front, except for tanks and aircraft. From February 1942, he was appointed by the State Defense Committee as my deputy for supplying the front with weapons, since this responsibility was assigned to me as a member of the State Defense Committee. It was good for me to work with him - in just a few words he understood what was going on, he spoke little, but accurately and clearly, and was the master of his word. An independent man, he did not support some front commanders at the expense of others. He often visited the State Defense Committee and Headquarters with me, together and separately, and I never heard him receive any comments from Stalin. Stalin was pleased with his work and his behavior.
What motivation and reason was needed for their arrest?
Shakhurin was accused of delivering aircraft that were still unfinished, and Novikov accepted them in this form and sent them to the front, which Stalin considered sabotage; that Yakovlev immediately after the start of the war accepted a batch of 40 or 50 new anti-tank guns, not fully developed , in order to train troops to control them and conduct military tests.
These facts really happened. But this was the only correct decision on the part of these comrades. If during the war new aircraft had been carefully modified, strictly according to the program, then the front would not have received as many aircraft as required. After all, it is a fact that now, many years after the war, when time allows, two or three years pass before the finished aircraft is accepted into service and put into production. Then there was no time to waste!
The military is right when even excellent machines are required to make the aircraft better. For example, the MiG-19 is the best aircraft. It was so good that the government decided to begin mass production after many disputes with the military. But still, the military continued to accept the manufactured aircraft with the reservations that in the future it was necessary to eliminate some defects and improve the aircraft. In short, several thousand of these aircraft were made. Entered service into the army. But the military did not agree to this, and no government decision was made to accept these aircraft for service. But in fact the plane was in service.
Soon a new MiG-21 aircraft was created, and we gave the MiG-19 to the Chinese. We gave them all the documentation and helped them build the plant. The MiG-19 went quickly for them. They still, for more than a decade, continue to produce this aircraft and sell it to Pakistan. And Pakistan is very pleased with this aircraft. Now, many years later, they say that this aircraft would be more suitable against the current American “phantoms” than the MiG-21.
And, returning again to the comrades mentioned above, I firmly come to the conclusion that they really could have had some shortcomings in their work, but there was no reason to say that they deliberately caused harm. Even if you didn’t accept their approach and considered it negative, you could have given them your resignation, removed them from their posts, or, in extreme cases, demoted them in rank, but not arrested them.
And one more thing should be said. At that time, Stalin achieved the arrest and trial of Marshal Kulik and General Gordov. I didn’t know the latter personally, but I knew Kulik well. But Gordov was highly praised by Khrushchev, who was a member of the Military Council of the Stalingrad Front. The reason for their arrest was not clear to us. But I remember that Kulik said somewhere that they, the military, fought and won, and not those in power.
Kulik committed a serious offense in 1941, when he commanded on the Karelian Isthmus. When the Germans blockaded Leningrad, Kulik had the opportunity to send one or two divisions there to help Leningrad in order to save the railway from being captured by the Germans. The military council of the front asked him about this, but he refused, considering that this was “not his area.” But it was not this fact that Stalin blamed him for.
Kulik and Gordov were shot after the war. This amazed me very much. Why were they shot? If Kulik was illiterate and ill-prepared, then it was not him who should be blamed for ending up in such a high position, but the one who put him in it should be blamed. Personally, he was neither an enemy nor a dishonest person. After all, he was at the front throughout the war. And he was in the Civil War. He should have been demoted from the marshals, but not shot.
Apparently, Stalin would have dealt with Zhukov too. But the authority of Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov was so high that Stalin was afraid to do this and sent him as commander to the Ural Military District, away from everyone, that is, essentially, into isolation.
Some comrades say that those who worked with Stalin these years, even if they disagreed with him, did everything out of fear, everyone supported him, and when he was gone, they “became brave” and began to blame everything on Stalin, as if they themselves nothing to do with it.
It must be said that everyone who worked with Stalin in the leadership of the party bears one or another share of responsibility. Not the same, of course, and certainly not the same as Stalin. But those who criticize us are partly right.
So much power was concentrated in the hands of Stalin that he had the opportunity to present the issue in the form in which he wanted, without bringing to us complete and truthful information. This has now been proven. We didn't know much...
From the book Aces of Espionage by Dulles AllenChapter 9 EVALUATING INTELLIGENCE The work of the best intelligence officer and capable agent can be rendered useless if the place where their information arrives is misused or arrives late, much less if it is evaluated.
From the book Recollections of the Development of My Mind and Character author Darwin Charles RobertAssessing my mental abilities So, I have listed all the books I have published, and since they were the milestones of my life, there is little more left for me to say. I do not perceive any change in the state of my mind during the last thirty years, with the exception of one point, about
From the book It Was So author Mikoyan Anastas IvanovichChapter 44. My assessment of Stalin Often comrades ask, what assessment do you give to Stalin? This puts me in a difficult position, because it is impossible to characterize Stalin in monosyllables. This is a complex figure by nature, and he had a difficult path in the party and state. IN
From the book The Invention of Theater author Rozovsky Mark GrigorievichCollision and then evaluation Collision is a logical continuation of the counter search. The show has a constant need for mutual clashes between its characters, but the whole beauty of the theater is that they are led to these clashes
From the book Purely Confidential [Ambassador to Washington under six US presidents (1962-1986)] author Dobrynin Anatoly FedorovichThe Bush Administration's Assessment of Mikhail Gorbachev's Activities So, Gorbachev, pursuing a policy of reforms and new thinking, placed the main emphasis in foreign policy on cooperation with the United States. In this, strictly speaking, there was nothing reprehensible. I myself, being an ambassador,
From the book Great Mao. "Genius and Villainy" author Galenovich Yuri MikhailovichPosthumous assessment of Stalin and Mao Zedong Khrushchev recalled: “At the 20th Congress of the CPSU we condemned Stalin for his excesses, for the fact that he arbitrarily repressed millions of honest people, and for his one-man rule, which violated the principles of collective leadership. First Mao
From the book Wives of Chess Kings author Gik Evgeniy Yakovlevich From the book Bruce author Filimon Alexander NikolaevichAssessment of artillery by Part. Whitworth It should also be noted that in these first years of the war, the Feldzeichmeister General did not yet have a headquarters, there was no office, and in many cases Y. V. Bruce was forced to personally correspond with the Artillery Order. For example, responding to a letter
From the book I Survived Stalingrad. Disaster on the Volga by Wieder JoachimSeydlitz's assessment of the situation On November 22, Paulus with his immediate headquarters, which at first still remained in Nizhne-Chirskaya, was flown by plane to the “cauldron” that was beginning to take shape in order to set up his new command post near the railway
From the book The Genius of Focke-Wulf. The Great Kurt Tank author Antseliovich Leonid LipmanovichSober assessment Kurt sits in his small, modestly furnished office. There are many folders with secret documents on the desktop. Late evening. Thick curtains on the windows block out the light of a large table lamp. Strict blackout requirement - there is a war and
From the book David Hume author Narsky Igor Sergeevich3. Hume “saves” causality. An assessment of his doctrine of causal connections But now we are faced with Hume's third problem. It was significant for him because, unlike Berkeley, he, as we know, did not intend to completely destroy the epistemological foundations of science. British
From the book Notes of a St. Petersburg Bukharian author Saidov GolibAuthoritative assessment Skinny, small-sized Zinaida Sergeevna, who works in the washing shop, was late for work. Knowing her as a responsible and punctual worker, this surprised me extremely. And this is what we managed to find out. Zina wakes up in the morning and can’t do anything.
From the book by Warren Buffett. Biography by Schroeder Alice From the book Soldiers of Order author Chachin Vladimir MikhailovichI. Sivertseva, police captain HIGHEST VALUATION OF WORK I am a teacher by education, I began my career as a teacher in a kindergarten, and later worked in a school. But the children’s room of the police in Zhukovsky became my life’s work. She has had her best years. I love it very much
From the book Trajectory of Fate author Kalashnikov Mikhail TimofeevichAssessment of creative path As a twenty-year-old Red Army soldier, I began to improve military equipment. In 1940, having made a service life meter for a tank, I became an “army inventor.” I consider this simple device to be my first creative
From the book Furious Zhirinovsky. Political biography of the leader of the LDPR author Andreev Alexander RadevichCritical assessment of the communist ideology of V.V. Zhirinovsky Since I advocate a new ideology for Russia, I will have to take a certain excursion into the sphere of ideological views of various ideological and political movements. For decades,
, Competition "Presentation for the lesson"
Presentation for the lesson
Back forward
Attention! Slide previews are for informational purposes only and may not represent all the features of the presentation. If you are interested in this work, please download the full version.
Epigraph:
“We question and interrogate the past so that it can explain our present and hint at our future.” V.G. Belinsky
Lesson objectives:
- introduce various assessments of Stalin’s personality, consider his influence on the era and the influence of the era on Stalin’s personality
- learn how to conduct a discussion, defend your point of view, and treat other people’s opinions correctly
- work on problem solving skills
- teach the ability to analyze various sources of information
Lesson objectives:
Educational:
- repetition and generalization of knowledge on the history of the USSR from 1922 to 1953.
- deepen students' understanding of the role of personality in history.
Educational:
- develop the ability to analyze historical facts and tables;
- compare, draw conclusions, establish cause-and-effect relationships;
- express your idea briefly and prove it;
- compare different points of view;
- encourage students to participate in discussions.
Educational:
- instill an interest in the history of your own country;
- to form students’ own ideas and opinions about events occurring in history
Equipment: presentation, map, worksheets
Problem task:“Is Stalin a product of the era or is the era a product of Stalin?”
Progress of the lesson
1) Statement of the problem.
Analysis of the poem “I come from there...” B. Chichibabina.
Students note the poet’s ambiguous assessment of the Stalin era.
Define the problem: “Is Stalin a product of the era or is the era a product of Stalin?”
The table is filled out on the board during the lesson.
2) Brief Biography of I.V. Stalin until 1922 (student message):
In 1879, a boy was born - Joseph, his father gave him his last name - Dzhugashvili. Having come a long way, he became first Koba, then Stalin. Let's listen to his short biography until 1922. (fill out the table).
3) Solving problematic problems. Acquaintance with various points of view of contemporaries on the era.
1. Dmitrievsky S. wrote: “Stalin, having gradually nullified all the beginnings of Soviet democracy that had been created in the last Leninist years, brought the autocracy of the party in the country to its extreme expression. At the same time, within the party itself, centralization was taken to its extreme expressions...”
What is your point of view on this issue?
Students are led to believe that Stalin's dictatorship was not inevitable from the start.
Student analysis of the stages of the struggle for power in the 20s. (filling out the table).
2. Philosopher A. Tsipko wrote the following about Stalin: “The omnipotence of the revolution, which came to him for no reason, completely corrupted him. But in everything he did there was a protest against everything human. What made him angry? Perhaps this is how the rebellion of mediocrity, which decided to take revenge for all its zeros, was expressed.”
What do you think? Do you agree with this approach to Stalin's personality?
Analysis of the table “Results of Stalin’s industrialization” (working with a map, table).
3. Historian R. Medvedev wrote: “I believe that only those who were imprisoned in camps or died could not be considered victims of repression. In principle, the entire people were victims of repression.”
Do you agree with the historian? Justify your opinion.
Analysis of the table “GULAG System” (filling out the table).
4. The role of Stalin in the Second World War(according to contemporaries)
Students conclude that Stalin’s role in the victory is highly appreciated by his contemporaries.
5. Modern assessments of the role of Stalin.
Working with Worksheet 3 (Assessed by Historians and Political Figures of the Late 20th Century).
6. FOM assessment(preliminary task: make diagrams based on data on the website of the Public Opinion Foundation and analyze them).
Let’s solve the problematic problem: “Is Stalin a product of the era or is the era a product of Stalin?”
Students express their opinions and make a general conclusion: “The era gave birth to Stalin, and then he himself began to shape it.”
Homework: choose 1) a reasoned essay on the issue or compose a historical portrait of Stalin.
On the eve of Stalin's birthday, the Kultura newspaper decided to ask three different people for their opinions about him. I was one of those whom the publication asked a number of questions.
“On December 21, when some Russians are preparing for the end of the world, some are preparing for New Year’s corporate parties, and the majority are working hard, hoping to catch up with what was planned for the outgoing year, many will remember one historical date that is not round. According to the official version, exactly 133 years ago in the small Georgian town of Gori, a son, Joseph, was born into the family of artisan shoemaker Vissarion Dzhugashvili.
We all know who this man became four decades later. And there are practically no people indifferent to his life path, which radically influenced the history of Russia in the 20th century. Interpretations and assessments differ - and are polar.
Today we decided to give the floor to those with three points of view on this difficult figure. The heroes were not chosen by chance. The 900-page “Stalin” by historian and writer Svyatoslav Rybas in the famous “ZhZL” series of the “Young Guard” is being republished for the third time. At the beginning of autumn, the publishing house “Peter” published the best-selling book by publicist Nikolai Starikov “Stalin. Let's remember together,” perhaps the most popular apology for the Generalissimo today. The same publishing house also published an opposite book by the famous TV presenter Leonid Mlechin, “Stalin. Russia's obsession."
Identical questions - different answers. Choose whose opinion is closer to you.
1. Recently, more and more books about Joseph Stalin have been published. Notebooks with his portrait on the cover have gone on sale, and on the street you can meet people wearing T-shirts with the image of the leader. Is this just a fashion or a sign of a change in public sentiment?
2. There is an opinion that Stalin's popularity is actually a dream of a hero-ruler. Why is this image in demand among our people?
3. How do you feel about the actively discussed idea of returning the name Stalingrad to Volgograd? How realistic is this, in your opinion?
4. Industrialization has become one of the symbols of building a great power. Does our country need a similar project today?
Svyatoslav Rybas: “Stalin’s image feeds on current realities”
1. What do you want? Stalin died 60 years ago. Since then, authorities have launched an anti-death campaign at least four times to divert public attention from their mistakes. And what did they achieve? Eventually, this practice began to backfire on its initiators. Since the start of the latest “de-Stalinization” campaign, which began during the presidency of Dmitry Medvedev, sociologists have noted a sharp increase in the authority of the generalissimo. But Churchill also said in relation to Khrushchev that he entered into a fight with a dead lion and came out of it a loser. Subsequent wrestlers also lose.
2. There are three levels of international rivalry: the first is military-strategic, the second is geo-economic, and the third is mental. Regardless of our desire, they constantly interact and must always be taken into account. For example, Hitler's Germany tried to combine the first two in a "blitzkrieg" strategy. But at the third level the whole world united against the Germans. Today it is permeated with a struggle of ideas and meanings. It is meanings that govern the world. Look how one of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s sharp ideas is now being implemented: to equate Stalin with Hitler, and to declare the Soviet Union the instigator of World War II. What to answer to this? And what is our political class doing? He still has not proposed his own picture of the world that would suit society. This is where the emptiness is filled.
In my opinion, the idea of the “architect of perestroika” Alexander Yakovlev is still working - first with “good” Lenin to beat “bad” Stalin, then with “good” Plekhanov to beat “bad” Lenin, and then to overthrow the Soviet regime. But today's Stalin is a convincing example of how meanings that meet expectations come to the fore despite the will of the authorities. Moreover, the Stalinist image and the real Stalin are still different things. The Stalinist image feeds on current realities. This is a type of public criticism... On our federal television channels there is an unspoken policy in films about Stalin to show positive and negative in a ratio of 30 to 70. And is this a serious response to the challenge? Some kind of kindergarten! By the way, Mao Zedong said that Stalin’s actions were 70 percent correct and 30 percent wrong, but one must take into account the scale of what was done. How can one respond to such a fact? Twenty days before his death, Stalin signed a government decree to begin work on the R-7 rocket, which launched Yuri Gagarin’s spacecraft into space... Therefore, it is obvious: today’s practice will change, and Stalin will calmly go to historians, where he belongs.
3. Sooner or later they will return. Not today. Although, as far as I know, this was discussed in the Kremlin. We stopped one step short of making a decision and replaced the inscription on the name of the hero city near the Eternal Flame. Now there is “Stalingrad”.
4. It is necessary to revive not in words. It seems to me that Stalin’s appearance on the historical stage was predetermined not by his “evil will” or by the efforts of Lenin, but by the collapse of Stolypin’s reforms and the conspiracy of the imperial elite against the tsar. Stalin is the other side of the failure of Stolypin's reforms. Without Joseph Vissarionovich, Russia would still need to find a leader who would carry out modernization. And now his image, like the shadow of Hamlet’s father, encourages action. And first of all, the authorities and the political class must answer the questions: where is the country going? What are her ideals? Why were these upheavals started?
Nikolai Starikov: “A reverse reaction arises - respect for the person who won the war”
1. We live in a democratic society, which means that anyone is free to wear the clothes and read the books they like. Images of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin on covers and T-shirts do not violate the law. The de-Stalinizers achieved the opposite result: the more vehemently they scold the leader, the more people want to understand this controversial figure. People immerse themselves in documents, in memoirs and become convinced that what is told about Stalin is often a blatant lie. And then the opposite reaction arises: respect for the man who won the most terrible war in Russian history. People wear a T-shirt with his image on it, hang his portrait at home, and try to buy their child a notebook with him on the cover.
2. Unfortunately, modern Russians have a lot of heroes. Complete discord. Some have Stalin, some have Khodorkovsky, and some have a blogger who writes his posts with grammatical errors. It is this fragmentation that is one of the key problems of modern Russian society. I wouldn’t speak for everyone, but there are results of the audience voting on the “Name of Russia” project in 2008. In a sense, the results of this competition can be considered a sociological snapshot. Then Alexander Nevsky won, although there are suspicions that Joseph Stalin still took first place. It was just “intolerant.” And Stalin was eventually given third place.
3. Our organization - the Trade Union of Russian Citizens - collectively decided to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi troops at Stalingrad to appeal to the country's leadership with a request to restore historical justice - to return the city on the Volga to the name under which it entered world history. How likely is this to happen? I believe the probability is 50%. The outcome largely depends on our civic position.
4. Today, Stalin's industrialization is often accused of the fact that the main point in the economic breakthrough of the 30s of the twentieth century was the pumping of resources from the countryside. But that's not true. Problems in the countryside arose as a result of certain actions of our geopolitical “friends”, because capitalist countries agreed to sell industrial equipment and generally conduct any trade with the USSR only in exchange for grain. The famine that happened in our country was one of the consequences of this policy. There was no malicious intent of the Soviet leadership here.
The source for new industrialization is our natural resources, which must be nationalized and put at the service of the people. They should not belong to individual individuals or legal entities.
The fact that Stalin and, as they say today, his team, were statesmen is a completely obvious fact. Even liberals admit this. As you know, personnel decides everything. And today, I have no doubt, there is no shortage of patriots. Another thing is that the existing selection principles do not allow these particular people to be nominated. The criterion, in my opinion, should be simple. It is necessary to nominate ideological people, for whom the main thing is service to their country. And the salary is just a nice addition to the idea.
Leonid Mlechin: “The Russian patriot will not say anything good about Stalin”
1. People like Stalin and Hitler will always attract attention, because a normal person is simply not able to imagine the full scale of their atrocities. These scales fascinate a person, he tries to find motives, builds some logical assumptions. In addition, such interest is also associated with people’s severe disappointment in today, a feeling of historical failure, despair and lack of self-confidence. This is very typical for our society. But people do not look forward, do not look for new recipes for solving problems, but look back, hoping to find answers in the past. And since the image of Stalin is imprinted with great victories, it seems to many that it is he who should be taken as an example. This is due, firstly, to a complete ignorance of their past, and secondly, to the reluctance of people to think about what path Russia would have taken, what successes it would have achieved, if not for this historical distortion, which was the Soviet and, in particular, Stalinist period.
2. As a child, my brother and I assembled detector receivers from small parts and were happy. But today's child does not need to be given such a receiver, he needs something completely different. So what we need now is not Stalin’s example. We need to move forward and look for other images.
I have traveled half of Russia, and everywhere there are monuments to either politicians or military leaders. As a rule, both categories are very dubious characters. And in our history there were, are and will be outstanding people who left a clear positive mark. We must value not those who killed and oppressed someone, but those who raised, educated, saved and promoted. Scientists, doctors, naturalists, teachers, just some kind of devotees. We need to look at our past differently and change our guidelines towards morality. In the meantime, it is not included in our estimates. People who say kind words about Stalin do not understand how immoral and unpatriotic they are behaving. A true Russian patriot will not say anything good about Stalin.
3. A certain number of people have been running around with this idea all their lives, as far as I can remember - there are always those who want it. Once upon a time, Alexander Evgenievich Bovin, now deceased, said that “... it is necessary to rename. Most Soviet people were born after the war. They should know the name of the man who allowed the Germans to reach Stalingrad.” In this sense, I agree with him, because the name of Stalin is a symbol of suffering and tragedy. But in general, if you really want to change the name, I would be in favor of returning Tsaritsyn, a good old Russian name.
4. New industrialization is necessary - after all, the world is changing, does not stand still and develops. But industrialization, carried out in Stalin's style, was a disaster for the country. Having forcibly destroyed the economy, artificially cutting themselves off from the world, the Bolsheviks first destroyed the Russian peasantry, and then began to build a poorly thought-out industry. And to this day we are faced with the results of this illiterate industrialization. After all, our industry turned out to be inflexible and unable to respond to circumstances. And all because the original industrialization plan was not correct and was drawn up by illiterate people.
Short course
When a spy or traitor is caught, the public's indignation knows no bounds; it demands execution. And when a thief operates in front of everyone, stealing state property, the surrounding public limits itself to good-natured laughter and a pat on the shoulder. Meanwhile, it is clear that a thief who steals people's property and undermines the interests of the national economy is the same spy and traitor, if not worse. (“On the economic situation and policy of the party”)
The question of oil is a vital question, because who will command in a future war depends on who has the most oil. Whoever has more oil will determine who will command world industry and trade. (“XIV Congress of the CPSU(b)”)
I think that it would be possible to begin to gradually curtail the production of vodka, introducing into the business, instead of vodka, sources of income such as radio and cinema. In fact, why not take these most important means into your hands and put shock people in this matter from real Bolsheviks, who could successfully inflate the matter and finally make it possible to curtail the vodka production business? ( "XV Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)")
The workers cannot have faith in the leaders where the leaders have rotted in the diplomatic game, where words are not backed up by deeds, where leaders say one thing and do another. (“Speech in the German Commission of the VI Plenum of the ECCI”)
... democracy is not something given for all times and conditions, because there are times when there is no possibility and sense to carry it out. (“XIII Conference of the RCP(b)”)
You want to make your country advanced in the sense of raising its statehood, raise the literacy of the population, raise the culture of your country, the rest will follow. (“IV meeting of the Central Committee of the RCP(b) with senior officials of national republics and regions”)”
Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin to this day is considered an extremely contradictory person. Opinions about its significance for the country are divided into two camps. Someone is ready to put the leader on a pedestal again, saying: “Stalin is not enough for you,” and someone supports the words of M. S. Gorbachev: “Stalin is a man covered in blood.” However, no one is indifferent. So what did this man do and not do for Russia during the almost 30-year history of his leadership? We will consider the pros and cons of Stalin's rule in history in the most important events of 1924-1953.
Collectivization
“Land to the peasants, power to the people” is the main slogan of the communists. Everything should be common, and the earth is no exception. The kulaks as a class had to be eliminated and collective farms created that would provide Soviet citizens with everything they needed. Collectivization is one of the stages on the path to industrialization.
The civil war and revolution greatly undermined the work of the peasants. As a result, 1927 was a low harvest year. This outraged Stalin, because in the USSR there could be no shortage of anything. As a result, it was decided to begin mass collectivization, that is, to make all agriculture collective. What did this lead to?
Pros and cons of Stalin's rule during the years of collectivization 1928-1937.
- Elimination of the kulaks as a class. About 15 million people were exiled to Siberia, shot and evicted from their homes.
- The terrible famine of 1932-1933, the entire harvest of the peasants was taken by the cities, as a result, according to various estimates, from 5 to 10 million people, mostly children, died from hunger.
- The private sector in agriculture was completely destroyed.
- Collectivization created the conditions for industrialization. The state received funds for industrial development.
- Livestock numbers fell by 50%.
- Grain production fell by 3%.
- 93% of peasant farms were transferred to collective farms.
- Agricultural production is completely subordinated to the state.
- Mass exodus of peasants to the city.
Constitution of 1936
The main idea of the constitution is freedom. The adopted constitution stated that the state belonged to the workers and peasants. Councils and teams have been created. The united communist party must protect the worker. And everything would be fine, but now everything, absolutely everything within the state, belongs to the state, including people.
Repression
Speaking about Stalin's rule, one cannot help but talk about repressions. Many people still justify his actions. Political crimes are the main reason for repression, or rather the reason. A political crime was expressed not only in actions, but also in words, in a glance, in relatives abroad, in the expression of an opinion different from the ideology of communism. Fear acquired such proportions that for many years after Stalin’s death it was scary to pronounce his name.
We will consider the pros and cons of Stalin's rule below.
- Formation of a cult of personality.
- Manipulation of society through fear.
- Formation of a certain social consciousness.
- About 5 million people were convicted for political reasons.
- About 800 thousand people were sentenced to capital punishment.
- About 6.5 million people were expelled from Russia.
- There was practically no corruption in Russia.
in 2007, President V.V. Putin will say about this:
We all know well that 1937 is considered the peak of repression, but it (this year 1937) was well prepared by the previous years of cruelty. Suffice it to recall the executions of hostages during the Civil War, the destruction of entire classes, the clergy, the dispossession of the peasantry, and the destruction of the Cossacks. Such tragedies have been repeated more than once in human history. And this always happened when ideals that were attractive at first glance, but empty in reality, were placed above the main value - the value of human life, above human rights and freedoms. This is a special tragedy for our country. Because the scale is colossal. After all, hundreds of thousands, millions of people were exterminated, exiled to camps, shot, tortured. Moreover, these are, as a rule, people with their own opinions. These are people who were not afraid to express it. These are the most effective people. This is the color of the nation. And, of course, we still feel this tragedy for many years. Much needs to be done to ensure that this is never forgotten.
- Prisoners constituted a free labor force; at the expense of the victims of repressed labor, such facilities were created as: the White Sea-Baltic Canal, the Volga-Don Canal, the Nizhny Tagil Metallurgical Plant, about ten hydroelectric power stations, the Kola Railway, the Northern Railway, highways, etc.
- A number of Russian cities were built by Gulag prisoners: Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Vorkuta, Ukhta, Pechora, Nakhodka, Volzhsky, etc.
- Prisoners also contributed to agriculture.
- Migration of thousands of Russian citizens, the best minds, intelligentsia, and creative elite.
The Great Patriotic War
The pros and cons of Stalin's rule during the Second World War are very blurred. On the one hand, Stalin won the war, but on the other hand, the people under the leadership of great commanders won the war. You can argue endlessly. The whole country worked for the benefit of the front. Russia began to breathe as one large organism. Economy, industry, agriculture, transport, factories, culture - everything worked together with the goal of winning the war. People united in one common grief. All these structures worked very clearly and harmoniously, and there is no doubt about this: Russia entered the war, being “backward” in industrial terms in relation to Germany, and emerged from the war as a strong military power.
Russia lost 27 million people in the war, Germany - 7 million people. It turns out that for every German soldier, 4 Soviet soldiers were killed. This is the price of victory. Russia was not ready for war, and this is a fact. Repression of generals and officers, Stalin ignoring warnings of an attack from both intelligence officers and Churchill. As a result, in the first days of the war, hundreds of thousands of soldiers were captured and all Soviet aviation was destroyed! Can we consider that Russia won the war thanks to Stalin? Or despite his mistakes?
In the post-war period, totalitarianism reached its apogee. Control was established over all spheres of society. Repressions also continued after the war. Fear shrouded the country until the death of the leader.
Industrialization
Already in 1947, industry was completely restored, and 10 years later economic well-being almost doubled. None of the countries affected by the war had by this time reached even the pre-war level. Russia has become a great military power.
Pros and cons of the reign of Joseph Stalin:
- Under Stalin, more than 1,500 major industrial facilities, plants and factories were built. These are DneproGES, Uralmash, KhTZ, GAZ, ZIS, factories in Magnitogorsk, Chelyabinsk, Norilsk and Stalingrad.
- Nuclear missile weapons were created. Although there is still debate about Stalin's role in this area.
- A lot of agricultural resources were used for the benefit of industrialization, which significantly made the life of the peasants more difficult.
After Stalin
Joseph Stalin died at the age of 73. The cause of death still remains a mystery. Some say that he was poisoned by Khrushchev and like-minded people, others are inclined to believe that it was a heart attack. In any case, it was Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev who became the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. Over the 11 years of his leadership, Russia has already had other ups and downs.
Pros and cons of the reign of Stalin and Khrushchev in comparison:
- Stalin built socialism, Khrushchev destroyed it.
- Stalin relied on industrialization, Khrushchev on agriculture.
- Khrushchev destroyed Stalin's personality cult, freed many innocent citizens from exile, but did not stop the repressions.
The pros and cons of Stalin's rule are still disputed by historians, society and witnesses of those years. The leader's contradictory personality makes his achievements contradictory. Now a lot of literature has been written and many documentaries have been shot, but these are all theoretical disputes. It is impossible to prove that either side is right.
Results
The era of Stalin is unique. For 30 years, the country experienced civil war, famine, repression, the terrible Great Patriotic War, and post-war reconstruction. It’s not for nothing that people say “Khrushchev’s thaw,” and under Stalin they said “Hammer and sickle, death and famine.” After Stalin's death, people's fear slowly began to disappear. It is impossible to briefly summarize the pros and cons of Stalin's rule. Joseph Dzhugashvili played too big a role in history.
Results of Stalin's reign, pros and cons:
- The country's resources were national: free medicine, education, recreation, housing, cultural entertainment (theaters, museums).
- Great educational reform, many schools and institutes have been built.
- Scientific progress, nuclear and missile development.
- Victory in the Second World War and the rapid economic recovery of the country.
- Industrial development, industrialization.
- The population decreased during the years of civil war, revolution, famine, repression and the Second World War.
- The blind, undeniable ideology is still alive in the minds of the Soviet generation, so great was its scale.
The great era of Stalin has ended, and everyone perceives the results of his leadership differently.
During Stalin's lifetime, Soviet propaganda created an aura around him as a “great leader and teacher.” A number of cities and streets in populated areas in the USSR and Eastern European countries were named after Stalin; Many enterprises, institutions, collective farms, and hydraulic structures received the additional “im. I.V. Stalin"; His name could also be found in the names of Soviet equipment produced in the 1930-1950s. In the Soviet press of the Stalin era, his name was mentioned in the same breath as Marx, Engels and Lenin. He has often been mentioned in songs, works of art and films.
Assessments of Stalin's personality are contradictory and there is a huge range of opinions about him, and often they describe him with opposing characteristics. On the one hand, many who communicated with Stalin spoke of him as a widely and diversified educated and extremely intelligent person. On the other hand, Stalin is often described negatively.
Some historians believe that Stalin established a personal dictatorship; others believe that until the mid-1930s the dictatorship was collective in nature. The political system implemented by Stalin is usually referred to as “totalitarianism.” According to the conclusions of many historians, the Stalinist dictatorship was an extremely centralized regime that relied primarily on powerful party-state structures, terror and violence, as well as mechanisms for ideological manipulation of society, the selection of privileged groups and the formation of pragmatic strategies. According to Oxford University professor R. Hingley, for a quarter of a century before his death, Stalin wielded more political power than any other figure in history. He was not just a symbol of the regime, but a leader who made fundamental decisions and was the initiator of all any significant government measures.
After the so-called “debunking the personality cult of Stalin” By the First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee N. S. Khrushchev at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, Soviet historians assessed Stalin taking into account the position of the ideological bodies of the USSR. This position, in particular, can be illustrated by a quotation from the index of names to the Complete Works of Lenin, published in 1974, where the following is written about Stalin:
Along with the positive side, Stalin’s activities also had a negative side. While holding the most important party and government posts, Stalin committed gross violations of the Leninist principles of collective leadership and the norms of party life, violations of socialist legality, and unjustified mass repressions against prominent government, political and military figures of the Soviet Union and other honest Soviet people.
The Party resolutely condemned and put an end to the personality cult of Stalin and its consequences, alien to Marxism-Leninism, approved the work of the Central Committee to restore and develop Leninist principles of leadership and norms of party life in all areas of party, state and ideological work, took measures to prevent such errors and perversions in future.
Personality assessments by Stalin's contemporaries
During Stalin's lifetime, attitudes towards him varied on a spectrum from benevolent and enthusiastic to negative. In particular, foreign writers who met with the Soviet leader left their reviews of Stalin: English writers Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells, French writers Henri Barbusse. In particular, the following statements by Nobel Prize laureate B. Shaw about Stalin are known: “Stalin is a very pleasant person and truly the leader of the working class,” “Stalin is a giant, and all Western figures are pygmies.” In his book “An Essay on Autobiography,” H. Wells wrote about Stalin: “I have never met a more sincere, decent and honest man; there is nothing dark and sinister about him, and it is these qualities that should explain his enormous power in Russia. I thought before, before I met him, maybe people thought poorly of him because people were afraid of him. But I found that, on the contrary, no one is afraid of him and everyone believes in him.<…>Stalin is completely devoid of the cunning and cunning of the Georgians.” The words of A. Barbusse about Stalin have become widely known in literature: “Stalin is Lenin today”; “This is an iron man. His surname gives us his image: Stalin - steel”; this is a man “with the head of a scientist, with the face of a worker, in the clothes of a simple soldier.”
Anti-Stalinist positions were taken by a number of communist figures, accusing Stalin of destroying the party and departing from the ideals of Lenin and Marx. This approach originated among the so-called. "Lenin's Guard" Stalin's most significant opponent, L. D. Trotsky, called Stalin an “outstanding mediocrity” who does not forgive anyone for “spiritual superiority.”
Stalin's former secretary Boris Bazhanov, who fled the USSR in 1928, in his memoirs characterizes Stalin as a “poorly cultured,” “cunning,” “ignorant” person. In the book of memoirs “Stalin and the Tragedy of Georgia,” published in 1932 in Berlin in German, Joseph Dzhugashvili’s classmate at the Tiflis Theological Seminary, Joseph Iremashvili, argued that young Stalin was characterized by “grudge, vindictiveness, deceit, ambition and lust for power.”
Academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences V.I. Vernadsky, in a diary entry dated November 14, 1941, describing his impressions of Stalin’s speech at the Parade on Red Square on November 7, 1941, noted: “Only yesterday the text of Stalin’s speech reached us, which made a huge impression. We used to listen on the radio from five to ten. The speech is undoubtedly from a very intelligent person.” Soviet military leader I. G. Starinov conveys the impression made on him by Stalin’s speech: “We listened to Stalin’s speech with bated breath. Stalin spoke about what worried everyone: about people, about personnel. And how convincingly he spoke! Here I first heard: “Personnel decides everything.” The words about how important it is to take care of people and take care of them are etched in my memory for the rest of my life...”
Assessments of Stalin's personality by modern experts
When characterizing Stalin's personality, many historians note Stalin's penchant for reading a large amount of literature. Stalin was a very reading, erudite person and was interested in culture, including poetry. He spent a lot of time reading books, and after his death his personal library remained, consisting of thousands of books, with his notes in the margins. Stalin, in particular, read books by Guy de Maupassant, Oscar Wilde, N.V. Gogol, Johann Wolfgang Goethe, L.D. Trotsky, L.B. Kamenev. According to V.A. Razumny, Stalin preferred Kant to Hegel. Among the authors whom Stalin admired were Emil Zola and F. M. Dostoevsky. He quoted long passages from the Bible, the works of Bismarck, and the works of Chekhov. Stalin himself told some visitors, pointing to a stack of books on his desk: “This is my daily norm - 500 pages.” In this way, up to a thousand books were produced per year. Historian R. A. Medvedev, speaking out against “often extremely exaggerated assessments of the level of his education and intelligence,” at the same time warns against downplaying it. He notes that Stalin read a lot, and widely, from fiction to popular science. In the pre-war period, Stalin devoted his main attention to historical and military-technical books; after the war, he moved on to reading political works, such as “History of Diplomacy” and the biography of Talleyrand. Medvedev notes that Stalin, being the culprit for the death of a large number of writers and the destruction of their books, at the same time patronized M. Sholokhov, A. Tolstoy and others, returns from exile E. V. Tarle, whose biography of Napoleon he treated with great respect interest and personally supervised its publication, suppressing tendentious attacks on the book. Medvedev emphasizes Stalin’s knowledge of national Georgian culture; in 1940, Stalin himself made changes to the new translation of “The Knight in the Skin of the Tiger”
The English writer and statesman Charles Snow also characterized Stalin's educational level as quite high:
One of the many curious circumstances related to Stalin: he was much more educated in a literary sense than any of his contemporary statesmen. In comparison, Lloyd George and Churchill are surprisingly poorly read people. As, indeed, did Roosevelt.
There is evidence that back in the 20s, Stalin attended the play “Days of the Turbins” eighteen times by the writer M.A. Bulgakov. Stalin also maintained personal contacts with other cultural figures: musicians, film actors, directors. Stalin also personally entered into controversy with the composer D. D. Shostakovich. Stalin also loved cinema and was willingly interested in directing. One of the directors with whom Stalin was personally acquainted was A.P. Dovzhenko. Stalin liked films by this director such as “Arsenal” and “Aerograd”. Stalin also personally edited the script for the film Shchors.
Russian historian L.M. Batkin, recognizing Stalin’s love of reading, believes that he was an “aesthetically dense” reader. Batkin believes that Stalin had no idea “about the existence of such a ‘subject’ as art”, about the “special artistic world” and about the structure of this world. According to Batkin’s conclusion, Stalin brought “a certain energy” of the semi-educated and average layer of people to a “pure, strong-willed, outstanding form.” According to Batkin, Stalin’s oratorical style is extremely primitive: it is distinguished by “a catechismal form, endless repetitions and inversions of the same thing, the same phrase in the form of a question and in the form of a statement, and again by means of a negative particle.” Israeli expert on Russian literature Mikhail Weiskopf also argues that Stalin’s argument was built “on more or less hidden tautologies, on the effect of a stupefying drumming.”
On the other hand, Russian philologist G. G. Khazagerov elevates Stalin’s rhetoric to the traditions of solemn, homiletic eloquence and considers it didactic-symbolic. According to the author’s definition, “the task of didactics, based on symbolism as an axiom, is to organize the picture of the world and to convey this ordered picture intelligibly. Stalinist didactics, however, also took on the functions of symbolism. This was manifested in the fact that the zone of axioms grew to include entire educational programs, and evidence, on the contrary, was replaced by reference to authority.” Russian philologist V.V. Smolenenkova notes the strong impact that Stalin’s speeches had on the audience. Smolenenkova explains the effect of Stalin’s speeches by the fact that they were quite adequate to the mood and expectations of the audience. The English historian S. Sebag-Montefiore notes that Stalin's style was distinguished by clarity and, often, sophistication.
Assessment of Russian officials
Bus with a portrait of Stalin in St. Petersburg
Russian President D. A. Medvedev, speaking about the Katyn tragedy, called this act a crime of Stalin: “On our part, all assessments were given long ago. The Katyn tragedy is a crime of Stalin and a number of his henchmen. The position of the Russian state on this issue has long been formulated and remains unchanged.” In an interview with the Izvestia newspaper, the President, in particular, noted that “Stalin committed a lot of crimes against his people... And despite the fact that he worked hard, despite the fact that under his leadership the country achieved success, what was done in relation to one’s own people cannot be forgiven.” According to Medvedev's position, Stalin's role in the victory in the Great Patriotic War was “very serious,” although Medvedev believes that the war was “won by our people.” In general, according to Medvedev, Stalin “had both weak decisions and very strong decisions, including during the war period. This also cannot be crossed out.”
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said in 2009: “It is obvious that from 1924 to 1953 the country, and the country was then led by Stalin, changed radically, it turned from agricultural to industrial. True, there was no peasantry left, but industrialization did take place. We won the Great Patriotic War. And no matter who said anything, victory was achieved.” At the same time, the prime minister noted the repressions that took place during that period. According to Putin, the Katyn execution was Stalin’s revenge “for the death of 32 thousand Red Army soldiers who died in Polish captivity.”
According to the position of former USSR President M.S. Gorbachev, “Stalin is a man covered in blood.”
According to the Chairman of the Federation Council S. M. Mironov: “Stalin is a bloody executioner, and no matter what anyone says, he is and will be so.”
According to State Duma Chairman B.V. Gryzlov, as the leader of the USSR, Stalin “did a lot during the Great Patriotic War,” although “excesses in domestic policy” “do not decorate him.” “We know how respected he was by those who opened a second front,” said the head of the lower house of the Russian legislature.
The State Duma, in its statement “On the Katyn tragedy and its victims” dated November 26, 2010, officially recognized that the execution of Polish officers near Katyn was carried out on the direct orders of Stalin and other Soviet leaders. According to Russian media reports, the majority of deputies from the factions “United Russia”, “A Just Russia” and “LDPR” voted for the adoption of this statement. Deputies from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation faction voted against the adoption of the statement, insisting that the assertion about the guilt of the USSR leadership in the Katyn tragedy is based on falsified documents. Regarding the communist version of the “falsification” of documents, Russian President D. A. Medvedev said the following on December 6, 2010: “Stalin and his henchmen are responsible for this crime. And I have relevant documents that were received from the so-called “special folder”. These documents are now available on the Internet, they are publicly available with all resolutions. Attempts to cast doubt on these documents, to say that someone falsified them, are simply not serious. This is being done by those who are trying to whitewash the nature of the regime that Stalin created in a certain period in our country.”
Public opinion polls
According to a public opinion poll on February 18 - 19, 2006, 47% of Russian residents considered Stalin's role in history to be positive, 29% - negative. Only in one socio-demographic group, among citizens with higher education, the historical figure of Stalin was perceived positively less often than negatively. 59% believed that “in Stalin’s times, it was mostly innocent people who ended up in camps and prisons,” 12% believed that “mostly those who deserved it.” Among citizens under 35 years of age, 39% had a positive view of Stalin and 30% negatively. At the same time, 38% believed that Stalin and his activities are now being “denigrated,” and 29% believed that “they are being assessed objectively.”
Over the course of a months-long electronic public opinion poll organized by the Rossiya TV channel, Stalin occupied the leading position by a wide margin. The final official data show that Stalin took second place, losing to Alexander Nevsky with 5,504 votes.
