Video

Prokopenko the country that we have lost. Igor Prokopenko - The truth about the Soviet Union. What country have we lost? Here is the opinion of a graphologist

The book by the famous TV presenter Igor Prokopenko will give you the opportunity to see in a new way and, perhaps, evaluate or re-evaluate the existing stereotypes that have developed around the Soviet Union.

What path would our country have taken a hundred years ago if Lenin had not existed? Why did the great leader of the proletariat never finish his biography? What did the Soviet Union and the Third Reich compete for at the World's Fair in Paris? Is it true that the world's largest automakers profited from the blood of our grandfathers during the Great Patriotic War? Why did the British Crown plan to give Siberia to the United States of America? Who is really buried in Stalin's grave near the Kremlin wall? Why did Marshals Zhukov and Konev quarrel? Why were only high-quality goods produced in the USSR? In this book you will find answers to the most controversial questions about the new history of our country.

You will also learn about the secrets of the Arbat alleys, about how the Soviet “golden youth” lived - Galina Brezhneva and Ksenia Gorbacheva personally told the author about this. You will find out for which music you could get a prison term, and for which - a State Prize.

This book will open your eyes to the time in which you lived or which you already know only by hearsay.

On our website you can download the book "The Truth about the Soviet Union. Which country have we lost?" Prokopenko Igor Stanislavovich for free and without registration in fb2, rtf, epub, pdf, txt format, read the book online or buy the book in the online store.

The Soviet Union no longer exists, and everything that we remember about it - good, bad - is like the light of a distant star... cannot be returned or changed...

Remember? At first it was fashionable to calculate how much benefit we received from the collapse of the USSR. A market economy, freedom of speech, the opportunity to vacation in Turkey... True, the market economy quickly turned into the impoverishment of everyone and the indecent enrichment of a few. Freedom of speech turned out to be a primitive squabble between oligarchs. A Turkish holiday, as it turned out, is not the most important thing in life...

Then, when we more or less taxied out of the devastation and looked around, on the contrary, we began to calculate what we had lost from the collapse of the Soviet Union?.. (It was necessary to manage with such income from the sale of oil, gas, ore, diamonds, with such cosmic , military, nuclear industry to live up to food stamps)…

As it turned out, we lost a lot.

Firstly, the Great Power just like that, for nothing, for the first time in history, voluntarily gave up almost half of its territory, entering the borders of the principality of the 16th century. If Ivan the Terrible had seen this shame of his descendants...

Secondly, we got a permanent, global civil war, which, having swept through all the union republics like a deadly whirlwind, is now eating up Ukraine.

Thirdly, NATO’s approach to our heavily sagging borders.

Fourthly - a clear understanding that they will “pressure” until Russia collapses to the borders of the Kremlin...

And now there are new losses... What did we lose again after the Kyiv coup and the return of Crimea? Ruble's exchange rate? Sanction jamon? Free food for your own money on Turkish beaches? No! We have lost our Faith in the West! And this is the most terrible loss.

Remember? Even during the times of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Cold War, the “American imperialists” and the “evil empire”, we firmly believed that the West was good. It just happened: we have socialism, and they have capitalism, but this will pass...

At the dawn of perestroika, Soviet people no longer believed in themselves, but they believed in the West. I think that is why we so easily accepted the collapse of the Soviet Union. Because they sincerely believed that the West would not deceive us, it would help us, teach us, and we would live as one just family of the peoples of the Earth. We trusted the West so much that – it’s funny to remember today – we gave the wiretaps to the American embassy ourselves. Intelligence and special services were going to be disbanded... Why spy on your own?

And now, when we have seen how cynically, in front of everyone, that same West, with blood and guts, is tearing Ukraine apart; deliberately nurtures nationalist regimes in the former Soviet republics; pointedly ignores the violation of human rights and the colossal loss of life in the Donbass... Only now we have suddenly come to a terrible conclusion: there is no European peace based on justice and democracy, in which we believed so much. And there are predators! Cynical, ruthless, acting only by the right of the strong. Of course, now we know that the “Western world”, which we love and know from great literature and great history, and Western oligarchs - officials - are not the same thing! But what a pity that we understood this only after the power in which we and our ancestors were born disappeared.

This book contains the history of our Motherland, which is not in textbooks. This is the true history of the Land of Soviets, with all its dark and light pages of memory.

Part one. Labyrinths of history

Chapter 1. Lenin. The mystery of the unfinished biography

What happened in Russia in February and then in October 1917 came as a complete surprise to most - including the Tsar and the Bolsheviks.

If Nicholas II had not left Petrograd for Mogilev a few days before the riots, if there had not been shortages of bread in the Northern capital due to disruption of the railway transportation schedule, then the future leader of the world proletariat would not have had such an amazing chance - to organize a real revolution in a country that, in fact, does not want to accommodate it.

According to Marx, revolution is generally impossible until capitalism has exhausted its capabilities and until the proletariat has become the largest class in society. Both of these conditions were absolutely unsuitable for Russia. True Marxists did not dare to call the country to a socialist revolution - it was not ready for it.

It is very important for a politician to grasp the moment when something can be done. Lenin felt this, and in October 1917 he realized that the Provisional Government was losing popularity and authority, and that there was an opportunity to conquer the Soviets. But he not only understood, but also took advantage of this moment.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Lenin arrives in Petrograd on April 3, 1917, he is full of determination. Lenin passionately speaks from armored cars, literally driving the idea of socialist revolution into the heads of his comrades. Lenin is obsessed with her, but to many she seems simply insane. In the summer of 1917, Vladimir Ilyich was forced to hide in Razliv, then fled to Finland. From there he constantly writes letters demanding that preparations for an armed uprising begin. Bukharin recalled that the letter of September 29 was written so decisively that everyone was dumbfounded. The Central Committee unanimously decided to burn Lenin’s letter...

Lenin possessed many of the qualities of a leader. First of all, it is one hundred percent confidence in oneself that one is right, which makes a person obsessed. But if he firmly believes that he is right, he can instill his beliefs in other people. If a person is a hypocrite and declares some principles without believing in them, then this is exposed very quickly. Lenin was a politician from God, he had a political instinct. Following Machiavelli's principle, the main recommendation for a politician is: do not deviate from the path of good, if possible, and do not be afraid to take the path of evil, if necessary.

The idea of violence by that time had become familiar and commonplace. The February and October revolutions took place against the backdrop of an absolutely monstrous event - the First World War, which for the first time in human history claimed the lives of millions of people. Losses were no longer in the tens of thousands as before, and this was becoming the norm. At some point, people stopped being horrified by such numbers.

Violence was legalized on a huge scale, and hence the ease with which violence in the 20th century was established in politics after the October Revolution, not only in Russia, but also in other countries. Now everything is permitted, and violence is justified, even if it does not serve any high purpose, if millions are dying. This permissiveness created a psychological atmosphere that encouraged first to shoot, and then to wonder why they shot.

Lenin's calls for bloody terror at that time did not seem something monstrous. He led his party to power, and for this purpose all means were good. After all, these are wartime and troubled times. And later Lenin carried out both international terrorism and state terrorism.

What Lenin cannot be blamed for is hypocrisy and lies; he sincerely believed in what he called for, and this made him a difficult person. Lenin was a terrible man, he believed in what he said. What he preached was the meaning of his life, the meaning of the entire universe.

Despite the fact that in a short course on the history of the CPSU (b) the Russian revolutions of the 20th century were prescribed to be considered as having no alternative, in 1917 there was a completely plausible scenario for a revolution without the Bolsheviks.

Vladimir Ulyanov might not have come to seething Russia; he might have simply been killed by a random cadet patrol on the streets of Petrograd. Without Lenin, the Bolsheviks would not have dared to dissolve the Constituent Assembly. Then it seemed that not a Provisional, but a permanent government led by the Socialist Revolutionaries would come to power in Russia. Perhaps it would have been overthrown by disgruntled military men, and War Minister Kolchak, the all-Russian supreme ruler, could have been at the head of the country.

Preface

The Soviet Union no longer exists, and everything that we remember about it - good, bad - is like the light of a distant star... cannot be returned or changed...

As it turned out, we lost a lot.

Secondly, we got a permanent, global civil war, which, having swept through all the union republics like a deadly whirlwind, is now eating up Ukraine.

Thirdly, NATO’s approach to our heavily sagging borders.

Fourthly - a clear understanding that they will “pressure” until Russia collapses to the borders of the Kremlin...

This book contains the history of our Motherland, which is not in textbooks. This is the true history of the Land of Soviets, with all its dark and light pages of memory.

Part one. Labyrinths of history

Chapter 1. Lenin. The mystery of the unfinished biography

What happened in Russia in February and then in October 1917 came as a complete surprise to most - including the Tsar and the Bolsheviks.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

The Treaty of Versailles would have been different. Russia, among the victorious countries in the First World War, could not help but receive its share, comparable to the acquisitions of England and France. Under the shadow of a strong hand, foreign investment would come to Russia and domestic capital would strengthen its position. By the middle of the 20th century, reforms in agriculture, modernization of industry and the army would have made Russia, with a population of 300 million, completely democratic, having overcome the temptation of military dictatorship and experiencing an economic miracle as a country. The royal family would still be alive. Many would still be alive.

However, as a result of the Bolshevik victory, a completely different vector of development will be formed. The established order will surround us with the familiarity of a forest on the horizon or clouds overhead. He will surround us from everywhere. There will be nothing else, Pasternak will later say through the lips of Doctor Zhivago.

Without Lenin there would have been another revolution, if there had been one at all. There may be many options and assumptions here. But even known facts make it possible to imagine a different course of events.

Many times, Vladimir Ilyich could quite realistically die without realizing his dream of revolution.

There was a case when Lenin, crossing the border along the river, almost drowned. It happened early in the morning, and if it weren’t for the fishermen who came out for the morning bite, it is unknown how this incident would have ended.

Or another story. While in exile, Lenin loved to ride a bicycle in the vicinity of Paris. Somehow such a walk almost cost him his life.

“I was traveling from Juvisy,” Lenin wrote to his family , – and suddenly some car crushed my bicycle (I barely had time to jump off). The public helped me record the number and provided witnesses. I found out the owner of the car (Viscount, damn him) and now I’m suing him through a lawyer.”

Lenin then won the trial and even received monetary compensation for his broken bicycle.

Well, how would history have turned out if Lenin had died in this traffic accident at the beginning of the 20th century?

The next day, the Parisian newspapers would have small items in the city news section with headlines like: “Hit under car.”

In Russia, his comrades would honor his memory. That's probably all.

Of course, the First World War would have started in the same way, followed by the February Revolution, which was prepared by the Socialist Revolutionaries, not the Bolsheviks. And Nicholas II, most likely, would have signed the abdication, and the Provisional Government led by Alexander Kerensky would have come to power...

But fate protected Vladimir Ilyich. Probably, he was still destined for a special role in history.

Shares his impressions political scientist, candidate of historical sciences Kirill Anderson:

“Lenin becomes a myth already during his lifetime; this process accelerates after his death. For example, there is a book containing photographs of all the wreaths that were at Lenin’s funeral - both from kindergartens, and from passengers on the Moscow-Tashkent train, and with the text “To my dear teacher from the prisoners of Butyrka prison.” All these children's stories about how kind Grandfather Lenin was, how he loved cats and dogs. Based on such records, one can imagine how the myth of Lenin was formed. It seems that in “Krivoy Rog Komsomolets” this was successfully formulated; they probably didn’t understand then that they were doing something epoch-making, the phrase sounded like this: “Ulyanov is dead, Lenin is alive.”

But how popular a figure was Vladimir Ilyich in 1917? He spent most of his time abroad, in theoretical works. Where did such love of the proletariat come from? Why did the rebel soldiers and sailors immediately recognize this man as their leader? And was it recognized?

“We, the undersigned members of the committee of the 8th Horse Artillery Battery, at a general meeting of soldiers decided to send you a letter with the following content.

Due to the fact that there is a lot of friction between the soldiers of the battery regarding Lenin, we ask you not to refuse to give us an answer as soon as possible.

What is his origin, where was he, if he was exiled, then for what? How did he return to Russia and what actions is he showing at the moment, that is, are they useful or harmful to us?

In a word, we ask you to convince us with your letter so that after this we will not have any disputes, will not waste time in vain, and will be able to prove it to other comrades.”

Lenin's answer (draft):

“I answer all these questions, except the last one, because only you yourself can judge whether my actions are useful to you or not.

My name is Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov.

I was born in Simbirsk on April 10, 1870. In the spring of 1887, my older brother Alexander was executed by Alexander the Third for an attempt (March 1, 1887) on his life. In December 1887, I was first arrested and expelled from Kazan University for student unrest, then expelled from Kazan.

In December 1895, he was arrested for the second time for social-democratic propaganda among workers in St. Petersburg.”

At this point the manuscript ends... The soldiers remained completely in the dark about “who Comrade Lenin is.” His whole life is a complete conspiracy. Subsequently, this turned out to be very convenient - Lenin could be molded into an ideal image of a leader. A wedge beard, a sly squint of kind eyes, round dances with children around the Christmas tree, a simple jacket and cap... And it doesn’t matter that Vladimir Ilyich did not always wear a beard, he had a rather wicked sense of humor, was indifferent to children, knew how and loved to dress smartly. A person and a leader are fundamentally different concepts.

The fact that ideologically they made him into an icon, an image that did not always fit into real life, is normal. Let us recall, for example, the difference between the teaching of Christ and the teaching of Christian churches; Saint-Simon's students glorified the name of their teacher, but made him forget his work. But here everything has turned into ideology. The study of Lenin’s works was mandatory; one had to know certain works that had to be read: “Three Sources and Three Components of Marxism”, “State and Revolution”, and several more. Have you read them? Everything else is optional.

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov-Lenin is one of the few outstanding politicians who did not leave an autobiography. Once upon a time, an entire institute worked to describe almost every minute of the life of the leader of the proletariat. Their incredible work is called “Biochronicle of Lenin”, it records in detail everything that happened to Lenin during his life. Why didn’t Vladimir Ilyich find time to create his own biography?

His whole life is an incredible set of events, mysteries and contradictions. Even the date of his birth - April 22 - is also a kind of mystery. Vladimir Ulyanov was born on April 10, 1870 according to the old style. According to the new style, the difference at first was 12 days, and since the twentieth century another day has been added - the thirteenth. That is, it turns out that Vladimir Ilyich was born on April 23. However, after Lenin's death, everything that concerned him turned into a communist shrine. No one dared to change April 22 to the 23rd.

Another amazing detail of Lenin’s biography, which began to be discussed not so long ago. He, the most humane person, did not have a single close friend. Neither in childhood, nor in older age.

Natalya Morozova, editor-in-chief of the newspaper “Loyalty to Lenin,” which existed from 1994 to 2003:

“No, he had friends. Maybe there wasn't just one bosom friend, but he had brothers and sisters. Sister Olenka was his main friend. Volodya and Olya, they were basically naughty, all the memoirists talk about it. They did this in the house! And they climbed under the table, and rode toy horses, and played Indians.”

The only well-known confirmation that Volodya Ulyanov actually played Indians with someone is stored in the main archive of socialist history. This is the original - a letter with totems, which the high school student Ulyanov personally drew on a piece of birch bark and addressed to his classmate Boris Formakovsky. By the way, scientists still cannot decipher what these symbols mean. It seems that already at an early age, Vladimir Ilyich developed a passion for conspiracy, which would later become a distinctive feature of his character.

When a child grows up alone in a family, he needs some kind of friend, comrade, and here there were friends in constant games, and older friends in ideological views, friends in the reading circle. They often played intellectual games, guessing the writer or composer.

But modern psychology believes that this is a contradictory factor. If children are friends with each other in the family, if they develop the ability for friendship, then, of course, this ability is universal. The ability to be friends with another person also develops if the family has not obsessively cultivated an attitude of closeness and exclusivity, that our family is special. Such intimate friendship can lead to the fact that we are friends with each other, but other people are not ours, and in this case some connections with the outside world may be disrupted. But by and large, family gives us the ability to make friends.

Alexander Ulyanov, Vladimir's brother, was a revolutionary terrorist. He was executed after an unsuccessful assassination attempt on Tsar Alexander III.

Alexander could have been pardoned; all he had to do was write a petition to the king. However, he did not do this, despite his mother’s pleas, their last meeting took place on the eve of the execution. Maria Alexandrovna knew that she was seeing her son alive for the last time. That day she became completely gray.

The whole family waited in horror for May 8, 1887. Alexander's execution was scheduled for this day. The death of his older brother could not but affect Volodya Ulyanov, who was 17 years old at the time.

And again let's turn to psychology. Sometimes filial feelings - love, hope, expectation - are transferred to another significant figure in certain problematic relationships with the father. It is likely that Alexander could be such a figure; from sources known to us we know that he really loved his older brother. This is a fairly natural model of relationship when the older brother is loving, understanding, and accepting. And when Volodya lost him, he lost, in fact, the source of love, understanding, protection, stability, certainty. This is the foundation on which the child builds his male model of behavior.

Sasha not only discovered the works of Karl Marx for his younger brother. Sasha showed Volodya an example of the fight against tsarist power: bloody terror, the only possible means of liberating the people. Vladimir Ulyanov took the lessons of his older brother literally.

Who becomes a revolutionary? A restless, dissatisfied, unhappy person, a person who believes that everyone is an enemy, who is focused on his idea and does not take reality into account.

The version that Lenin decided to avenge his brother seems controversial to historians. Some researchers are inclined to believe that Lenin was prone to labeling people, including his brother and sister: this fool, this fool. Lenin did not hesitate to insult either strangers or even loved ones.

From the memoirs of Georgy Solomon, a major revolutionary figure who knew Vladimir Ilyich Lenin closely.

“When Dmitry Ulyanov was appointed to some very high post in Crimea, Vladimir Ilyich spoke about it this way: “These idiots, apparently, wanted to please me by appointing Mitya. They didn’t notice that although he and I have the same last name, he’s just an ordinary fool who’s only fit to chew printed gingerbread.”

Olga Dmitrievna Ulyanova, the only direct descendant of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, the daughter of his younger brother Dmitry.

“Dad called him Volodya, Vladimir Ilyich called him Mitya or Mityusha. Dmitry was a doctor, a communist, like the entire Ulyanov family. The relationship was good. When I see some family where someone is quarreling with someone, I think: “Lord, what kind of Ulyanov family this was. There was no swearing."

I met Olga Dmitrievna in the courtyard of her house; she did not invite me into the apartment, especially since there was a granddaughter with whom Olga Dmitrievna did not agree on political and life beliefs. The granddaughter, according to her, is very careless, Olga Dmitrievna does not want to say anything about her: there is nothing good, but there is nothing to condemn her for, the girl is like a girl.

Dmitry Ilyich Ulyanov had two children - Victor and Olga. However, if Olga Dmitrievna has always been in the spotlight as Lenin’s niece, then there is practically no information about her nephew, Viktor Dmitrievich. Why did the party authorities not like the eldest son of Dmitry Ulyanov?

Perhaps because Viktor Ulyanov was born out of wedlock.

Olga Dmitrievna Ulyanova believes that everyone along the Ulyanov line died, only her father had another brother. Her brother Victor also died a long time ago; he, according to her, of course treated this family with respect, but he himself did not try to imitate or be similar in any way.

Viktor Dmitrievich Ulyanov lived simply, they say, he was a very hospitable person. He named his children Vladimir and Maria. Granddaughter - Nadezhda.

Olga Dmitrievna has one daughter, whom she also named Nadya in honor of Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya, whom she remembers very well.

Olga Dmitrievna Ulyanova recalls:

“Krupskaya also lived in the Kremlin, but in a different apartment. Krupskaya worked, sat at her desk, and when I came to see her, she was always very happy. “Lala—they called me Lyala as a child—come here, sit down.” I sat down with her, but then Cerberus, her personal secretary, came and said: “Lala, you are interfering with Aunt Nadya’s work.” “No, no, she doesn’t bother me!” “And I say, he’s in the way, get out of here.” Of course, I disliked her for this: I come to my dear aunt, and she swears.”

Nadezhda Konstantinovna married Lenin in 1898, in Shushenskoye. It is surprising that she went down in history as Krupskaya, and not Ulyanova, although their marriage to Vladimir Ilyich was completely legal, not civil, and she took her husband’s surname. Moreover, young revolutionaries and convinced atheists got married. Otherwise, how would the tsarist authorities allow them to live together in exile? For a long time, the fact of the wedding was carefully kept silent, because, as is known, Vladimir Ulyanov literally severed his relationship with religion when he was still a high school student. He tore off his pectoral cross and threw it on the ground, as one of the sisters recalls. However, even outright disbelief did not prevent Lenin and Krupskaya from taking an oath of marital fidelity in church.

Because they loved each other and wanted to be together, they went through this procedure. Moreover, they lived in a village, everyone there was devout. Otherwise, everyone would point the finger: “They live illegally, unmarried.”

No one doubts that Nadezhda Konstantinovna and Vladimir Ilyich were true like-minded people and people devoted to each other and the cause of the revolution. But the stories about true love between them raise doubts among many researchers.

Akim Arutyunov, historian, researcher of the biography of V. I. Lenin:

“They say it was scary to look at him, he couldn’t get married because no one needed him. And Krupskaya agreed, well, she’s a circle mate, and she won’t have to live alone all her life. Krupskaya was already 29 years old when they got married.

Lenin also needed Krupskaya as a secretary, which she became for the rest of her life after her marriage. She did all the grunt work that not every secretary would agree to - rewriting his terrible manuscripts that none of the editors could take for publication. So she got it. Without Krupskaya, he would not have been able to publish anything.

But Lenin could not write his autobiography himself. I am firmly convinced: the reason is that everything for him is built on lies and deception. Everything is fake, dig anywhere.”

Vladimir Ilyich really had a specific handwriting. He could write so finely that only he and Nadezhda Konstantinovna could decipher what he wrote. He also had other writing features.

Many of Lenin's manuscripts, for example, the work "The Impending Catastrophe and How to Fight It" from 1917, are written in microscopic, neat handwriting, but very clear. 25 pages in one go, not a single blot. And when Lenin came to power, his handwriting became sweeping - letters on the page.

A person writes some letters completely uniquely. This feature of handwriting can be compared to fingerprints. It is by the individual writing of certain letters that graphologists can make assumptions about the distinctive personality traits of the writer.

Here is the graphologist's opinion:

“There is an interesting spelling of the letter T, unique...

Intellectual aggression, or aggression through the intellect. This is a first-class fighter and his weapon is intelligence.

The slope is quite serious. That is, a person starts a business, guided by his heart’s aspirations, experiences, and emotions. But he does the job directly with cold calculation. A very interesting fusion: a spiritual impulse, supported by cold calculation, it can take you far, as, in fact, it happened.

It is especially important to study the questionnaires. There are graphs and frames. A law-abiding person who will always try not to go beyond their boundaries. In life, these “frameworks” can be laws, education, rules of decency - any restrictions that constrain us.

Vladimir Ilyich almost completely ignores them, in my opinion, he doesn’t even see them, this does not stop him from writing. That is, a person easily crosses the boundaries of what is permitted. Yes, there are specific examples - after all, Lenin, for example, crossed the Russian-Finnish border.

The handwriting is small, which betrays secrecy. This may be a character trait or related to the type of activity; one can recall, for example, conspiracy.”

There was a rather remarkable period in the history of our country, which was called the period of the New Economic Policy, abbreviated as NEP. At that time, many regarded it as a retreat from the communist idea; hundreds of thousands of communists handed over their party cards. And Lenin was forced to write a whole series of explanatory articles. In particular, he wrote that war communism was a forced last resort. And the NEP is a planned stage.

Before the NEP, there was the so-called period of war communism, when money had no value; they used it to cover walls because it was cheaper than buying wallpaper. There was a song from those times: “Once I go to the buffet, I don’t have a penny of money, change 20 million,” there were such pieces of paper. Everything was free, because there was practically no money circulation, people received rations, vouchers for visiting the bathhouse, free travel, etc. During the NEP period, a great many counter-revolutionaries appeared. They believed that we had achieved communism, and suddenly we had to abandon this, private trade was allowed again, money and goods appeared.

The emancipation of the countryside, freedom of enterprise, the boom of the cooperative movement and the solid chervonets in just 5 years ensured not only the restoration, but also the growth of agricultural and industrial production.

The capitalist grin of the NEP seriously frightened the party nomenklatura that was coming into force. By the end of the 1920s, it would become clear that the NEP was incompatible with the CPSU(b) monopoly on power.

Stalin and his entourage were very afraid of the challenge of the petty bourgeois side. From his works it is clear that collectivization was carried out not in order to improve agriculture, but in order to destroy the peasantry, as well as any petty-bourgeois element, in order to create a total dictatorship.

This alternative really should be considered seriously. Moreover, to some extent it still has not lost its relevance. The fact is that the NEP contained elements that contributed to the development of small and medium-sized production in both the city and the countryside. These elements are still not involved, paradoxically, in our current reforms. The current Chinese miracle is simply the implementation of the NEP in its purest form.

So this option was possible, in general, back in the 1920s in Soviet Russia.

If Nikolai Bukharin’s slogan “Get rich and don’t worry that everyone will be slammed” had come true, the USSR would have a chance to become a completely different country. In this country, supporters of the NEP are victorious over the party and economic bureaucracy. The enthusiasm of the masses is driven not by the dream of happiness for future generations, but by the joyful feeling of their own improving life. Stalin remains in history as an unsuccessful People's Commissar of the era of military communism.

Real political democracy, security of property and the rule of law are becoming the everyday norm. Industrialization is carried out on the basis of market relations, without impoverishing the population and undermining the agrarian basis of the national economy.

There is no tragedy of collectivization, no aggravation of class struggle, no enemies of the people, no Gulag.

In reality, all that remains of the NEP is the comical figure of the Nepman and the memory of the unfulfilled golden age of socialism.

The NEP was necessary, and if Lenin had lived longer, this economic policy would have continued. Lenin actually stayed in power for 5 years. Not such a long time for the newly-minted leader, who planned - no more nor less - to build a new world.

Lenin understood: despite the fact that the old world had been razed to the ground, as the Internationale sang, a terrible nightmare was reappearing in the form of bureaucracy. If you look at Lenin’s latest works, he swears that the bureaucracy has been revived. He writes that the bureaucratic bureaucracy of Tsarist Russia has been destroyed like a plague, while Soviet bureaucracy is already growing.

History suggests many options. If Lenin had lived a little longer, he himself would have become a master of the apparatus, the style of management, as Joseph Vissarionovich would later be, who accepted and absorbed bureaucratic principles. Or, on the contrary, Lenin would have come up with some brilliant move that would have saved Rus' at least from this scourge (for Lenin it’s not fools and roads, but drunkenness and bureaucracy). Although it is unlikely that he would be able to cope with both. As for bureaucracy, this is a completely hopeless idea. If it appears, it lives and prospers, raking in more and more for itself.

His life began with a secret and ended with a secret. Lenin's last days and the illness from which he died remained a mystery to historians for a long time. On the eve of the funeral ceremony, an article appeared in Izvestia about the causes of death: it was said that Lenin died of sclerosis. Later they began to write that the cause of death was a cerebral hemorrhage.

After Lenin's death, the Politburo decided to conduct secret research on the brain of the greatest leader of mankind. Moreover, at first they were going to take him to Germany, but then they decided to create a special Brain Institute in the Soviet Union. However, a German, Professor Focht, was invited to head it. He examined Lenin's brain and made an assumption about his genius - based on the fact that the leader's brain had many peculiarly arranged pyramidal cells. A little later, one of his German colleagues made the discovery that a similar brain structure is often found in mentally ill people...

Igor Prokopenko

The truth about the Soviet Union. What country have we lost?

Preface

The Soviet Union no longer exists, and everything that we remember about it - good, bad - is like the light of a distant star... cannot be returned or changed...

As it turned out, we lost a lot.

Secondly, we got a permanent, global civil war, which, having swept through all the union republics like a deadly whirlwind, is now eating up Ukraine.

Thirdly, NATO’s approach to our heavily sagging borders.

Fourthly - a clear realization that they will “pressure” until Russia collapses to the borders of the Kremlin...

And now there are new losses... What did we lose again after the Kyiv coup and the return of Crimea? Ruble's exchange rate? Sanction jamon? Free food for your own money on Turkish beaches? No! We have lost - Faith in the West! And this is the most terrible loss.

Remember? Even during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Cold War, the “American imperialists” and the “evil empire”, we firmly believed that the West was good. It just happened: we have socialism, and they have capitalism, but this will pass...

At the dawn of perestroika, Soviet people no longer believed in themselves, but they believed in the West. I think that is why we so easily accepted the collapse of the Soviet Union. Because they sincerely believed that the West would not deceive us, it would help us, teach us, and we would live as one just family of the peoples of the Earth. We trusted the West so much that - it’s funny to remember today - we gave the “wiretapping” to the American embassy ourselves. Intelligence and special services were going to be disbanded... Why spy on your own?

This book contains the history of our Motherland, which is not in textbooks. This is the true history of the Land of the Soviets, with all its dark and light pages of memory.

Part one. Labyrinths of history

Chapter 1. Lenin. The mystery of the unfinished biography

What happened in Russia in February and then in October 1917 came as a complete surprise to most - including the Tsar and the Bolsheviks.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin