The series began to be shown on Channel One documentaries"Country of Soviets. Forgotten Leaders" (produced by Media-Star with the participation of the Russian Military Historical Society and the Ministry of Culture). There will be seven heroes in total: Dzerzhinsky, Voroshilov, Budyonny, Molotov, Abakumov, Zhdanov and Beria.
The general message is this. Over the past 30-50 years, we have become widely aware of a set of carefully assembled facts and, to varying degrees, clumsily concocted myths about these (and many, many other) characters from our history. Accordingly, “every intelligent person generally knows” what kind of criminals, executioners, maniacs, stranglers, mediocrities, incompetents and helpful servants of the main tyrant they were.
All this, which is “generally known”, is the mythological legacy of political technologies and agitprop legends that have long sunk into nowhere, which once served various court intrigues of various sizes - from ordinary quarrels for power in the 50s to large-scale national betrayal in the 80s-90s .
And since this is “generally known,” then the authors do not dwell on the legends - except to casually refute some of them that are absolutely amazing. And they tell what kind of people they are and what they did in high government positions besides, or even instead of, what is “well known.”
It is logical that Channel One began with Lavrentiy Beria (although, according to the authors’ plans, the film about this hero just closes the cycle). Because of this change in the places of the terms, the content has not changed at all, but the interested viewer immediately understands what it is about and what exactly it is. Beria in in this case– an ideal indicator of intentions, business card of the entire project and a guaranteed magnet for the audience.
Why? Yes, because of all the “forgotten leaders”, it is Beria who is the most not just “forgotten”, but a character of a completely outrageously idiotic caricatured mythology, sewn with white thread so much that behind them you can’t see anything at all: no person, no history, no common sense .
In fact, as Channel One showed on Sunday, there is plenty of that in work history Beria - this is historical logic. Whatever problems the country faced, these were the ones he solved. I decided to get the right result in the right time at any cost. And “any price” – yes, the one that was assigned by history at a specific time, where there was no place for tolerance and pacifism. That is why the “alternative myth” is also amazing, where instead of the “maniac and murderer” invented by Khrushchev and Perestroika propagandists, there is an equally invented kind guy, completely amazed by the ideals of abstract humanism and democracy.
What is important: behind every episode of Beria’s biography there are deep layers of the country’s history. Civil War and its metastases, the problems of the union state and local nationalism, industrialization and dramatic modernization Agriculture, the constant reform of the economic model and methodology of national superprojects, the Yalta peace and the fate of Germany... This film objectively turned out to be, alas, a tongue twister, but enough to understand the scale and logic, and even better, to become interested in it once again.
Although, in my opinion, it would be better in two episodes to find a place for a more detailed educational program on the logic of history, rather than for the uninformative “Sovietology” about intrigues in Stalin’s circle. However, you can find fault with anything - and in the case of this film, it will be precisely taste and intonation faults with individual elements of a quality and caring work.
As a result: there is a foreman of the state, after whom we are left with a nuclear shield and space, Moscow skyscrapers and that Georgia, which by inertia is still considered “blooming”, a mobilized scientific and design school and intelligence support for it. And, for that matter, the flywheel of mass repressions has been stopped and strict (in every sense) legality has been established in its place.
Neither a villain nor an angel. A man of his cruel era, which, including through his works, became great and triumphant for us.
But that's the past. It... has passed. Happy, of course, for L.P. Beria - that the entire First Channel tumbled a weighty stone of historical justice into the swamp of biased lies. So what do we get from this today?
And today we get this from this.
First of all, fairness is always good. Even if it is fraught with massive stress on the verge of trampling the bonds and traditional values: because it smashes to smithereens a convenient template hammered into the consciousness of most citizens and even into folklore (“Beria, Beria – did not live up to the trust”). But, in the end, if the usual fairy tale is a lie, then that’s where it belongs. We don't need such a fairy tale.
Secondly, justice is also useful. The “black myth” about Beria itself is fundamental in the ideology of national inferiority. Well, this is where it’s about “stupid people”, “slavery”, “bloody tyranny”, “historically worthless state”. It is the myth about Beria that is always a ready “indestructible argument” that betraying “this country” is not shameful and even honorable. For this reason, the myth about Beria is even more vivid and monolithic than the myth about his supreme superior: it is still considered acceptable to say at least something good about Stalin in public. Thus, the marginalization of the “black myth” about Beria is at the same time the marginalization of the ideology of national betrayal.
Thirdly and most importantly. Looking ahead, I’m announcing another facet of the ideology of the “Forgotten Leaders” project. The story about each of the heroes is invisibly but persistently divided into two dialectically interconnected parts: a Bolshevik, a revolutionary, a destroyer of the state before 1917 - and a shock worker in state construction after 1917. And this, I repeat, is the same person in each case.
Isn’t there a contradiction in this, isn’t there a romanticization of the troublemakers of 100 years ago - and, accordingly, pandering to modern troublemakers using their example?
No. No contradiction, no indulgence.
But there is an ideology of unity, logic and continuity of Russian history, and an ideology of the core of this continuity - sovereign statehood.
Look: Beria, Dzerzhinsky, Zhdanov, Molotov and others like them, right up to Lenin and Stalin, did nothing in the field of development of the country (well, almost nothing) that was not objectively obvious before them and that someone was interfering with the ruling classes Russian Empire do until 1917. Industrialization, radical and effective agrarian reform, breathtaking social modernization, scientific and technological breakthrough - nothing special. But they didn’t do it before the Bolsheviks - and who is to blame? In the end, what is valuable to history is not the ruling classes, but Russia, its statehood and its sovereignty. If yesterday’s “subversive elements” coped with this in a feast for the eyes, then well done. Winners are not judged, especially if they have benefited the country.
In this logic, does the state today have reason to be in awe of modern managers of unrest? No. Not because there are few of them and they are unprincipled - which in itself nullifies the constructive potential of the “non-systemic opposition”. The main thing is different: the most decisive revolutionary modernization force in today’s Russia is the state. And it is structured, unlike itself 100 years ago, in such a way that potential Beria and Dzerzhinsky, in general, do not need to hang around in hard labor - they can both make a career and bring benefit to the Motherland. Yes, all this is adjusted for the imperfection of the current state. But it doesn’t shy away from obvious tasks - which means, as history lessons teach us, something good will work out the first time or the 101st time.
By the way, about history lessons. “Forgotten leaders” in the title of the series on Channel One – they are not exactly “forgotten”. Rather, we lost them in due time - as it seemed, as unnecessary. But when the time came to improve in state building, when the time came to insist on our sovereignty, the “forgotten” were found again. It’s just in time: there’s no shame in learning from them.
Channel One began showing a series of documentaries “Country of Soviets. Forgotten Leaders" (produced by Media-Star with the participation of the Russian Military Historical Society and the Ministry of Culture). There will be seven heroes in total: Dzerzhinsky, Voroshilov, Budyonny, Molotov, Abakumov, Zhdanov and Beria.
The general message is this. Over the past 30-50 years, we have become widely aware of a set of carefully assembled facts and, to varying degrees, clumsily concocted myths about these (and many, many other) characters from our history. Accordingly, “every intelligent person generally knows” what kind of criminals, executioners, maniacs, stranglers, mediocrities, incompetents and helpful servants of the main tyrant they were.
All this, which is “generally known”, is the mythological legacy of political technologies and agitprop legends that have long sunk into nowhere, which once served various court intrigues of various sizes - from ordinary quarrels for power in the 50s to large-scale national betrayal in the 80s-90s .
And since this is “generally known,” then the authors do not dwell on the legends - except to casually refute some of them that are absolutely amazing. And they tell what kind of people they are and what they did in high government positions besides, or even instead of, what is “well known.”
It is logical that Channel One began with Lavrentiy Beria (although, according to the authors’ plans, the film about this hero just closes the cycle). Because of this change in the places of the terms, the content has not changed at all, but the interested viewer immediately understands what it is about and what exactly it is. Beria in this case is an ideal indicator of intentions, the calling card of the entire project and a guaranteed magnet for the audience.
Why? Yes, because of all the “forgotten leaders”, it is Beria who is the most not just “forgotten”, but a character of a completely outrageously idiotic caricatured mythology, sewn with white thread so much that behind them you can’t see anything at all: no person, no history, no common sense .
In fact, as Channel One showed on Sunday, what Beria’s work biography has in abundance is historical logic. Whatever problems the country faced, these were the ones he solved. I decided to get the right result in the right time at any cost. And “any price” – yes, the one that was assigned by history at a specific time, where there was no place for tolerance and pacifism. That is why the “alternative myth” is also amazing, where instead of the “maniac and murderer” invented by Khrushchev and perestroika propagandists, there is an equally invented kind guy, completely amazed by the ideals of abstract humanism and democracy.
What is important: behind every episode of Beria’s biography there are deep layers of the country’s history. The civil war and its metastases, the problems of the union state and small-town nationalism, industrialization and dramatic modernization of agriculture, the constant reform of the economic model and methodology of national superprojects, the Yalta peace and the fate of Germany... The film objectively talked about this, alas, in a tongue twister, but enough for that , in order to understand the scale and logic, and even better - to become additionally interested in this once again.
Although, in my opinion, it would be better in two episodes to find a place for a more detailed educational program on the logic of history, rather than for the uninformative “Sovietology” about intrigues in Stalin’s circle. However, you can find fault with anything - and in the case of this film, it will be precisely taste and intonation faults with individual elements of a quality and caring work.
As a result: there is a foreman of the state, after whom we are left with a nuclear shield and space, Moscow skyscrapers and that Georgia, which by inertia is still considered “blooming”, a mobilized scientific and design school and intelligence support for it. And, for that matter, the flywheel of mass repressions has been stopped and strict (in every sense) legality has been established in its place.
Neither a villain nor an angel. A man of his cruel era, which, including through his works, became great and triumphant for us.
But that's the past. It... has passed. Happy, of course, for L.P. Beria - that the entire First Channel tumbled a weighty stone of historical justice into the swamp of biased lies. So what do we get from this today?
And today we get this from this.
First of all, fairness is always good. Even if it is fraught with massive stress on the verge of trampling bonds and traditional values: because it smashes to smithereens a convenient template hammered into the consciousness of the majority of citizens and even into folklore (“Beria, Beria - did not live up to the trust”). But, in the end, if the usual fairy tale is a lie, then that’s where it belongs. We don't need such a fairy tale.
Secondly, justice is also useful. The “black myth” about Beria itself is fundamental in the ideology of national inferiority. Well, this is where it’s about “stupid people”, “slavery”, “bloody tyranny”, “historically worthless state”. It is the myth about Beria that is always a ready “indestructible argument” that betraying “this country” is not shameful and even honorable. For this reason, the myth about Beria is even more vivid and monolithic than the myth about his supreme superior: it is still considered acceptable to say at least something good about Stalin in public. Thus, the marginalization of the “black myth” about Beria is at the same time the marginalization of the ideology of national betrayal.
Thirdly and most importantly. Looking ahead, I’m announcing another facet of the ideology of the “Forgotten Leaders” project. The story about each of the heroes is invisibly but persistently divided into two dialectically interconnected parts: a Bolshevik, a revolutionary, a destroyer of the state before 1917 - and a shock worker in state construction after 1917. And this, I repeat, is the same person in each case.
Isn’t there a contradiction in this, isn’t there a romanticization of the troublemakers of 100 years ago - and, accordingly, pandering to modern troublemakers using their example?
No. No contradiction, no indulgence.
But there is an ideology of unity, logic and continuity of Russian history, and an ideology of the core of this continuity - sovereign statehood.
Look: Beria, Dzerzhinsky, Zhdanov, Molotov and others like them, right up to Lenin and Stalin, did nothing in the field of development of the country (well, almost nothing like that) that was not objectively obvious before them and that someone was interfering with the ruling classes of the Russian Federation. empire to do until 1917. Industrialization, radical and effective agrarian reform, breathtaking social modernization, scientific and technological breakthrough - nothing special. But they didn’t do it before the Bolsheviks - and who is to blame? In the end, what is valuable to history is not the ruling classes, but Russia, its statehood and its sovereignty. If yesterday’s “subversive elements” coped with this in a feast for the eyes, then well done. Winners are not judged, especially if they have benefited the country.
In this logic, does the state today have reason to be in awe of modern managers of unrest? No. Not because there are few of them and they are unprincipled - which in itself nullifies the constructive potential of the “non-systemic opposition”. The main thing is different: the most decisive revolutionary modernization force in today’s Russia is the state. And it is structured, unlike itself 100 years ago, in such a way that potential Beria and Dzerzhinsky, in general, do not need to hang around in hard labor - they can both make a career and bring benefit to the Motherland. Yes, all this is adjusted for the imperfection of the current state. But it doesn’t shy away from obvious tasks - which means, as history lessons teach us, something good will work out the first time or the 101st time.
By the way, about history lessons. “Forgotten leaders” in the title of the series on Channel One – they are not exactly “forgotten”. Rather, we lost them in due time - as it seemed, as unnecessary. But when the time came to improve in state building, when the time came to insist on our sovereignty, the “forgotten” were found again. It’s just in time: there’s no shame in learning from them.
Andrey Sorokin
Nikita Khrushchev at the UN (was there a shoe?)
As you know, history develops in a spiral. This fully applies to the history of the United Nations. Over more than half a century of its existence, the UN has undergone many changes. Created on the wave of euphoria of victory over Hitler's Germany The organization set itself bold and largely utopian goals.
But time puts a lot of things into place. And hopes for creating a world without wars, poverty, hunger, lawlessness and inequality were replaced by a persistent confrontation between the two systems.
Natalia Terekhova talks about one of the most striking episodes of that time, the famous “Khrushchev’s boot”.
REPORTAGE:
On October 12, 1960, the most stormy meeting of the General Assembly in the history of the United Nations took place. On this day the delegation Soviet Union, which was headed by Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev, introduced a draft resolution on granting independence to colonial countries and peoples.
Nikita Sergeevich delivered, as usual, an emotional speech, which was replete with exclamation marks. In his speech, Khrushchev, without sparing expressions, denounced and denounced colonialism and the colonialists.
After Khrushchev, the representative of the Philippines rose to the podium of the General Assembly. He spoke from the position of a country that experienced all the hardships of colonialism and after for long years liberation struggle achieved independence: “In our opinion, the declaration proposed by the Soviet Union should embrace and provide for the inalienable right to independence not only of the peoples and territories still under the control of the Western colonial powers, but also of the peoples of Eastern Europe and other areas deprived of the opportunity to freely exercise their civil and political rights and, so to speak, swallowed by the Soviet Union."
Listening to the simultaneous translation, Khrushchev exploded. After consulting with Gromyko, he decided to ask the Chairman for a point of order. Nikita Sergeevich raised his hand, but no one paid attention to him.
The most famous Foreign Ministry translator, Viktor Sukhodrev, who often accompanied Nikita Sergeevich on trips, spoke about what happened next in his memoirs: “Khrushchev loved to take his watch off his hand and twirl it. At the UN, he began banging his fists on the table in protest against the Filipino's speech. Clutched in his hand was a watch that had simply stopped.
And then Khrushchev, in his anger, took off his shoe, or rather, an open wicker sandal, and began to hit the table with his heel.”
This was the moment that entered into world history like the famous “Khrushchev boot”. The UN General Assembly Hall has never seen anything like it. A sensation was born right before our eyes.
And finally, the head of the Soviet delegation was given the floor:
“I protest against the unequal treatment of representatives of the states sitting here. Why is this lackey of American imperialism speaking out? He touches on an issue, he doesn’t touch on a procedural issue! And the Chairman, who sympathizes with this colonial rule, does not stop it! Is this fair? Gentlemen! Mr. Chairman! We live on earth not by the grace of God and not by your grace, but by the strength and intelligence of our great people of the Soviet Union and all peoples who are fighting for their independence.
It must be said that in the middle of Khrushchev’s speech, the simultaneous translation was interrupted, as the translators were frantically looking for an analogue to the Russian word “lack.” Finally, after a long pause, it was found English word"jerk", which has a wide range of meanings - from "fool" to "scum". Western reporters covering events at the UN in those years had to work hard until they found Dictionary Russian language and did not understand the meaning of Khrushchev’s metaphor.
01. Lavrenty Beria
The first hero of the documentary-historical cycle is Lavrentiy Beria. For last decades In official historiography, Beria is presented as one of the darkest figures in the entire history of Russia. In the minds of generations, a vengeful tyrant is depicted, drowning in the blood of his enemies. He is known only as the head of the NKVD and the organizer of repressions, although the scope of repressions under him decreased significantly. As a business executive, economist, and even a builder, Beria is practically unknown, although these were the main areas of his activity.
During the Great Patriotic War Beria oversaw the work of Soviet intelligence and counterintelligence, was responsible for the production of weapons and military equipment, took over the defense of the Caucasus and was able to stop the Germans on the approaches to strategic oil reserves. In 1944, during the war, Lavrentiy Beria was appointed curator of the Soviet “atomic project”. While working on the project, he showed unique organizational skills, thanks to which atomic bomb The USSR appeared much earlier than its opponents expected in the Cold War that had begun by that time.
On December 23, 1953, Lavrentiy Beria was sentenced to death penalty and was shot in the bunker of the Moscow Military District headquarters, but the circumstances of his arrest and death are still a matter of debate.
Part 1
Part 2
02. Felix Dzerzhinsky
Since 1917, Dzerzhinsky was not only the creator and head of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission. After the Civil War, he was involved in the restoration of the national economy. Dzerzhinsky was responsible for the operation of transport, the organization of the NEP and much more, without which Soviet Russia, would probably have crumbled under the weight of post-war devastation.
03. Vyacheslav Molotov
One of the leaders revolutionary movement in Russia, a supporter of accelerated industrialization. In 1939, Molotov took the post of People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR. Thanks to his efforts, a peace treaty with Germany was concluded, later called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This agreement delayed Germany's attack on the USSR and made it possible to push the borders of the Soviet Union hundreds of kilometers to the west, which in 1941 made it difficult for German troops to advance and led to the collapse of the German Blitzkrieg.
04. Semyon Budyonny
Commander of the 1st Cavalry Army, whose attacks were decisive for the Red victory in 1919 against White movement in the south of Russia. It was his support that was important for Stalin to consolidate his hold on power in the early 1920s. Budyonny advocated the preservation of the cavalry as a branch of the military, and the cavalry made a significant contribution to the victory in the Great Patriotic War. Budyonny loved horses very much; he carried this hobby throughout his life and was an excellent rider until his old age.
05. Andrey Zhdanov
His activities were assessed differently even during his lifetime. He created the industry of the Soviet Union, while closing monasteries and blowing up churches. survived through his efforts besieged Leningrad and Anna Akhmatova and Mikhail Zoshchenko were branded by his decisions. Throughout the war, state leadership in the North-West of Russia and in Leningrad was carried out by Andrei Alexandrovich. The severe blockade depleted Zhdanov’s health and, in fact, predetermined his early death.
06. Kliment Voroshilov
One of the heroes of the Civil War, Stalin's comrade-in-arms during the years of construction of the new armed forces of the USSR in the 1920-1930s. People's Commissar of Defense until 1940. People's hero, marshal, legend of the Red Army. His name, along with Budyonny, was actively used for propaganda purposes.
07. Victor Abakumov
The creator of the legendary SMERSH, a hero of the Great Patriotic War, who managed to defeat the powerful intelligence of those years - the German Abwehr. In 1951 he was arrested. Three years later, he was charged with treason and sentenced to capital punishment. In 1994, the charges against Abakumov were dropped, but his personal file remains classified to this day.
Channel One began showing a series of documentaries “Country of Soviets. Forgotten Leaders" (produced by Media-Star with the participation of the Russian Military Historical Society and the Ministry of Culture). There will be seven heroes in total: Dzerzhinsky, Voroshilov, Budyonny, Molotov, Abakumov, Zhdanov and Beria.
The general message is this. Over the past 30-50 years, we have become widely aware of a set of carefully assembled facts and, to varying degrees, clumsily concocted myths about these (and many, many other) characters from our history. Accordingly, “every intelligent person generally knows” what kind of criminals, executioners, maniacs, stranglers, mediocrities, incompetents and helpful servants of the main tyrant they were.
All this, which is “generally known”, is the mythological legacy of political technologies and agitprop legends that have long sunk into nowhere, which once served various court intrigues of various sizes - from ordinary quarrels for power in the 50s to large-scale national betrayal in the 80s-90s .
And since this is “generally known,” then the authors do not dwell on the legends - except to casually refute some of them that are absolutely amazing. And they tell what kind of people they are and what they did in high government positions besides, or even instead of, what is “well known.”
It is logical that Channel One began with Lavrentiy Beria (although, according to the authors’ plans, the film about this hero just closes the cycle). Because of this change in the places of the terms, the content has not changed at all, but the interested viewer immediately understands what it is about and what exactly it is. Beria in this case is an ideal indicator of intentions, the calling card of the entire project and a guaranteed magnet for the audience.
Why? Yes, because of all the “forgotten leaders”, it is Beria who is the most not just “forgotten”, but a character of a completely outrageously idiotic caricatured mythology, sewn with white thread so much that behind them you can’t see anything at all: no person, no history, no common sense .
In fact, as Channel One showed on Sunday, what Beria’s work biography has in abundance is historical logic. Whatever problems the country faced, these were the ones he solved. I decided to get the right result in the right time at any cost. And “any price” – yes, the one that was assigned by history at a specific time, where there was no place for tolerance and pacifism. That is why the “alternative myth” is also amazing, where instead of the “maniac and murderer” invented by Khrushchev and perestroika propagandists, there is an equally invented kind guy, completely amazed by the ideals of abstract humanism and democracy.
What is important: behind every episode of Beria’s biography there are deep layers of the country’s history. The civil war and its metastases, the problems of the union state and small-town nationalism, industrialization and dramatic modernization of agriculture, the constant reform of the economic model and methodology of national superprojects, the Yalta peace and the fate of Germany... The film objectively talked about this, alas, in a tongue twister, but enough for that , in order to understand the scale and logic, and even better - to become additionally interested in this once again.
Although, in my opinion, it would be better in two episodes to find a place for a more detailed educational program on the logic of history, rather than for the uninformative “Sovietology” about intrigues in Stalin’s circle. However, you can find fault with anything - and in the case of this film, it will be precisely taste and intonation faults with individual elements of a quality and caring work.
As a result: there is a foreman of the state, after whom we are left with a nuclear shield and space, Moscow skyscrapers and that Georgia, which by inertia is still considered “blooming”, a mobilized scientific and design school and intelligence support for it. And, for that matter, the flywheel of mass repressions has been stopped and strict (in every sense) legality has been established in its place.
Neither a villain nor an angel. A man of his cruel era, which, including through his works, became great and triumphant for us.
But that's the past. It... has passed. Happy, of course, for L.P. Beria - that the entire First Channel tumbled a weighty stone of historical justice into the swamp of biased lies. So what do we get from this today?
And today we get this from this.
First of all, fairness is always good. Even if it is fraught with massive stress on the verge of trampling bonds and traditional values: because it smashes to smithereens a convenient template hammered into the consciousness of the majority of citizens and even into folklore (“Beria, Beria - did not live up to the trust”). But, in the end, if the usual fairy tale is a lie, then that’s where it belongs. We don't need such a fairy tale.
Secondly, justice is also useful. The “black myth” about Beria itself is fundamental in the ideology of national inferiority. Well, this is where it’s about “stupid people”, “slavery”, “bloody tyranny”, “historically worthless state”. It is the myth about Beria that is always a ready “indestructible argument” that betraying “this country” is not shameful and even honorable. For this reason, the myth about Beria is even more vivid and monolithic than the myth about his supreme superior: it is still considered acceptable to say at least something good about Stalin in public. Thus, the marginalization of the “black myth” about Beria is at the same time the marginalization of the ideology of national betrayal.
Thirdly and most importantly. Looking ahead, I’m announcing another facet of the ideology of the “Forgotten Leaders” project. The story about each of the heroes is invisibly but persistently divided into two dialectically interconnected parts: a Bolshevik, a revolutionary, a destroyer of the state before 1917 - and a shock worker in state construction after 1917. And this, I repeat, is the same person in each case.
Isn’t there a contradiction in this, isn’t there a romanticization of the troublemakers of 100 years ago - and, accordingly, pandering to modern troublemakers using their example?
No. No contradiction, no indulgence.
But there is an ideology of unity, logic and continuity of Russian history, and an ideology of the core of this continuity - sovereign statehood.
Look: Beria, Dzerzhinsky, Zhdanov, Molotov and others like them, right up to Lenin and Stalin, did nothing in the field of development of the country (well, almost nothing like that) that was not objectively obvious before them and that someone was interfering with the ruling classes of the Russian Federation. empire to do until 1917. Industrialization, radical and effective agrarian reform, breathtaking social modernization, scientific and technological breakthrough - nothing special. But they didn’t do it before the Bolsheviks - and who is to blame? In the end, what is valuable to history is not the ruling classes, but Russia, its statehood and its sovereignty. If yesterday’s “subversive elements” coped with this in a feast for the eyes, then well done. Winners are not judged, especially if they have benefited the country.
In this logic, does the state today have reason to be in awe of modern managers of unrest? No. Not because there are few of them and they are unprincipled - which in itself nullifies the constructive potential of the “non-systemic opposition”. The main thing is different: the most decisive revolutionary modernization force in today’s Russia is the state. And it is structured, unlike itself 100 years ago, in such a way that potential Beria and Dzerzhinsky, in general, do not need to hang around in hard labor - they can both make a career and bring benefit to the Motherland. Yes, all this is adjusted for the imperfection of the current state. But it doesn’t shy away from obvious tasks - which means, as history lessons teach us, something good will work out the first time or the 101st time.
By the way, about history lessons. “Forgotten leaders” in the title of the series on Channel One – they are not exactly “forgotten”. Rather, we lost them in due time - as it seemed, as unnecessary. But when the time came to improve in state building, when the time came to insist on our sovereignty, the “forgotten” were found again. It’s just in time: there’s no shame in learning from them.
PS: A little earlier, another film on the topic was shown on TV
At one time, I posted an article about a film by Yuri Rogozin, which is unlikely to be shown on central channels.
Evaluation of information
Posts on similar topics
For our team. Why painful? Perfectly illustrates... during" On my logical question, but doesn’t he want to become first...in Germany. "On first channel Germany (ARD) in... I'm not sure I'll take it in consideration of such... proven liberal scum - back and again broadcasts from...