The unexpected results of the single voting day on September 9 cannot remain without consequences. It is possible that the Kremlin will now decide on a radical renewal of personnel both locally and at the federal level. But how will this happen - through a repressive replacement of elites or through the admission of negotiable oppositionists into power? What's ahead - a thaw or tightening of the screws?
Not only were the gubernatorial elections in Primorye, Khakassia, the Khabarovsk Territory and the Vladimir Region a failure for the authorities; in a number of regions, United Russia was unable to gain a majority in local parliaments. When did this happen in last time? The story with the second rounds has not yet ended, but it is already clear that we are not talking about isolated excesses in individual regions. It looks like this is just the beginning of big changes across the country.
“The cancellation of the election results in Primorye in combination with other events is a political default,” economist Mikhail Delyagin said on the Tsargrad TV channel. In modern Russia there are no political analogues of Primakov, Maslyukov and Gerashchenko who could stop the decline in trust in government. That’s why, apparently, people in the regions vote for mediocre businessmen who would look more natural in “ United Russia“, but for some reason they ended up in the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. This is a vote not for convincing candidates, but against the government as such.
An interesting point: in the elections in the protest regions, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Liberal Democratic Party distinguished themselves, but the rebels did not vote for “A Just Russia”. Party leader Sergei Mironov headed the party list in the Ulyanovsk region, and it was there that the party did not enter the local parliament, gaining less than 4% of the votes. Most political scientists who talk about the reasons for the disastrous elections for the government in September agree on one thing: voters want to see new people in high offices. This request, according to many analysts, was not formed on the eve of the elections; it has been brewing since 2014. However, the Kremlin seemed to see this and tried to react – just look at the large-scale purge of the governor’s office in 2016–2017. However, the purge of corrupt officials quickly fizzled out, turning into persecution of minor officials and without producing a long-term effect.
Be that as it may, the Kremlin will not be able to ignore the protest potential in the regions, which was demonstrated in the September elections. What will his reaction be?
Version 1
The authorities will show a “strong hand”
If there is a demand in society for tough decisions, the authorities will respond to it. When the passions around the elections in Primorye, Khakassia and other protest regions subside, we can expect a series of high-profile anti-corruption trials. It is likely that this campaign will have a new emphasis: the money seized from bribe-takers and kickback recipients will be demonstratively spent by the state on social sphere. The State Duma has already voiced the idea of transferring corrupt money to Pension fund, in the future there will be more such initiatives - deputies will return the punishment in the form of confiscation of property to the Criminal Code. It is likely that in this situation the opposition will also suffer: the participation of independent candidates in elections will become even more difficult, and the law on rallies will also be tightened. Otherwise, news about large-scale imprisonments of officials can only undermine the authority of the federal government.
True, the question of who will replace the dismissed or imprisoned governors remains relevant. The so-called young technocrats can hardly be called the very leaders who will speak the same language with the people. But there are no others yet.
Version 2
The “game of democracy” will begin
The scandal in Primorye dealt a blow to the reputation of the Central Election Commission, system parties and the federal government. The beneficiary in such a situation is the non-systemic opposition, which is just waiting for a reason to bring dissatisfied people to the streets. Therefore, elections of regional heads must either be abolished completely or made competitive. In the first case, the government will again be under attack. Another approach seems reasonable: banning second rounds in gubernatorial elections and easing the municipal filter. As a result of this, many protest candidates will be allowed to participate in the elections, who will take votes from each other, making the task easier for appointees from Moscow. It is likely that one day this system will fail and a “non-systemic” governor will appear in one or more key regions for the country. But most likely Moscow will be able to use the region’s financial dependence to integrate a newcomer into the vertical.
Version 3
Government resignation and administrative reform
Replacing the cabinet of ministers in the current situation looks like a radical, but quite realistic solution. Such a step will probably be received positively by the majority of protest-minded voters in the regions. It is obvious that the residents of Vladivostok voted not so much against Andrei Tarasenko, who did not have time to work even one year in the region, but against the unpopular actions of the Russian government, including against raising the retirement age. After the resignation of the Cabinet under the leadership of Dmitry Medvedev, a large-scale administrative reform. It is not for nothing that the Ministry of Economic Development formulated the idea of creating 14 macro-regions, the contours of which do not coincide with either the administrative or geographical boundaries of the current subjects of the Federation.
Tightening of the political regime after the war
1. Social political life countries
Completion of the Great Patriotic War turned out to be significant influence on the socio-political development of society. Within three and a half years they were demobilized from the army and returned to peaceful life about 8.5 million former soldiers. Over 4 million repatriates returned to their homeland - prisoners of war, residents of occupied areas driven into captivity. Having endured the incredible hardships of wartime, the population expected improved working and living conditions and positive changes in society. As in previous years, for the majority these hopes were associated with the name of I.V. Stalin. In 1946-1947 On behalf of Stalin, drafts of a new Constitution of the USSR and the Program of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) were developed.
The constitutional project provided for some development of democratic principles in the life of society. So, simultaneously with the recognition state form The existence of small peasant farming based on personal labor was allowed as dominant property. In the process of discussing the draft Constitution in the republican party and economic structures wishes were expressed for the decentralization of economic life. Proposals were made to expand the economic independence of local management organizations.
It was proposed to supplement the draft Program of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks with a provision on limiting the terms of elective party work, etc. However, all proposals were rejected, and subsequently work on the draft documents ceased. The tasks of the recovery period were solved under the conditions of the command-bureaucratic system that had developed in previous years. The development of all legislative acts and resolutions, then formally approved by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, was carried out in the highest party authorities. Management of all spheres of social life was concentrated in the Secretariat of the Party Central Committee. Here the plans for the activities of the Supreme Council were determined, candidates for the positions of ministers and their deputies were considered, and the senior command staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR was approved.
The difficulties of post-war economic development, manifested in in serious condition agriculture, in the everyday hardships of the population, demanded the development of ways out of this situation. However, the attention of state leaders was directed not so much to the development of effective measures to boost the economy, but to the search for specific “culprits” for its unsatisfactory development. Thus, disruptions in the production of aviation equipment were explained by “sabotage” on the part of the industry management. In 1946, at a meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, the case of these “saboteurs” was specifically considered (“the case of Shakhurin, Novikov, etc.”). At the turn of the 40s and 50s, the leaders of the Politburo discussed the “cases” of persons allegedly involved in sabotage in the automobile industry in the Moscow healthcare system. The fabrication of cases of “enemies of the people” continued.
In 1949, the leaders of the Leningrad party organization were accused of creating an anti-party group and carrying out sabotage work (the “Leningrad affair”). The accused were party leaders, Soviet and government workers. The organizers of the non-existent anti-party group were sentenced to death, and several people were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. A lawsuit was initiated about a Mingrelian nationalist organization allegedly operating in Georgia, which aimed to eliminate Soviet power in the republic. Based on falsified materials, a number of party workers and thousands of citizens were repressed. All participants in these processes were subsequently rehabilitated.
In 1952, the so-called “doctors’ case” was fabricated. A group of prominent medical specialists who treated prominent government officials was accused of involvement in an espionage organization and the intention to commit terrorist acts against the country's leaders. The hopes of the intelligentsia for the development and strengthening of contacts with other countries did not materialize, although the Yalta and Potsdam conferences discussed comprehensive post-war cooperation. The country's leadership has taken a course towards "tightening the screws" in relation to the intelligentsia. In 1946-1948. Several resolutions of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks were adopted on cultural issues.
In March 1946, a decree “On the magazines “Zvezda” and “Leningrad” was issued; the work of M. Zoshchenko and A. Akhmatova was mercilessly criticized. At the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee, where this issue was discussed, Stalin stated that the magazine in the USSR “is not a private enterprise “, he does not have the right to adapt to the tastes of people “who do not want to recognize our system.” “Whoever does not want to rebuild, for example Zoshchenko,” Stalin specified, “let him get the hell out.” The main ideologist of the country at that time, Zhdanov, speaking in Leningrad, explaining the resolution, called Zoshchenko a “non-Soviet writer.” As for A. Akhmatova, in Zhdanov’s opinion, she could give nothing “but harm” to Soviet youth. After the defeat of Leningrad writers, they took up theater, cinema, and music. The resolutions of the Party Central Committee “On the repertoire” were adopted accordingly. drama theaters and measures to improve it”, “About the film “Big Life”, “About Muradeli’s opera “Great Friendship”, etc.
Resolutions of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on cultural issues were a shining example gross administrative interference in culture, command management of this area. The relationship between the state and the church remained difficult in the post-war period. On the one side, religious organizations in a fairly short period of time they significantly strengthened their influence. From 1944 to 1948, government bodies received more than 23 thousand applications from Orthodox believers to open churches and parishes. The need of people to observe religious rituals has also become more noticeable. Russian Orthodox Church again regained its high authority in the Orthodox world. IN post-war years In Soviet society, two contradictory policies were closely intertwined: towards the actual strengthening of the repressive role of the state and towards the formal democratization of the political system.
The latter manifested itself in the following forms. In the fall of 1945, immediately after the defeat of militaristic Japan in the USSR, the state of emergency was lifted and the State Defense Committee, an extra-constitutional body of power that concentrated dictatorial powers in its hands, was abolished. In 1946-1948. re-elections of councils at all levels were held and the deputy corps, formed back in 1937-1939, was renewed.
The first session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of the new, second convocation took place in March 1946. It approved the 4th five-year plan and adopted a law on the transformation of the Council People's Commissars to the Council of Ministers of the USSR (which corresponded to the names generally accepted in world practice). Finally, in 1949-1952. Congresses of public and socio-political organizations of the USSR resumed after a long break. Thus, in 1949, the X Congress of Trade Unions and the XI Congress of the Komsomol took place (17 and 13 years after the previous ones, respectively). And in 1952, the 19th Party Congress took place, the last congress at which Stalin was present. The congress decided to rename the CPSU (b) to the CPSU.
BSSR in the mid-50s - 80s.
The end of the war revived high hopes in society. People have expectations for changes in political life, as many have already begun to think about future fate socialism...
Military coup in Turkey in 1960
The destruction of the totalitarian regime in Turkey as a result of the coup on May 21, 1960 and the restoration of some democratic institutions contributed to the involvement of various sectors of society in active political life. At the end of 1961...
Exposure, transformation and further development economy and culture of the MSSR in the post-war period (1945-1960)
After the expulsion of the fascist invaders from the territory of Moldova, the Soviet state had to solve a number of difficult and urgent problems here. These include the restoration of the national economy destroyed by the war...
Ancient Germans: socio-political, economic and cultural life(I-V centuries)
Ancient Rus' in the X-XI centuries
To characterize the socio-political system. Ancient Rus' can use such sources as the code of laws “Russian Truth”, the chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years”, which includes the Treaties of Oleg (907, 911), Igor (944), Svyatoslav (971...
Ancient Rus' in the X-XII centuries.
The formation of states occurred in two main ways. In the first case government structure was formed within the framework of one large pre-state community...
History of the Turks
Extremely important factor for history Khazar Khaganate it turned out that in the territory he controlled, including in the homeland of the Khazars - in Dagestan - lived large number Jewish communities...
After the Second World War, two different political lines and opposing platforms collided on the world stage. One was defended by the Soviet Union and the countries of “people’s democracy”, the other by capitalist states...
Transnistria on the eve of the Great Patriotic War
On the territory of Transnistria after its unification with Bessarabia - in Grigoriopol, Dubossary, Kamensk, Rybnitsa, Slobodzeya and Tiraspol regions, 4 village and 91 rural executive committees functioned...
Development of Moldova in the post-reform period of the 19th century
reform Bessarabia feudal all-class Agrarian movement During the post-reform period, the socio-political movement intensified in Bessarabia and on the left bank of the Dniester...
USSR after World War II (1946-1953)
In the post-war period, restoring the economy and establishing a peaceful life required enormous spiritual effort from the entire society. Meanwhile, the creative and scientific intelligentsia, by their nature, gravitate toward expanding creative contacts...
Tightening of the political regime after the war
The end of the Great Patriotic War had a significant impact on the socio-political development of society. Over the course of three and a half years, about 8.5 million former soldiers were demobilized from the army and returned to peaceful life...
Social and political life of the country
The removal of the most odious figures from Stalin's entourage from the party leadership seemed to remove responsibility for the crimes of Stalinism from other party leaders and from the party as a whole. The political leadership that remained in power did not share responsibility and turned out to be beyond criticism.
Minor changes that took place in 1956-1964. in the state system were of a cosmetic nature. Bodies of Soviet power at all levels continued to function under the leadership and control of the party, remaining, as it were, a legal cover for the dictatorship of the partyocracy. Supreme body The Supreme Soviet of the USSR was formally in power. At sessions of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, previously prepared documents were still unanimously approved, but regular work, even if formal, was resumed. The Supreme Soviet of the USSR was already a clear step along the path of democratization.
The Presidium of the Supreme Council, which, in accordance with the Constitution, performed all the functions of the Council between its sessions, not only worked under the leadership of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee, but also largely duplicated it in terms of the composition of its members. Characteristic feature What distinguished the activities of government bodies during the period under review was the transfer of some legislative functions from the center to the localities. In May 1956, the functions of managing judicial institutions and justice bodies were transferred to the jurisdiction of the republics, in connection with which the USSR Ministry of Justice was abolished.
The laws adopted by the sessions of the Supreme Council of the USSR in February 1957 and December 1958 expanded the rights of the union republics in the field of legislation. According to the “Regulations on the Supreme Court of the USSR”, approved in February 1957, the powers of the Supreme Courts of the Union republics were expanded.
By the decision of the 6th session of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR in February 1957, the national autonomy of the Balkar, Chechen, Ingush, Kalmyk and Karachay peoples, abolished due to Stalin’s repressions during the war, was restored. The Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was restored as part of the RSFSR, the Kalmyk Autonomous Region was formed, transformed in 1958 into autonomous republic, The Kabardian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was transformed into the Kabardino-Balkarian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, and the Cherkess Autonomous Region was transformed into the Karachay-Cherkess Autonomous Region.
Not only representatives of the party and state bureaucracy began to be involved in work in the Soviets, but also in to a greater extent workers, collective farmers and intelligentsia not previously associated with the apparatus. This, on the one hand, updated the composition of government bodies, and on the other hand, somewhat complicated the position of opponents of the course.
From the very beginning of Khrushchev's activity as the real leader of the party and government, the party and state bureaucracy was his secret enemy. Nikita Sergeevich could not do without her, but he did not want to be a puppet in her hands. He constantly tried to put the bureaucracy in an uncomfortable framework.
Stalin pursued a similar policy, but Khrushchev could no longer use the system of repression so widely. Therefore, he was forced to constantly look for other ways to solve this problem. An important step in this direction was the provision for mandatory discussion of candidates for elective positions and limiting the duration of office to only two terms. Although these measures were aimed primarily at strengthening Khrushchev's position, in general they contributed to some democratization of society.
In the resolution dated January 22, 1957, “On improving the activities of the Councils of Working People’s Deputies and strengthening their ties with the masses, the Central Committee of the CPSU proposed discussing nominated candidates at meetings of workers and collective farmers. Naturally, this did not mean freedom of choice for voters, which is only possible when nominating alternative candidates, however, the influence of the party-state apparatus in nominating candidates was somewhat limited. Even such a slight limitation of the power of the bureaucracy caused discontent, and this was one of the reasons for Khrushchev’s removal from all posts in 1964.
More serious attempts at modernization were undertaken by Khrushchev in the sphere of executive power. The highest executive body in the USSR was still the Council of Ministers. In 1958, Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev was appointed chairman.
Khrushchev tried to awaken public organizations from bureaucratic stupor. In 1957, the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions was reorganized. Instead of 47 industry trade unions, 23 were formed. Much attention was paid to the development of other public organizations, working mainly under the leadership of local Councils: street and block committees, public assistance commissions at house managements, police assistance teams, parent councils at schools and house managements, sanitary squads, councils of clubs, boards of trustees at orphanages, councils of labor veterans, etc.
Khrushchev somewhat limited the privileges of employees of the apparatus. He eliminated the system of Stalinist “packages” - sums of money that were secretly handed over to senior employees of the apparatus, the press, and scientific institutions in excess of the established salary and were not subject to taxes. He repeatedly tried to close the special distributor for the higher nomenklatura and limit the rights to personal cars. But most of these initiatives were not crowned with success and only restored the nomenklatura against Khrushchev.
After the 20th Congress of the CPSU, the process of rehabilitation of the repressed not only took on a massive, ubiquitous character, but was also embodied in the restoration of the rights of entire peoples who suffered during Stalin’s time.
Khrushchev, like some other party leaders from Stalin's inner circle, understood the need for serious changes. The justification for such changes should have been a very cautious (but bold at that time) criticism of Stalin’s “mistakes” and “abuses.” Khrushchev condemned the practice of mass repressions of the 1930-1950s, wanting to somewhat ennoble and humanize the socialist system. Khrushchev acted based on his own ideas about “correct” socialism. With the support of the party bureaucracy, Khrushchev chose the path of moderate liberalization and equally moderate repression (which did not affect the nomenklatura strata).
Khrushchev, while remaining the leader of the totalitarian regime, suppressed the opposition both within the USSR and in countries governed by local communists dependent on the Moscow authorities. Quite in the spirit of mature totalitarianism, a struggle was launched against the few small owners who survived even in the Stalinist years (individual peasants, handicraft shoemakers, etc.).
In 1958, a wave of arrests swept across the country, believers were subjected to severe repression, and churches were closed.
In 1962, a peaceful demonstration of workers in Novocherkassk was shot, which received the name “Bloody Noon” in history. The demands of the demonstrators were quite moderate: they were talking about increasing wages after rising prices, but in conditions of totalitarianism such actions inevitably acquired a political character.
The wave of rehabilitation of prisoners of Soviet camps, the return of survivors of Stalin's Gulag, the emancipation of collective farmers, whom Khrushchev allowed to move freely around the country - these processes returned to society parts of it that had been forcibly torn away.
Some historians distinguish two periods in the “Khrushchev” decade (1953-1964): the first, until about 1961, is characterized as a time of liberalization, the release of Gulag prisoners, and a softening of censorship oppression. The main feature of the second period, according to supporters of this concept, was a departure from liberal reforms. During these years, Khrushchev lost his understanding of the people's needs, quarreled with the intelligentsia, engaged in fruitless reorganizations of bureaucratic structures and lost the support of the nomenklatura.
Political development
Reasons for N. S. Khrushchev’s victory. Malenkov G.M., Khrushchev N.S. agreed that the implementation of Beria’s program would lead to a “bourgeois degeneration” of Soviet society, which would be beneficial to the “Churchills, Titos and Eisenhowers.” Society did not like the program proposed by Beria, his arrogance and intolerance of dissent. On June 26, 1953, Beria was arrested on charges of “criminal encroachment” on the party leadership, espionage, and was shot in December 1953.
In 1955, Khrushchev achieved the elimination of Malenkov, using the negative attitude of the party apparatus towards him, his opposition to the party program, and lack of fighting qualities. He was sent by the director of the power plant.
Since 1955, Khrushchev has been pursuing a policy of personality cult in the country, expanding the rights of the union republics, and pursuing a course towards building communism.
Stages of the struggle for power:
Stage 1: March-June 1953. The conspiracy against Beria was led by N. S. Khrushchev. G. M. Malenkov.
Stage 2: July 1953 - Feb. 1955 Khrushchev N.S. achieved the elimination of Malenkov G.M.
Khrushchev was deeply convinced that, most importantly, the system created in the USSR was fair and historically justified, capable of demonstrating to all humanity genuine miracles in the economy, social sphere, and spiritual life. It is only necessary to rid it of repressive perversions directed, first of all, against the party-state and economic apparatus.
In the open report of the Central Committee, the topic of Stalin’s cult of personality was not included. Khrushchev had to submit to party discipline. However, it contained many provisions that ran counter to the dogmas of the Stalin era. Khrushchev stated that the peaceful coexistence of states is not a temporary tactical move, but an unchangeable political line.
An important conclusion was the possibility of preventing war in the modern era.
In the internal political part of the report, the tasks of improving the national economy, introducing a 7-hour working day in industry, carrying out pension reform, and increasing the pace of housing construction were put forward.
Along with this, Khrushchev, on behalf of the political leadership, reiterated the need for the “historical task” put forward by Stalin at the 18th Party Congress - to catch up and surpass the main capitalist countries in the production of the most important types of industrial products per capita.
Khrushchev’s report at a closed meeting justified the trials against the Trotskyists, Bukharinites, Zinovievites, 1935-1937, and laid the blame “for repression” solely on Stalin, and even on Yezhov and Beria. The congress delegates approved the decision to hide the report from the people.
Socio-economic development
Choosing a new political path required a change in economic guidelines. However, then no one in the country's political leadership questioned the principles of the command-administrative system. It was about overcoming its extremes, such as the almost complete absence of material incentives for workers, the lag in the mass introduction of scientific and technical achievements into production. Rejection still prevailed market relations, and the advantages of socialism were considered as something given once and for all, capable of in itself ensuring development and prosperity.
Agricultural production took first place among the national economic problems. The first transformations began in 1953 with the abolition of Soviet “serfdom” in the countryside. Collective and state farms were given relative independence. All debts accumulated since the war years were “written off” from personal farms, the agricultural tax was halved, and the norms for compulsory natural supplies, introduced under Stalin and which kept the village in a half-starved state, were reduced. Government purchase prices for agricultural products were sharply increased. Peasants began to be encouraged to raise poultry and small livestock.
It was necessary to improve grain farming immediately. The February-March 1954 Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee decided to develop the virgin lands of Northern Kazakhstan, Southern Urals, Siberia and Altai, which lie in the zone of risky agriculture with a lack of moisture and sandstorms. The development of virgin lands meant the development of extensive farming. Equipment was transferred to the virgin lands from all over the country, exposing the central regions of the country. In the record harvest of 1956, the share of virgin bread was almost half. Many people from all over the country, usually on a voluntary basis, driven by enthusiasm, went to plow and settle millions of hectares of steppe lands.
However, there were successes only in the first years. The virgin lands were developed without any scientifically based farming system, neglecting multiple fields and fallows; So wheat was sown over wheat for years, which caused a lot of sand, “black” storms, and crop losses. During the development of virgin lands, many state farms arose. The state farm form of organizing agricultural production required state capital investments (equipment, fertilizers, qualified specialists) as necessary conditions.
From that moment on, increasing and even maintaining agricultural production at the same level required constant investment. As a result of urgent “anti-crisis” measures, agricultural production began to grow. In general, over 3 years of reforms, agricultural production in the country increased by 25%, which gave Khrushchev additional trump cards in the fight against his comrades in the Stalinist Politburo. The January 1955 Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee condemned G. M. Malenkov for mistakes in the agricultural policy of the early fifties; in February 1955 he had to resign. In March 1955, Kaganovich L.N. was removed from the leadership of industrial planning. Large industry grew, expanding due to the influx of new labor from the countryside.
As the leader of the party, Khrushchev personified for the population those real improvements in life that were associated with the first years of reforms. Since 1953, over the next few years, the production of consumer goods has grown at a faster rate than before. Due to government subsidies, prices for consumer goods and food were significantly reduced.
In 1956, the system of forced labor that fixed people in their jobs was eliminated, harsh punishments at enterprises were abolished, villagers gained civil rights (passports, cash wages), trade unions received the right to control layoffs, production standards, and tariff rates. Tuition fees in high schools and institutes were abolished; wages in the public sector for low-paid categories of the population were increased, wages were reduced retirement age, old-age pensions have been doubled.
Mass housing construction was of great importance for improving the material living conditions of people, which made it possible to more than double the housing stock.
The second half of the fifties and the beginning of the sixties were marked by bright events: the exploration of outer space, the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. The country has entered the era of scientific and technological revolution. Its peculiarity in our country was that it developed in the depths of the military-industrial complex. But nothing was said then about the dangers posed by the massive development of nuclear energy. People did not know about the accident in the city of Kyshtym near Chelyabinsk, as a result of which in 1957 the territory of a number of regions was contaminated with radioactive substances.
In 1957, attempts were made to reform the management of the national economy. The existing over-centralized sectoral ministries, in Khrushchev's opinion, were unable to ensure the rapid growth of industrial production. Instead, territorial administrations were created - councils of the national economy. The organization of economic councils had some effect. Hundreds of small industries that duplicated each other at enterprises of different ministries were closed. The freed up space was used for the production of new products. There were no fundamental changes in economic development.
A distinctive feature of the reforms of this time was the promotion of obviously unrealizable goals and objectives. In January 1959, the extraordinary XXI Congress of the CPSU was convened. The Seven Year Plan (1959 - 1965), according to its authors, should allow the USSR to catch up and overtake America and by 1965 take first place in the world in absolute production volume.
The construction of socialism was declared complete and it was decided to begin “creating a communist society in the country.” At the same time, in real economic policy, a transition from decentralization to the consolidation of economic councils actually began to take place.
At the November 1962 Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, Khrushchev insisted on reducing the number of economic councils to 47. In March 1963, the restoration of the centralized structure of economic management was actually completed with the formation of the Supreme Council of the National Economy (VSNKh), standing above all economic management bodies of the USSR without exception. The pursuit of records, numerous initiatives encouraged from above (the introduction of corn everywhere, exceeding the delivery of meat 2-3 times above the plan (“Ryazan scam”) acquired such a scale that they began to negatively affect the rate of economic growth.
By the end of the fifties, the prevailing focus was on the primary growth of production in heavy industry. By 1957, the growth of collective farmers' incomes stopped, and an active struggle began in the countryside to eliminate personal plots and private livestock.
From 1958 to 1962, the number of cows in private farmsteads decreased from 22 million to 10 million. On January 1, 1961, a monetary reform was carried out, which came down to the denomination of the ruble: one new ruble was equal to 10 old ones. The reform dealt another blow to rural residents and owners of personal plots, as it was accompanied by a violation of the previous price proportions for products sold in city markets. The agricultural policy crisis provoked a deterioration in the supply of cities. Purchase prices began to quickly surpass retail prices. In 1962, instead of the previous seasonal reductions, the state increased retail prices for butter and meat. Ultimately, this caused discontent among large sections of the population, especially workers. The most famous of them was the tragedy in Novocherkassk in June 1962, when a spontaneous protest of workers of the electric locomotive plant against the upcoming increase in prices for food products was suppressed with the help of the army, which opened fire on civilians. 24 people were killed.
In the fall of 1963, a new crisis broke out. Storms in the virgin lands swept away the top fertile layer of soil with sown grain. The virgin lands did not yield anything; this year was also a poor harvest in other parts of the country. Therefore, for the first time in the history of the USSR, grain was purchased abroad.
Thus, the socio-economic development of the country was characterized by instability and balancing on the brink of disaster.
Foreign policy
The reform course pursued by the Khrushchev administration was reflected in foreign policy. Its main concept included two basic principles: the need for peaceful coexistence of states with different social order; Recognition of the multivariate ways to build socialism
The basis for the emerging policy of détente in international tension was the gradual equalization of the military-nuclear potentials of NATO and the Warsaw Division, the formation of strategic parity between the USSR and the USA.
Relations with socialist countries.
In 1955, the first steps were taken to normalize relations with Yugoslavia. After the exchange of ambassadors, N.S. Khrushchev arrived in Belgrade for a personal meeting with I. Tito. During the negotiations, it was possible to bring together the positions of the two leaders on a number of fundamental international issues, although ideological differences between them remained.
Within the framework of CMEA, energetic work was carried out to coordinate the national economic plans of the socialist countries for cooperation in the field foreign trade, electricity, mechanical engineering, ferrous metallurgy, agriculture. Full speed ahead construction of the Druzhba pipeline was underway to supply Soviet oil to countries Eastern Europe and a similar energy system "Mir".
Equally important in strengthening relations between socialist countries was the formation in 1955 of the Warsaw Pact Organization, an alliance whose purpose was to pursue a joint defense policy. It included all the states of Eastern Europe, except Yugoslavia. In the internal affairs system, the Unified Command of the Armed Forces and the Political Advisory Committee were created - a body coordinating the foreign policy activities of the member states of the Warsaw Pact.
At the same time, anti-totalitarian forces made themselves felt from time to time in the “socialist camp.” In 1956 The situation in Hungary worsened, where the leadership headed by M. Rakosi became confused and lost control over the development of political events. Anti-communist, anti-Soviet demonstrations began in the country. A new government of I. Nagy was formed, the Communist Party was dissolved.
At Nagy’s request, the USSR troops stationed in Hungary under the Warsaw Pact left Budapest and other populated areas. Hungary announced its withdrawal from the Department of Internal Affairs and opened the border with Austria.
The USSR government was ready to use armed force to restore “order” in Poland, where popular unrest occurred that same year. But here it was possible to reduce the intensity of passions through peaceful means. A blow to the trust of Polish society in the USSR, both in the economic and political fields, was the failure of its policy in 1964, which ended in its decline (in the style of a conspiracy), as well as its suspicious maneuvers with Germany, threatening, under the flag of German neutrality, the loss of Polish western lands .
Due to the sharp dissatisfaction of the conservative communist governments in China and Albania with criticism of the “cult of personality of Stalin,” the USSR’s relations with these countries, which condemned the negotiations with Eisenhower and did not recognize the version of “Leninism” proposed by Khrushchev, were significantly complicated.
The Chinese leadership, led by Mao Zedong, reluctantly acceded to the decisions of the 1957 Meetings, which first held meetings of representatives of the communist and workers' parties of socialist countries, and then of workers' parties around the world. Having agreed with the conclusions of the Conference, he actually broke off relations between the Communist Parties of China and the USSR and began to curtail interstate ties.
In the early 1960s, the USSR suffered a number of setbacks in relations with its allies. In the summer of 1960, Moscow was forced to stop collaborations to create the Chinese atomic bomb and recall several thousand Soviet experts and specialists who helped China create an industrial base.
In November 1960, after a three-week discussion, the congress of representatives of the communist and workers' parties adopted a compromise decision that allowed Khrushchev to conduct diplomatic negotiations on issues of disarmament and peaceful coexistence, while calling for an intensification of the fight against capitalism by all means except military.
Relations with developed capitalist countries.
Khrushchev came to power during a difficult period for the Soviet Union in foreign policy terms. The Cold War was gaining momentum. Our country's vulnerability did not decrease much after the testing of the world's first hydrogen bomb in the summer of 1953.
In July 1955, a summit meeting of representatives of the USSR, USA, Great Britain, and France took place in Geneva. This event had great value, despite the futility of the discussion. In the same year, Moscow recognized the Federal Republic of Germany and, together with Washington, London, and Paris, signed an agreement on the restoration of a democratic and neutral Austria, agreeing to withdraw its troops from there.
In 1956, Soviet-Japanese diplomatic relations were resumed. Tokyo immediately officially demanded from the USSR the return of the southern islands of the Kuril chain transferred to it by decision of the Potsdam Conference. After reviewing Japan's arguments, Khrushchev offered to hand over two of the four islands to Japan in exchange for a peace treaty. However, after the signing of the security treaty, the Soviet leadership abandoned this option for solving the problem.
Starting from the second half of the 50s, the greatest attention began to be paid to relations with the United States. Success Soviet Union in creating a new military equipment also pushed the US to negotiate with him. In the fall of 1959, the first-ever visit of a Soviet leader to the United States took place, which strengthened the international prestige of the Soviet Union. But the return visit of American President D. Eisenhower did not take place due to the invasion of USSR airspace on May 1, 1960 by an American spy plane shot down by a Soviet missile
In 1960, Khrushchev spoke at the General Assembly on the problem of general disarmament. The Assembly approved only the general and non-binding idea of disarmament, and not the plan, divorced from the realities of life, proposed by Khrushchev. On behalf of the Soviet Union, the head of the USSR delegation proposed as soon as possible complete the decolonization process. The USSR unilaterally carried out a series of major reductions in its own Armed Forces (from 5.8 million people in 1955 to 2.5 million people in 1960). However, these initiatives did not evoke a response from the West.
Khrushchev's policy of peaceful coexistence and improvement of relations with the United States was combined, however, with frequent recourse to such a psychological means of putting pressure on the United States as political bluff, which led to an intensification of Soviet-American rivalry in the struggle for influence in the world. Khrushchev resorted to such methods, in particular, to cover up the real lag of the USSR from the United States, primarily in the military-strategic field. During his years in power, he held several meetings at top level with two American presidents. Meetings between Khrushchev and D. Eisenhower took place in 1955 in Geneva, Switzerland and in 1959 in Camp David, USA. The meeting with J.F. Kennedy took place in 1961 in Vienna, Austria.
For a long time, Americans associated the image of Khrushchev and his foreign policy towards the United States with a photograph in which Khrushchev was depicted with a raised threatening fist, and the phrase “We will bury you” given out of context. These words were actually spoken by Khrushchev. November 17, 1956 at one of the Kremlin receptions. The full phrase was as follows: “If you don’t like us, don’t accept our invitations and don’t invite us to your place! Whether you like it or not, history is on our side; we will bury you!” and reflected Khrushchev’s firm conviction in the final victory of socialism over capitalism on a global scale. During his stay in the United States on an official visit in September 1959, Khrushchev was repeatedly forced to explain to the American public and press the true “historical-dialectical” and not the everyday meaning of the words he spoke
No agreement was reached on the German issue with the new US President John Kennedy at a meeting in Vienna in June 1961. At the same time, the Soviet side accused West Berlin of conducting subversive activities, based on the fact that mass emigration of Eastern Germans. On August 19, 1961, the famous “wall” was erected in Berlin overnight, in violation of the clause of the Potsdam Treaty on free movement within the city. The construction of the wall initially caused even greater tension in Berlin. From now on, an attempt to cross the border was associated with mortal danger, and in September 1971 a quadripartite agreement was reached on West Berlin, legitimizing its special status.
A peace treaty with Germany was not signed, and it refused to recognize the post-war borders of Poland, Czechoslovakia and the GDR. After Germany joined the NATO military organization at the end of 1954, two meetings of representatives of European socialist countries were held.
Also in 1955, a meeting of the leaders of the USSR, the USA and Great Britain took place in Geneva, during which nothing was agreed upon, but from that moment on the expression “spirit of Geneva” entered the political lexicon, meaning a readiness to conduct a dialogue between previously irreconcilable enemies. In the fall of 1955, the USSR established diplomatic relations with Germany. The result of all these steps was the revolutionary conclusion, promulgated at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, about the possibility of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems.
Relations with third world states.
A new idea in Soviet foreign policy during the period under review was a reassessment of ideas about the neutrality of the so-called “Third World”. This term was used to designate countries, in most former colonies who gained their independence after the Second World War. This process began in 1947 with the declaration of independence of India, a former British colony, and continued until the early 60s. 1961 went down in history as the “year of Africa,” when most countries on the continent became independent. During Stalin's lifetime, the assessment of the liberated countries depended on whose help they received: the USSR or the USA. Khrushchev believed that it was necessary to recognize the right of these states to independent politics, especially if they do not join military-political blocs (in 1954-1955, two such blocs appeared in Asia: the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization and the Central Treaty Organization).
In 1955, a conference was held in Bandung (Indonesia) that marked the beginning of the non-aligned movement. The USSR was not invited to the conference, but through Chinese representatives contacts were established with a number of countries (Egypt, etc.), to which the USSR subsequently provided significant assistance, hoping for the evolution of national liberation movements in them.
In 1956, the national democratic government of G. Nesser, which came to power in Egypt, nationalized the British-controlled Suez Canal and forced the British to leave military bases in Alexandria. In search of a counterbalance to the West, Nasser moved towards rapprochement with Moscow by concluding an agreement on arms supplies. In the autumn of 1956 England, France, and Israel agreed on joint military action and began aggression against Egypt. The Soviet government demanded that it be stopped and stated that it would not prevent its volunteers from going to Egypt to take part in the battles. The ultimatum was accepted and foreign troops left this country. Consolidating its success, the USSR began to actively develop trade and military ties with the states of the Near and Middle East.
After the victory of the Cuban revolution on January 1, 1959, Khrushchev a few days later announced recognition of the new government of Cuba. This caused concern among President Kennedy and the US Congress. The peak of the confrontation between the world systems of capitalism and socialism was the Caribbean Crisis in the fall of 1962. The US has opened new military bases in Turkey with nuclear missiles, aimed at Soviet cities, and in the spring of 1961 they attempted to land troops in Cuba, overthrowing the government of F. Castro. In the summer of 1962, the USSR began creating its own nuclear missile base in Cuba. US President D. Kennedy responded by starting a naval blockade of Cuba in October and threatening to destroy Soviet missiles if they were not evacuated from the island. The Armed Forces of the Department of Internal Affairs and NATO were put on full combat readiness. After negotiations, Khrushchev gave the command to remove the missiles from Cuba, Kennedy ordered to do the same from Turkey and leave the Castro regime alone.
As a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the danger of nuclear war has become clearer than ever. On August 5, 1963, the USSR and the USA signed an agreement banning nuclear tests in three environments (on land, in the air and under water). This was the first arms control agreement.
Spiritual life
The confrontation between political and ideological forces that emerged in society after the death of Stalin and the disappearance of fear of repression under the conditions of that time was most noticeably reflected in artistic culture, as well as in changes in the way of life, thinking, and life values of part of society: “Seven Year School” was transformed into a compulsory eight-year polytechnic school ; Secondary education - school for working (rural) youth without leaving work; Average 3-year labor secondary school with industrial training technical school.
IN Soviet painting late 50's - early 60's. a “severe style” was established. The name, coined by critics, referred primarily to the works of artists from the youth section of the Moscow branch of the Union of Artists (MOSH), who turned to traditions national painting 20s This was due to socio-political reasons: after the exposure of the personality cult of J.V. Stalin, a return to the ideals of the revolutionary era, not distorted by Stalin’s rule, was proclaimed. The source of inspiration for the masters of the “severe style” was life ordinary people, which they conveyed in a sublimely poetic spirit. The artists sang the destinies of their contemporaries, their energy and will, and the “heroics of everyday work.” In “Our Everyday Life” (1960) by Pavel Fedorovich Nikonov (1930 - 1998) and “Rafters” (1961) by Nikolai Ivanovich Andronov (born 1929), the images are generalized and laconic. The basis of expressiveness is large planes of color and linear contours of figures. The painting becomes like a poster or engraving.
Some masters, in contrast to the thematic painting imposed by socialist realism, turned to “low” genres in the academic hierarchy - portrait, landscape, still life. Their chamber, intimate works did not represent opposition to socialist realism: the artists who created them were simply engaged in painting. In the 60s a new one has begun important stage in the history of national culture. In the circles of the creative intelligentsia - writers, artists, filmmakers (later they were called "sixties") - an increasingly powerful opposition to official art and ideological dictate from the state was formed. The phenomenon of the “sixties” manifested itself most clearly in “informal” activities: “samizdat”, art songs, semi-official exhibitions, etc.
In the second half of the 50s. The need for a clear and weighty sculptural image, where the idea would be expressed directly through form, was increasingly realized. This is the Moscow monument to V.V. Mayakovsky (1958) by Alexander Pavlovich Kibalnikov (1912 - 1987). Original memorials have appeared in which the leading role is played by the landscape preserving historical memory (the Green Belt of Glory near Leningrad) or the architectural composition (the monument in honor of space exploration in Moscow, 1964, by A. P. Faydysh-Krandievsky, M. O. Barshch, A. N. Kolchin). The atmosphere of the political "thaw" of 1956 - 1964. contributed to the emergence of Soviet culture different, including those far from socialist realism directions. Along with the appeal to abstract forms dating back to the avant-garde, sculpture preserved the traditions of monumentalism.
In post-war society, an understanding of the need for change matured. A man came back from the war who looked at many things with different eyes. The winners, the front-line soldiers, became the basis of the “critical mass”, which most acutely reacted to the pain points of reality, and above all to the most important question after the victorious days: how to live on? The thinking part of Soviet society began to seriously think about the fate of socialism in the country. Objectively, this rise in national self-awareness posed a threat to totalitarianism, the regime of unlimited personal power, and brought the collapse of “Stalinism” closer. However, the further strengthening of the administrative-command system and ideological pressure still worked to strengthen the personality cult of Stalin, to which official propaganda, and often the mass consciousness, attributed almost all the achievements of the party and the people.
The search that began for ways to democratize life and an optimal model of the post-war economy turned out to be once again unsuccessful and was mothballed. A hard line has again triumphed in the country's leadership, leading to the strengthening of the old system of social relations, political and economic structures.
Serious personnel changes were brewing in the country's leadership. The Plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, held in March 1946, replenished the Politburo and the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee with new forces. Unlike the Politburo, the Organizing Bureau was formed from a new generation of party leaders who had proven themselves during the years of the last war. The “personnel revolution” was again on the agenda, but the system included protective mechanisms. People known for their radical views were removed from leadership positions, the ideological dictate of the party in the sphere of spiritual culture intensified, and control over public life became tighter.
Only about 20% of the 2 million 270 thousand prisoners of war who returned to the country from captivity were given the opportunity to return home. The rest were either sent to camps, or sentenced to exile for five years, or to forced labor. Repressions in the army continued, although to a lesser extent than in the late 1930s. He was transferred from the post of Deputy People's Commissar of Defense and Deputy Supreme Commander-in-Chief to the post of Commander of the Odessa Military District, Marshal of the USSR G.K. Zhukov. In 1946, the Deputy Minister of the Armed Forces of the USSR and the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral N.G., were put on trial. Kuznetsov, and with him admirals L.M. Galler, V.A. Alafuzov, G.A. Stepanov. And although the guilt of the admirals was not proven, the last two received ten years in prison, and L.M. Haller - four years. N.G. Kuznetsov was demoted to rear admiral and sent to Khabarovsk as deputy commander in chief for the Far East. In 1946, twice Hero of the Soviet Union, Air Chief Marshal A.A. was arrested. Novikov; member of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, Hero of Socialist Labor, People's Commissar of the Aviation Industry A. Shakhurin and other senior officials. In total, 37 generals were arrested in the fabricated case of aviation industry workers (“the aviators’ case”), who were under investigation for six years without being charged.
Along with the “aviators’ case,” other “cases” were fabricated: Air Marshal S. Khudyakov, Colonel General V. Gordov, etc. In 1950, generals P. Ponedelin and N. Kirillov, released from fascist captivity, were shot, many Soviet commanders and political workers were subjected to repression “for the meeting on the Elbe” (contacts with US and British military personnel).
At least one million people were subjected to deportation and arrest in the regions of Western Ukraine and the Baltic states. Here, in the first post-war years, forced collectivization continued on a large scale. For several years there was a fierce struggle with the underground armed organization of Ukrainian nationalists (OUN), as well as with partisan and sabotage groups in the Baltic states.
In the summer of 1946, the country's leadership, with the active participation of A. A. Zhdanov, launched a broad campaign against any manifestation of independent intellectual creativity, “adulation to the West.” One of the first signs of the beginning of the persecution of the Russian intelligentsia was the creation in August 1946 of the magazine “Party Life”, designed to establish party control over all phenomena of the artistic, scientific and spiritual life of the country.
In the same month, the Central Committee of the party, represented by the same A.A. Zhdanova launched an angry attack on the Leningrad magazines Leningrad and Zvezda, which, in Stalin’s opinion, became purveyors of an ideology alien to the Soviet spirit. The poetess A. Akhmatova and the satirist M. Zoshchenko, who published their works in these magazines, were expelled from the Writers' Union, which practically meant the impossibility of publishing their works without special permission. The Zvezda magazine was reprimanded, and Leningrad was closed. At the same time, the “unprincipled” films “Big Life” by L. Lukov and the second series of “Ivan the Terrible” by S.M. were destroyed. Eisenstein.
Another new weekly, “Culture and Life,” at the end of 1946 began a campaign against “decadent” trends in the theater, demanding that all plays by foreign playwrights previously performed on stage be excluded from their repertoires; the following year, accusations fell on S.S.’s Sixth Symphony . Prokofiev, "Poem" by A.I. Khachaturian and the opera by V.I. Muradeli "Great Friendship" The work of D. Shostakovich was criticized. A special resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on February 10, 1948 “On decadent tendencies in Soviet music” not only condemned the work of these composers, but also unleashed a “purge” of the Composers’ Union.
From the end of 1948, a campaign against “cosmopolitanism” was launched, the first act of which was a ban on Soviet citizens marrying foreigners. Subsequently, this campaign took on a clearly anti-Semitic character. In Minsk, MGB officers killed an outstanding Soviet artist, artistic director of the Jewish Theater S.M. Mikhoels. The Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee was dissolved. Its members and employees were arrested and convicted. A number of prominent figures of Soviet and Jewish culture were shot in 1952.
A continuation of the anti-Semitic actions carried out in the country was the so-called “doctors’ case,” fabricated by state security agencies in late 1952 - early 1953. A number of prominent medical specialists, mostly Jews, were accused of conspiracy to destroy the largest political and public figures of the USSR. Only the death of I.V. Stalin suspended further progress of the investigation. The doctors, who did not suspect anything about their “crimes,” were released.
Conducted in 1947-1951. Pogrom campaigns in the field of philosophy, history, political economy, and linguistics led to the defamation of many famous Russian scientists, dismissal from work and exile from large scientific centers to remote areas of Siberia and the north of the country. During these so-called During the “discussions” the “truth” of certain scientific positions was determined by party bodies. For example, in linguistics for many years the dominant position was occupied by the theory of N.Ya. Marr, who was considered truly Marxist. Supporters of N. Marr accused those who disagreed with them of ideological sins. But in 1950 I.V. Stalin published the article “Marxism and Problems of Linguistics,” subjecting N. Marr’s views to crushing criticism. After this, Stalin became the highest authority in linguistics.
The August session of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences in 1948 became notorious in the history of Soviet science at that time, during which the charlatan T. Lysenko, who became president of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences named after V.I. Lenin and his supporters, with the approval of Stalin, defamed and persecuted geneticists and biologists - “Mendelists”. Several hundred famous scientists and their students were expelled from the academy and scientific institutes. Cybernetics, sociology and other branches of scientific knowledge that were cutting-edge at that time were also banned in the country.
Strengthening ideological and political influence on Soviet citizens in 1945-1953. represented the apogee of Stalinism as a political system. I.V. Stalin still ruled the country alone. He expanded and strengthened the repressive authorities and the concentration system. In 1946, the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) and the Ministry of State Security (MGB) were formed. The intensifying struggle for power among Stalin’s entourage was reflected in numerous changes in the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of State Security, and the weakening of the role of L.P. Beria and the so-called "Leningrad affair".
Rivalry between prominent associates of I.V. Stalin G.M. Malenkov and A.A. Zhdanov passed with varying degrees of success. In 1946, Malenkov was removed from the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee and sent to work in Tashkent. He was returned to Moscow at the beginning of 1948. At this time, Zhdanov’s role declined. Soon after the latter’s death in August 1948, the “Leningrad affair” began - the “purge” of former comrades of A.A. Zhdanov. It was carried out with the tacit consent of Stalin. The action organized by G.M. Malenkov together with L.P. Beria, led to repressions in 1949-1952. in relation to approximately two thousand party, economic and government figures; to the execution of about 30 prominent leaders who had shown themselves to be best side during the Great Patriotic War. The following were shot: Chairman of the State Planning Committee, member of the Politburo N.A. Voznesensky, Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks A.A. Kuznetsov, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR M.I. Rodionov, party and Soviet leaders of Leningrad and the region P.S. Popkov, P.G. Lazutin, Ya.F. Kapustin and others.
Unfolded at the end of 1951 and 1952. new campaigns in the press against “nepotism” and “bureaucratic degeneration” of a number of party and Soviet workers became, to a certain extent, the beginning of a new round of reshuffles in the country’s party leadership. The 19th Party Congress, held in 1952, renamed the CPSU (b) into the CPSU. The Politburo was replaced by a more cumbersome Presidium, with 25 members and 11 candidates; The size of the Secretariat and the Central Committee itself also increased significantly. I.V. Stalin showed open dissatisfaction with the activities of V.M. Molotova, A.I. Mikoyan and K.E. Voroshilov. The “Doctors’ Case” and the “Mingrelian Case” significantly weakened the position of L.P. Beria. However, the subsequent death of I.V. on March 5, 1953. Stalin prevented a new wave of repressions in the highest echelons of power. The magnificent funeral and death of hundreds of people, fanatically devoted to the “brilliant leader,” in a stampede on the streets of Moscow became the final chord of the end of the Stalin era.