Nikolay belly biography. Nikolai Dobryukha. Who is he, biography? Reviews about ""

Chapter Seventeen

Strange affair. He has little culture, is an illiterate person, does not speak Russian, and how much literary impudence he has!

You're amazed when you read...

From the speech of J.V. Stalin at a meeting of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks about the film “The Law of Life” on September 9, 1940

My book is gradually moving towards the end. At the beginning of it, I wrote that one of the last incentives to start working on it was the book by Nikolai NAD - Nikolai Alekseeevich Dobryukha, “How Stalin was Killed.” His book, I must say, gives me personally an ambivalent feeling. If the books of, say, Volkogonov, Avtorkhanov, Radzinsky only evoke in me a feeling of disgust, and sometimes a feeling of disgust both for the texts and for those who produced them, then the book of Nikolai NAD is rather worthy of regret. It is very good in places, and its author treats Stalin quite objectively, that is, loyally.

But when I read, for example, about the operation with the mind-blowing name “Hamlet”, which was allegedly developed by Beria with the aim of poisoning Stalin, then I don’t even want to analyze these “revelations”. However, even in this heap of um... some substance one can find some “pearls” of truth, because Stalin was really killed. But Beria had nothing to do with this, except for his desire to get to the killers - which was one of the reasons for his death.

Just as naive are Dobryukha’s hints regarding, for example, the fact that Beria almost secretly supervised the development of Soviet thermonuclear weapons. What is the subtitle of chapter 20.3 “Beria and the Bomb” in Dobryukha’s book - “The hydrogen bomb in the hands of Beria could become a weapon of worldwide nuclear blackmail”. In fact, everyone in the top leadership knew about these works who were supposed to know about them: Stalin, Malenkov, Molotov, Bulganin, Vasilevsky, Yumashev, etc. Only people who don’t really know or understand anything about the history of the Soviet Union can write about this. Atomic project.

Dobryukha meaningfully refers to “one of the main leaders and specialists on this topic in the Ministry of Atomic Energy (more precisely, the Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation. - S.K.)" by Evgeniy Dudochkin, who allegedly explained to N. NAD that although the Americans had produced the first thermonuclear explosion, it was “just a stationary device”... But to clarify this “confidential” fact, there was no need to contact Evgeniy Konstantinovich Dudochkin and submit him, who actually headed one of the leading Main Directorates of our “atomic” ministry for a number of years, was so loud. The multi-ton "Mike" was blown up by the Americans in 1952 not in an atmosphere of secrecy, but, on the contrary, in an atmosphere of public hype.

Here’s another example... For the sake of his own “conceptual” constructions, Dobryukha brings down Stalin’s “disgrace” (a concept, by the way, absolutely incorrect for assessing that era) even on Marshal Rokossovsky, whom Stalin, according to Dobryukha, “sent” to command the Polish Army.

In fact, Stalin sent Marshal of the Soviet Union K.K. Rokossovsky in August 1949 to Poland at the request of Boleslav Bierut. And there, Marshal of the Soviet Union Rokossovsky took the posts of Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers and Minister of National Defense, also becoming a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of PORI and Marshal of Poland.

Rokossovsky was recalled from Poland only in 1956 and soon - this is exactly the case both in form and in essence - he fell into disgrace with Khrushchev, speaking very warmly and positively about Stalin’s leadership qualities at the October 1957 plenum of the Central Committee. After the 20th Congress, in the eyes of the Khrushchevites, this was tantamount to a crime, and, removed from the post of Deputy Minister of Defense of the USSR, Konstantin Konstantinovich was sent to command the Transcaucasian Military District - to the homeland of the “tyrant”.

There are many “sensations” in Dobryukha’s book, like a secret report from American intelligence about the powerful prospects for agriculture in the USSR in connection with collectivization... This report, better than any of mine or someone else’s arguments coming from any domestic researcher, shows and proves the correctness of Stalin’s agricultural policy. But, introducing into scientific circulation for the first time such documents, which he could only obtain in official archives, the researcher needs to start with standard references to the archive, fund, inventory, file, etc.

Instead, N. Dobryukha now and then “puts into circulation” more than dubious interviews, “information” about “Stalin’s doubles”, etc. And - as it seems to Dobryukha - he sanctifies their outright nonsense with the “high” authority of the Chairman of the KGB of the USSR in 1988 –1991 Vladimir Kryuchkov. The latter certifies Dobryukha’s “research” as “very strong material” and declares that “no one can turn away from the documents cited by Dobryukha.”

Well, depending on which ones it is, firstly...

Secondly, you wonder - why and why is such a figure as ex-KGB chairman Kryuchkov involved here? Not having the opportunity, and indeed the need, to devote a lot of time to her, I will only say the main thing that I think about her... In such a matter as the organization in 1991 of the State Committee for the State of Emergency - GKChP, the role of the Chairman of the KGB could not be just one of the leading , and - systemically basic! So, Vladimir Kryuchkov carried it out the way it could have been carried out either by an impenetrable, mediocre cretin, or... Or by an intelligent and calculating agent of influence of the West and the Golden Elite of the world.

Adherents of Andropov and his deputy Kryuchkov, let them choose the option that suits them more, but, as Jesus Christ said: “...let your word be “yes, yes,” “no, no,” and anything beyond this is from the evil one.” There is also a good Roman saying on this subject: “Tertium non datur” - “There is no third option”... And the presence of Kryuchkov as a “highest expert” on the pages of Dobryukha’s book personally alarms me further, and I ask myself another question: “Why and who needed N. Dobryukha as a publisher of truly interesting medical documents about Stalin’s last days and the autopsy of his body?” Indeed, in Dobryukha’s book, which is compositionally and conceptually extremely, I repeat, uneven and confusing, these documents are the most valuable part of the book.

Isn’t it the secret that the false revelations of the “classics” of the anti-Stalinist genre - Volkogonov and Radzinsky are increasingly turning into “waste steam”, which, in fact, even N. NAD admits. In recent years, many things have gradually begun to fall into place. The winds of History, without even really blowing up, are sweeping away dirt and debris from Stalin’s grave. The major figures of Molotov, Malenkov, Zhdanov, Kaganovich, Kirov and other senior figures from Stalin’s entourage with all their real advantages and disadvantages are emerging more and more objectively and clearly. The appearance of figures like Voznesensky and Kuznetsov-“Leningradsky” is also becoming clearer.

The creative scale of such a figure as Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria is becoming more and more obvious... These two names are increasingly being combined in a positive sense: Stalin and Beria. And this is dangerous not only for falsifiers and haters of Russia’s past, but also for falsifiers and haters of its future!

Is this why series like “The Death of Stalin” appear - interesting only with scant newsreels, and books like the books of N. Dobryukha and historian Yu. Zhukov, which someone may even consider pro-Stalin?

They say that it is not forbidden to even praise Stalin, but it is forbidden to denigrate Beria with all our might. And Dobryukha writes almost with evangelical pathos (on page 274): “None of the four who were recently admitted to His house was as interested in His death as he, Comrade Beria...”

To tear Stalin away from Beria, and even from the rest of his comrades - even if they were not “stony” by 1953, but the Bolsheviks...

To portray the processes in the top leadership of the USSR - in the “narrow leadership”, as Yu. Zhukov calls it - in the mature Stalinist era as a kind of squabble for power and thereby reduce outstanding, whatever one may say, statesmen to the level of the current “Three Percents”...

To smear Beria, and Malenkov, and a number of other members of the Politburo - the Bureau of the Presidium of the Central Committee in Stalin's blood, either by adding to them for greater "convincing" the truly guilty Khrushchev, or by portraying the latter as completely innocent...

And, although the only thing that can be said for sure about Stalin’s murder can be summed up in four words: “Beria had nothing to do with it,” over and over again present Beria, Beria, Beria as Stalin’s murderer...

These, as far as I understand, are the tasks that the systemic heirs of the anti-Stalin “classics” have. Heirs because the “patriarchs” are gradually entering the historical “circulation”, although maintaining the publishing circulation for now...

But still, over and over again, “researchers” rant about how Beria “surrounded Stalin with his people,” and at the same time tell the reader - like N. NAD on page 257 of his book that “Beria was removed from the leadership of punitive (? - S.K.) authorities”... But Beria was not removed, and at the end of December 1945 he was released from the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, because he had a huge job ahead of him, firstly, to organize Soviet atomic work, unprecedented in scope and short period of time, and secondly, not less enormous work on the restoration and development of a number of the most important economic sectors.

N. Dobryukha, on page 414 of his book, reproaches, for example, Yuri Mukhin for trying to “create an angel out of Beria”... No one is going to make an angel out of Beria - Beria was not an angel, but a large man, a humanly attractive and bright personality. Why make a devil out of him - as the same Dobryukha does, neglecting obvious facts that he himself does not dispute.

Let's say, Beria handed over the affairs of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to Sergei Kruglov on January 10, 1946, and the MGB was headed by Vsevolod Merkulov from 1943. Nevertheless, Nikolai NAD claims that for the last two years, Stalin’s life “was in the networks of the underground Beria mafia from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the MGB”...

Firstly, what did the post-war Ministry of Internal Affairs have to do with ensuring Stalin’s security?

Secondly, Beria for seven years - I remind you of this once again - had no official connections either with the Main Directorate of Security of the MGB, headed until May 19, 1952 by General Vlasik, or with the Directorate of Security of the MGB, headed since May 19, 1952 by the Minister of State Security Ignatiev himself .

Nevertheless, Dobryukha-NAD states without hesitation on page 299:

“Comparing the strange “Vinogradov treatment” of Zhdanov (talking about the “doctors’ case.” - S.K.) and Vinogradov’s medical report addressed to him, Stalin could not help but think: why then, in 1948, the always so vigilant Beria did not show due attention to Timashuk’s indictment?!

Dobryukha writes this, knowing full well the answer: “The always so vigilant Beria did not show due attention to Timashuk’s indictment in 1948 for the simple reason that he had no idea then about Timashuk or her statement.”

Timashuk gave the letter to Vlasik, and he, without reading it, gave it to Abakumov, with whom it all ended then. Beria, however, was busy working on the first Soviet atomic bomb RDS-1 and did not even supervise the MGB - this was in 1948 the responsibility of the Secretary of the Central Committee A. A. Kuznetsov, who was arrested only in August 1949.

What - Dobryukha is not aware of all this?

And what are his words worth on page 344 about the “mass media” allegedly “controlled” by Beria? I recommend to the reader the maliciously dishonest “anti-Beria” collection of 1991, which I critically analyzed in my book about Beria - there, on pages 190–191, the writer Konstantin Simonov describes how on the evening of the day when Beria was arrested, he visited him at the editorial office of the Literary Gazette “Deputy head of the Propaganda and Agitation Department of the Central Committee Moskovsky came and asked: is there anything about Beria in the issue prepared for publication? Simonov wrote:

“...I stood like a fool for another two hours at my desk, re-reading all four pages, on which Beria’s name could only appear in some article about agriculture, where a collective farm or state farm named after him would appear...”

There is nothing to say - Lavrenty Pavlovich was omnipotent in the Soviet media.

And after all, all the other insinuations of Dobryukha against Beria are no more thorough than the last one.

SOMETIMES, it must be admitted, N. Dobryukha hits not in the eyebrow, but in the eye, as, for example, when he writes that “those defeated in 1917 in the 20s - 40s had no choice but to organize, wherever possible, secret resistance to the victors,” and that it was a “Secret Civil War between the relatively small remnants of the White Guard and the huge Red masses”...

Brilliantly said - no joke!

Also valuable are Dobryukha’s data about the actual first edition of the “Doctors’ Case” in 1935, when amazing facts were revealed about the amazing contamination of the Kremlin Medical and Sanitary Administration with more than suspicious personnel: wives of large landowners and white officers, daughters of merchants of the 1st guild, cattle dealers etc. Then these were just “flowers”... Zhdanov and his colleagues were already poisoned with “berries”. Moreover, Dobryukha does not essentially deny a certain continuity of anti-Soviet groups in LSUK, mentioning, albeit in passing, the strange deaths of Krupskaya and Gorky...

The medical documents of 1953 cited by N. Dobryukha are also valuable, and this is the main thing that can be said about them.

N. Dobryukha is also convincing in his criticism of, say, the American Robert Tucker and the Englishman Alan Bullock - when he accuses them of uncritically rewriting all sorts of fictions about Stalin from Roy Medvedev and Dmitry Volkogonov, who, in turn, refer to Tucker and Bullock.

Everything is right here! Yankee Andy... sorry, confused with the hero O'Henry, Robert Tucker and Sir Alan wrote "biographies" of Stalin that can satisfy only undemanding, ignorant and gullible people. But this is to some extent excusable for two Anglo-Saxons - what can you take from the Anglo-Saxons!

But what about such, say, “Russians” as the brothers Roy and Zhores Medvedev, Edward Radzinsky, Volkogonov? Should History's demands be stricter on them?

True, it is hardly possible to ask anything seriously from Edward Radzinsky if he does not hesitate to write publicly that his father was, in fact, an incontinent erotomaniac - after his death, one of the main domestic slanderers of Stalin found something hidden between the pages. then the book is a letter from Sergei Eisenstein to his father with traces of their youthful pastimes - obscene drawings.

The favorite book of Radzinsky Sr., who was born in 1889 and died in 1969, was “The Gods Thirst” by Anatole France. And he, like the heroes of France, according to his son, observed the life of Stalin’s Russia with a smile.

And Stalin and his comrades and associates on all “floors” of the social “building” this life built.

That’s all, in fact, the difference between Radzinsky Sr. and his contemporary Stalin, expressed in two phrases.

BOOKS by Radzinsky, Volkogonov or, say, another similar “classic” anti-Soviet, who, like “General” Volkogonov, was an ideological fighter of the CPSU Central Committee Leonid Mlechin, can be analyzed line by line. And line by line you can reveal their lies. Perhaps, fearing this, these “researchers” hide so carefully behind “copyrights”, etc., blocking in advance for their potential critics the possibility of a detailed analysis.

But I don’t really want to do it! Yes, perhaps, it’s not really necessary - slander against Stalin today is acquiring a much more subtle character than it was with, for example, Radzinsky.

But already, let’s say, Volkogonov in some places even seemed to praise Stalin - for the war period. However, these were also “kissing” Judases. Moreover, describing the situation at Stalin’s “near dacha” at the moment of the first commotion, Volkogonov claims that supposedly without Beria’s permission doctors could not be called to Stalin (why would that be the case?), and then “reports” that finally, in one from the government mansions of the Stalinist Monster (that’s right, with a capital M) they allegedly found him in the company of a “new” woman at three o’clock in the morning.

Beria - but to Volkogonov - and said the fatal thing: they say that you are panicking... Comrade Stalin is fast asleep and snoring.

Vile nonsense! But here it is - it has been published, is being published and is still taken for granted by many...

But even the sophisticated slander against Stalin, with elements of supposed recognition of merit, is increasingly being refuted by life itself.

As for the books of Radzinsky and Volkogonov, this is what can be said about them... They, written by different authors, but having the same title “Stalin”, stand out from the general anti-Stalin series except for their printed volume and special ahistorical nature. They also stand out because they have become a kind of “normative” “source” on Stalin for many of our compatriots who want to understand Stalin and his era. Alas, the acquaintance of an unprepared reader with this, in a systemic sense - two-pronged, opus can only obscure the issue, or rather, sully it in the mud of fraud and lies.

These two books are also related by the fact that they were both written by hereditary, so to speak, haters of Stalin, who were forced to hide their hatred for many decades.

But I have no opportunity to directly quote these books, because both “pillars” of “Russian” “democracy”, in the spirit of “true freedom” in the search for historical truth, stated in print: 1) Radzinsky: “Reproduction of the entire book or any part of it is prohibited without the written permission of the publisher . Any attempts to violate the law will be prosecuted”; 2) Volkogonov: “Any use of the material in this book, in whole or in part, without the permission of the copyright holder is prohibited.”

I understand this approach when it comes to a popular detective story or a romance novel... But in a study that claims to be historically true, only one reservation is possible - the need for a mandatory reference to the source used. And so... They talked and talked to simpletons about the inadmissibility of a monopoly on information, but in reality they claim it in court!

Well, gee! Either “historians” or clowns!

Entered into a rage by the happily acquired opportunity to defend the “sacred right of private property” in “Russian”, both of our “historians”, like many other “historians from democracy”, did not even notice that they had claimed exclusive rights to the texts of the Bible, Napoleon, Rabindranath Tagore, Andre Gide, Aragon, Berdyaev, etc.

And even on... the text of the USSR national anthem of pre-Khrushchev times.

However, democracy is a serious matter, you cannot protect it without rubber, or even lead bullets, lawyers, prosecutions and historical falsifications... And therefore, direct quotes from the works of the two “fathers” (or grandsons, or even great-grandsons?) of the “Russian” “ “I can’t afford democracy”...

And, as I said earlier, I’m even glad about it. However, I hope I will not violate the rights of copyright holders if I inform the reader that Radzinsky in the chapter “Death or Murder?” inadvertently lets slip that for the first time “evidence” about the circumstances of Stalin’s death, allegedly coming from the lips of Stalin’s immediate guard, was published in the book of Dmitry Volkogonov.

Volkogonov referred to the guard Starostin, and Radzinsky “clarified” it on the basis of the “memories” of the guard Rybin. But I have already shown the reader what such “memories” are worth using a number of examples, and I will not bore him further.

Rybin, Starostin, Khrustalev, Lozgachev, Tukov, Egorov, etc. - can you trust them? If you cross-compare their testimony and the testimony of others, you will not get a consistent picture even in general - not to mention the details and chronology. Actually, everyone admits this.

Moreover, some memories that do not formally correspond to reality may have a real basis. Thus, actor Mikhail Gelovani first played Stalin in a movie in 1938, and for the last time in 1950. There is evidence that Gelovani once persuaded Stalin to check the accuracy of his makeup by walking past the guards instead of Stalin. The story is quite plausible, but from it grows a whole set of already stupid stories about Stalin’s supposed “doubles”.

HOWEVER, even before the publication of various “declassified” supposedly “memories” of Stalin’s death, Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov’s book “The Mystery of Stalin’s Death” was written, published in 1976 by the emigrant publishing house “Posev”. Its subtitle was, as one might guess, appropriate: “Beria’s Conspiracy.”

This is the same Avtorkhanov, with the mention of whom I began the chapter “Stalin and Beria”... And the biography of this “political scientist” serves as such powerful “information for thought” that I will fully cite the article about him, published in the first volume of the Great Russian Encyclopedia. By the way, the fact that in this volume, published in 2005 by the scientific (?) publishing house “Big Russian Encyclopedia”, there was even a place for the biography of Avtorkhanov, fully characterizes the “scientific” publishing house “BRE” itself. Only one letter in its name has changed, but how sharply the level of encyclopedic activity has fallen in all respects - except printing. And above all - in moral terms!

“AUTORKHANOV Abdurakhman Genazovich (lit. pseudonyms: Alexander Uralov, Surovtsev, Professor Temirov, Mansur) (not earlier than 1908, Lakha-Nevri village, Terek region - April 24, 1997, Olsing, Germany), a Russian figure. Emigration, political scientist, publicist. Since 1927 member CPSU(b). Since 1930 ch. arr. at desks, at work in the Chechen Autonomous Okrug. Author of a number of works on the history of Chechnya. He led the group of authors who compiled the “Grammar of the Chechen Language” (1933). (Note that BDT does not provide any data on the sources of the formation of this Chechen “Cyril and Methodius.” - S.K.). In 1937 he was arrested on charges of organizing the so-called. Interethnic Center, released in 1940, arrested again, released again in 1942. At the same time he was sent as a representative of the Sov. authorities for negotiations on the surrender of weapons with Kh. Ismailov, the leader of one of the armed forces. Chech. groups that became active in the end. 1941 as the front line approaches Checheno-Ingushetia. He went over to his side and delivered a document to Germany under the name. “Memorandum of the Provisional People's Revolutionary Party. Government of Checheno-Ingushetia." In 1943–1945 in Berlin. In 1943–1944 member. North Caucasian national company, which propagated the ideas of independence of the Caucasus from the USSR under the auspices of Germany. Editor of the weekly newspaper. "Gazzavat." In 1949–1979 prof. and head department of politics Sciences Rus. Institute of Amer. army, which trained specialists in the USSR (Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany). (Note that the period from 1945 to 1949 falls out of the BDT’s field of view, although these years, presumably, are where the basic education of “Professor Temirov” in American “institutes” falls. - S.K.). In 1950, simultaneously one of the founders and deputy. director of research. Institute for the Study of History and Culture of the USSR (Munich, Germany). He studied the history of the formation and development of the state. and desk systems in the USSR, considered the obvious and hidden mechanisms of political. repression. He put forward the idea of ​​the phenomenon of “Soviet colonialism”), believed that its goal was the dominance of non-Russians. Ethnicity, but communist. ideas. Collaborated with People's Labor Union. One of the organizers of Radio Liberty (Liberation), editor of its North Caucasus edition. Author of memoirs (1983, Frankfurt am Main; 2003, Moscow).

Such is the biography, familiarity with even a brief summary of which explains a lot about who was repressed in 1937. By the way, “gazzawat” (“gazawat”) or “jihad” is “war in the path of God”, this is the holy war of Muslims against infidels, in which all non-Muslim territories are considered as an “area of ​​war”, “dar-el-gharb” in the opposite of the “area of ​​Islam” is “dar-el-Islam”. And “dar-el-gharb” for the faithful is a permanent theater of military operations, the beginning of which can follow at any convenient moment.

Since “Professor Temirov” died in 1997, there can hardly be any doubt that he was not only the leading “ideologist” of the modern Chechen war, but also one of the direct organizers and secret coordinators of this mini-“gazzavat”.

So, no matter what, this “professor” has hands up to his shoulders in human blood. And today the Chechen “leaders” are just trying to implement his long-standing ideas (more precisely, of course, the ideas of his masters). BRE’s statements that Avtorkhanov “put forward” something and “believed” something there even sound somehow funny... Figures like Avtorkhanov (as, indeed, many of the current “Russian” “encyclopedists”) themselves they cannot “posit” anything, because they themselves are posited and have in any position convenient for the employer.

In this sense, it is indicative how the editors of the academic journal “Questions of History” presented Avtorkhanov to the public in No. 1 for the ill-memorable year of 1991. Having reported that Abdurakhman Genazovich Avtorkhanov was born in 1908 in the village of Lakha-Nevri, Terek region of the Caucasus region, the editorial note continued:

“He is a Chechen by nationality, graduated from a five-year Russian school, then entered a madrasah, but was soon expelled for reading prohibited literature and then was brought up in a Grozny orphanage, where he graduated from two classes of a second-level school. In 1924, he was enrolled in the Chechen regional party school, accepted into the ranks of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, studied in Grozny at the Workers' Faculty, the preparatory department of the Institute of Red Professors and the chemical faculty of the Grozny Oil Institute, worked as the head of the organizational department and the press department of the Chechen regional committee...

...Since 1932, Avtorkhanov has worked as the director of the Chechen branch of Partizdat and studied at the editorial department of courses on Marxism-Leninism under the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, at the Institute of Red Professors and lectured... at the Moscow Pedagogical Institute named after Bubnov. In 1937 he was arrested on false charges, released in 1940, soon arrested again and released again in 1942.

After the occupation of the North Caucasus by the Nazis, Avtorkhanov was deported at the beginning of 1943 to Berlin. There, until the spring of 1945, he collaborated in the press of the Russian emigration, and after the end of the war he remained in West Germany. From 1949 to 1979 he taught political science at the Russian Institute of the American Army, became a Doctor of Political Science...", etc.

Compared to the article in BRE, the “Soviet” period of Avtorkhanov’s life is covered here in quite detail, and it is clear that the capable Chechen boy, whose “ceiling” in Tsarist Russia would have been the position of a rural teacher, was raised by the new Russia to the heights of serious higher education. In “Russian” they chose not to emphasize these details. But in “Questions of History,” those details of the life of the “deported” ex-Marxist during the war, which in January 1991 could have kept many in the USSR from admiring Avtorkhanov’s ideas, were modestly passed over as unnecessary.

However, the “perestroika” magazine “Slovo” was just as modest in covering the piquant details of Avtorkhanov’s biography. In No. 5 for 1990, publishing fragments of Avtorkhanov’s book about the death of Stalin, the editors reported only the following about him:

"A. Avtorkhanov is a native of the Caucasus. A historian by training. He worked in the Central Committee of the party (which party’s Central Committee is not specified, because Avtorkhanov did not work in the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. - S.K.). In 1937 he was repressed. After his release, he emigrated to the West, where he defended his doctoral dissertation and became a professor of Russian history. I published about ten books..."

But in 2005, in the BRE it was already possible to decipher the anti-Soviet side of the biography of the “fighter against totalitarianism” in full. In the silence of 1990 and 1991 is the entire future “Russian” official “historical” “science”.

But this is also by the way.

Let's move on... The encyclopedic list of Avtorkhanov's works does not mention his book "The Mystery of Stalin's Death", about which the reader is already aware, just as he is aware that in 1991 chapters from it were first published in the USSR in the May (No. 5) issue the magazine “New World”, which was then published with a circulation of 957 thousand copies (I don’t know if it is published now). At that time, the reading public (there was such a now lost habit among the “slaves of totalitarianism”) became acquainted with Avtorkhanov’s “revelations” avidly... Well, then it was still possible to somehow understand - the ideologist of “Gazavat” wrote about "forbidden»…

However, for many renegade “historians” in the land of their native birches, Avtorkhanov’s books turned out to be both dogma and a guide to action. Once upon a time, Marxist historian Mikhail Pokrovsky defined bourgeois historical science as “politics thrown back into the past.” In the execution of Avtorkhanov and others like him, history - for the first time, perhaps, in the history of human development - turned out to be politics overturned to the future!

And, just as all subsequent Russian literature of the 19th century grew from Gogol’s “Overcoat,” so from Avtorkhanov’s long-standing pseudoscientific opuses grew the entire “Russian” historical “science” of the late 20th and early 21st centuries... “Science,” which shamelessly misinterprets and mediocrely interprets all of modern history our Motherland and the whole world in general.

It was not for nothing that the Chechen Avtorkhanov drank cabbage soup at the Russian Institute of Red Professors and tomato soup at the Russian Institute of the American Army. As a result, he became the inspirer not only of Chechen militants, but also of many Moscow professors, who - some after 1991, and some before it - simply began to translate the ideas of this bison of psychological warfare into the “New Russian” academic language.

Here we can mention another “cadre” of this war - the former Soviet nomenklatura-party member and defector Mikhail Voslensky, whose book “Nomenklatura”, published for the first time in 1980 in Austria and Germany, also became a reference for the “ideologists” of “perestroika”. Voslensky prefaced the introduction to his book with a very significant epigraph from Heinrich Mann: “Today’s books are tomorrow’s business.”

You can’t say anything - it’s said frankly and to the point.

“Tomorrow’s” “business”, programmed by books like Avtorkhanov’s, has already become our past today. But that doesn't mean that All in the past, and therefore in present-day Moscow the amount of waste paper presented as social science and historical research, the “foundation” of which was laid by the Avtorkhanovs and Voslenskys, is multiplying and multiplying. No wonder, no wonder Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov slurped Soviet cabbage soup and anti-Soviet ketchup...

IF we talk about Avtorkhanov’s interpretation of the processes and events directly related to Stalin’s death, then it is not only false, but at times ridiculous. What is one scene worth, described by the author of “The Mystery of Stalin’s Death” from the words of allegedly Ilya Erenburg, where the hypocrite Beria either shouts: “The tyrant is dead!”, then kisses the “tyrant’s” hands, and where all his entourage allegedly spoke out against Stalin without mincing words, demanding an end “Doctors’ Affairs”, etc.

Avtorkhanov knows how to distort the thesis - that’s why he is a master of psychological warfare. But such masters are only good against sheep, or more precisely, against social sheep, who are inclined only to chew the cud offered to them and do not know how to think. Let’s say this “master” writes:

“Under tyrannical regimes, politics is the art of alternating intrigues. The courtiers intrigue in order to be closer to the tyrant, and the tyrant - in order to set them against each other: after all, the courtiers, constantly competing with each other, are not able to organize a conspiracy against their ruler.

Stalin surrounded himself with people whose loyalty was not determined by social ideals, but only by considerations of their career...”, etc., etc.

Let’s not dwell much on the topic of “whose cow mooed” - Avtorkhanov always lived not by social ideals, but by considerations of his career and measured others by himself. But let's look at what he wrote regarding Stalin and his associates on the merits.

So, Avtorkhanov puts forward a correct thesis about the nature of relations in the highest power under a generalized tyrannical monarchy and wrongfully applies this thesis to the situation of Stalin’s USSR in the mid-30s - early 50s of the 20th century. As a result, Avtorkhanov puts forward a completely incorrect thesis about the nature of power in the USSR.

Let's say, Kalinin... Avtorkhanov in his “Technology of Power”, without himself understanding what he writes, reports that they, the “Red Professors”, “measured the leaders of the revolution on a slightly different scale” than the “common people”, and “from the point of view of this scale” it seemed to them that “Kalinych”, although a nice old man, was someone else’s shadow as a politician, and as a theorist he was a total zero”... However, Avtorkhanov further reports that the professors “were ready to listen condescendingly to Kalinin as well” ...

However, just a “nice old man” would hardly have entered the highest party circles even under Lenin. At the beginning of June 1946, the terminally ill Kalinin sent a suicide letter to Stalin, and this letter cannot in any way be classified as flattery of a “courtier” to the tyrant. But from the letter one can see the figure of a major politician and an extraordinary person, for whom “illness and the expectation of death have not dulled... interest in the destinies” of his country and its near future.

But the rest of the top leadership of the Bolsheviks were not fawning extras and Stalinist backbenchers - it’s even somehow awkward to prove this. Moreover, this book contains, I hope, enough information to make such evidence unnecessary.

However, Avtorkhanov’s book is not without interest to read with a pencil in hand when you are well acquainted with the indisputable documents published - albeit in microcirculations - in recent years. When Avtorkhanov’s book was first published in the USSR and even later, almost all of these documents were not available for study. Today, their knowledge clearly convinces them of Avtorkhanov’s total dishonesty, but also makes reading his book a kind of entertainment, when you can easily compare the truth of the fact and Avtorkhanov’s lies.

“So, Stalin simply slept through the radical revolution in world politics and diplomacy, as a result of the emergence of thermonuclear (actually, then only atomic. - S.K.) weapons. The troubadours of Stalinism wrote more than once that when President Truman at the Potsdam Conference told Stalin the epoch-making news that the Americans had invented an unprecedented weapon - atomic (Truman did not use this word. - S.K.) bomb, then Stalin turned the conversation to the topic of the weather. The tragedy of the situation lay in the fact that this bomb did not make the proper impression on Stalin...”

In fact, Stalin understood the significance of the new factor in world politics so much that back in 1943, at the height of the most difficult and devastating war for the USSR, waged against Russia by the owners of Avtorkhanov, who “emigrated” to Berlin, he authorized Soviet “atomic” work. And by the summer of 1945 they were already in full swing - even before the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki clearly confirmed to the whole world that physicists were not mistaken in their calculations of the power of new weapons.

Like the books of his followers, and the followers of his followers, Avtorkhanov’s books can be critically analyzed not only page by page, but line by line. However, we, perhaps, will move on... I will just remind the reader that just as the initial basis for all the stories about the “creator of Thermidor” and the “tyrant” Stalin were Trotsky’s opuses, so the initial basis for all later stories that Stalin had fallen the victim of Beria’s conspiracy was Avtorkhanov’s opus. Moreover, he very accurately (knew, one must assume) points out a number of details confirming the version of the conspiracy and murder, notes the dual role of Ignatiev, etc. But all this is in order to divert attention from the real driving anti-Stalinist forces and transfer attention to Beria .

The country learned that Stalin was seriously ill from a government report published in Pravda “about the illness of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Comrade Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin.”

The Central Committee and the Council of Ministers announced “the misfortune that has befallen our party and our people - the serious illness of Comrade Stalin.”

It was reported that:

“On the night of March 2, Comrade Stalin, when he was in his apartment in Moscow, suffered a cerebral hemorrhage, which affected areas of the brain important for life. Comrade Stalin lost consciousness. Paralysis of the right arm and leg developed. There was a loss of speech. Severe disturbances in the activity of the heart and breathing appeared.

The best medical forces were brought in to treat Comrade Stalin: professor-therapist P. E. Lukomsky; full members of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the USSR: professor-pedologist N.V. Konovalov; professor-therapist A. L. Myasnikov; professor-therapist E. M. Tareev; Professor-neurologist I. N. Filimonov; Professor-neurologist R. A. Tkachev; Professor-neurologist I. S. Glazunov; Associate Professor-Therapist V. I. Ivanov-Neznamov. Comrade Stalin’s treatment is being carried out under the leadership of the Minister of Health of the USSR, T. A. F. Tretyakov, and the Head of the Medical and Sanitary Administration of the Kremlin, T. I. I. Kuperin.”

The signatures of these doctors were under the bulletins published in Pravda about Stalin's health status: at 2 o'clock on March 4, 1953 (not signed by neuropathologists Filimonov and Glazunov), at 2 o'clock on March 5, 1953, at 16 o'clock on March 5, 1953, as well as under the message about Stalin's death at 21:50 on March 5.

So, Stalin left this world.

And now his funeral was coming.

However, Stalin’s body should not have been buried, but should have rested in the sarcophagus of the Mausoleum next to another sarcophagus - with the body of Lenin. Before this, complex actions lay ahead to open and medically examine the body and prepare it for embalming. But about the “medical” aspect - later.

Now let’s touch on the mourning and political aspects...

How many lies have been written about those days in the history of the Motherland!

They write that many allegedly rejoiced, “forgetting” that they really rejoiced at Stalin’s death, but very few and none of those who had a mind and a heart...

They write about a “non-Christian” way of burial, “forgetting” about the tombs of Russian tsars in Orthodox cathedrals, about coffins with the remains of several generations of Russian nobles in family tombs, about a simple black coffin with the body of Lermontov, standing in a niche of an underground crypt in Penza Tarkhany...

And how often they write that the “bloody” “tyrant”, going to his grave, demanded “numerous human victims”, crushed in the stream of people moving towards the Hall of Columns of the House of Soviets, where the coffin with Stalin’s body was displayed... They write about the second supposedly “Khodynka”...

Well, in those days it would hardly have happened without some casualties even with the most precise organization of the funeral and any security measures. It is enough to be at least once in a dense crowd moving towards an escalator in rush hour in the Moscow metro to understand that this is really the case.

After all, it was not only Muscovites who wanted to say goodbye to Stalin - they then traveled to the capital on any available transport from different cities and villages of the Soviet Union. AND fully It was impossible to introduce this element within absolutely clear boundaries, just as it was impossible to refuse the very act of people’s farewell to Stalin.

Yes, perhaps the only option to avoid human casualties would be to completely abandon the funeral ceremony. Although…

Although how do Avtorkhanov, Radzinsky, Volkogonov and other similar “researchers” imagine this? What - immediately after Stalin’s death and all the required medical examinations and autopsy, it was necessary to carry out embalming and immediately place the body in the Mausoleum? Or just put him to earth as soon as possible?

But in this case, too, it would not have happened without victims, and what kind of ones too! Indeed, in those days - as in the days of Lenin’s funeral, as in the days of any sharp historical turns - the truly popular element came into its own... This element would have thrown its raging waves to the walls of the Kremlin, to the Novodevichy Cemetery, and in general to any place, where Stalin would rest. And the same element would have drowned those who would have deprived the people of the right to say goodbye to Comrade Stalin.

And then the victims would be truly numerous.

Yes, there were victims (but by no means “numerous”, of course) there were, but how many philistine rumors were heaped up around this sad fact, which later turned into many “respectable” memoirs, unreliable “testimonies” of eyewitnesses (according to the saying of criminologists, “Lies like an eyewitness”) and simply deliberate overexposure and slander!

Let's say, the future KGB general Leonov, who then worked at the Foreign Literature Publishing House and was in Moscow in those days, describes them as a witness and participant in the events, but how he describes them! He's writing:

“Sorrow and grief of all my colleagues (but what about Leonov himself? - S.K.) were genuine. But the Spaniards (political emigrants) killed us even more. S.K.). Social psychosis (? - S.K.) in those days overflowed its banks. Millions of people (an obvious quantitative overkill, acceptable for a newspaperman, but not acceptable for a security officer-analyst. - S.K.) rushed to the Hall of Columns, where the finally laid to rest (?? - S.K.), lay the “leader and teacher” ... "

Already this tone cannot be called anything other than, to put it mildly, cheeky. But further - more! Talking about his unsuccessful attempt to get into the House of Unions, Leonov claims that hundreds of people were trampled to death in the Trubnaya Square area and states: “The cult of personality took several hundred of its last victims to the grave.”

Further, he refers to his conversation already during his time as a Chekist with N.I. Krainev, who was then acting chief of the Moscow police, but still does not specify the number of victims, although Krainov could not help but know her, and Leonov could not help but take advantage of such an opportunity not to take an interest in her. A fact that, to my taste, speaks for itself!

To refute perhaps hundreds of pages of such lies, I will not refer to documents from those days - they are also not very reliable, but I will give only one piece of evidence that is worth many others.

The honorary security officer, retired colonel Vladimir Fedorovich Kotov is no longer alive, but in 2001 in Nizhny Novgorod, his memoirs with a simple and expressive title were published in Nizhny Novgorod in a circulation of 500 copies: “It was like that!” Everyone who knew Colonel Kotov notes that to the end he remained an honest, thorough person and a thoughtful security officer, and this is also evident from his most interesting - including due to their ingenuous sincerity - memories.

Having joined the state security agencies in 1949 as a young guy, in 1952 he became a cadet at the MGB Higher School and in March 1953 was directly involved in ensuring security during Stalin’s funeral.

Below I give a direct quote from his book:

“But then the words of an official announcement suddenly burst into our student life, as well as into the life of the entire country: On March 5, 1953, at the 73rd year of his life, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin died... All life in society seemed to quiet down. No, she did not stop, but seemed to freeze in anticipation of future events.

I, like our entire course, had the opportunity to participate in ensuring security during the funeral. I was in an operational unit that provided access to the Column Hall of the House of Unions from the street. Gorky. The entire street, as far as the eye could see, from the Central Telegraph and above, towards Mayakovsky Square, was crowded with people. Many had tears in their eyes. And in general, the entire dense mass of people was somehow quiet, with a mournful expression on their faces, and not some kind of crowd of onlookers.”

How unlike this description is - how unlike psychologically it is first of all - from the description of General Leonov, who actually disregarded the oath to the Soviet Union and agreed to an ideological compromise with the “Russian” “Rossiyanie”.

Colonel Kotov testifies:

“At the same time, we must pay tribute to Muscovites and guests - they followed the established procedure for movement and entry. But those wishing to enter the Hall of Columns from our post without the appropriate pass (that’s how! - S.K.) to pay their last respects to the deceased leader, there was so much that the human chain of security from the entrance to the Hall of Columns “from the rear” to the Yermolova Theater could hardly restrain the human pressure, which had to be held back for three days, during the time of access to farewell to I.V. Stalin."

As we can see, there were no excesses in the main organized column, although there was probably some kind of uncontrollable stampede with victims somewhere - messages about this can be found in relatively reliable memoirs. Moreover, I do not rule out that on the distant approaches to the main route, someone deliberately created traffic routes with sections where the preconditions for crowding and other things were objectively created. I don’t rule out direct provocations like: “Come on, guys, I know where you can go!” etc.

Taking into account how diverse Moscow was already in those years, and the fact that Stalin fell victim to a conspiracy, such a version cannot be ruled out either, can it?

The state of soul and body that even serious people could reach at that time can be judged by the following detail from the story of V. F. Kotov:

“In order to avoid unforeseen situations, it was decided to form a barrier of trucks lined up to help the human security chain. But still, some brave souls broke through such a barrier. I involuntarily had to grab one such daredevil who dived under the car by the fluttering hem of his overcoat and pull him out from under the car. But imagine my surprise and embarrassment when an army general appeared in front of me - a junior lieutenant - and with a plea in his voice asked to let him in so that once in my life I could see Stalin at least dead. I understood the general’s condition and therefore accompanied him to the senior operational detachment, who allowed him to go into the queue, which was moving in a living, continuous stream parallel to Gorky Street.”

This is what the Soviet security officer Kotov wrote about those days in 2001, then adding: “We, the participants in our operational squad, took advantage, as they say, of our official position and paid our last debt to the leader of the party and state.”

And here’s how Leonov, a former security officer and “Russian” MGIMO professor, wrote about the same thing in 1997: “So I never said goodbye to “old man Hottabych,” as I called Stalin for his capricious omnipotence...”

Leonov was 25 years old in 1953. How could he know about how Stalin led the country in order to have the moral right to speak insultingly about him? But when “Hard Years” came - that’s what Leonov himself called his memoirs - Leonov and his colleagues in the country’s top government turned out to be not Stalin’s falcons, but wet “two-headed” chickens. Although from a young age they judged the Stalin era at random.

Yes, people like the young intellectual Leonov, who emerged from seemingly the very midst of the people, also thoughtlessly created the atmosphere that led to the assassination of Stalin at the turn of winter and spring of 1953.

Three days have passed since the moment when the first mourning columns reached the House of Unions... Access to the Hall of Columns was closed, and the flow of farewells dried up. Only close relatives, immediate circle, technical staff of the House of Unions and security remained in the hall.

What was happening there at those moments?

Much has already been written about the fact that Vasily Stalin, for example, openly cried. They also wrote that he said in his hearts a harsh phrase about the fact that they ruined his father, the bastards, poisoned him! Well, this was quite in the spirit of Stalin’s youngest son. Moreover, such an accusation was true.

Vasily loosened his tongue later... And Beria, as the new Minister of Internal Affairs, authorized his arrest. “Russian” “historians” cite this fact as further evidence of Beria’s guilt. But everything could have been explained differently!

Beria had nothing to do with the murder of Stalin, but he could have suspected that Stalin was poisoned from the very beginning - as soon as he found himself together with other members of the Bureau of the Presidium of the Central Committee at the bedside of the dying man. Most likely, Beria from the very beginning suspected, about something guessed.

So, having once again become the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs-MGB, Beria could not help but begin one or another secret investigation in any case - at least in order to cut off the version of the murder. But with his wealth of operational experience and - let’s not forget - operational talent, Beria could not help but understand that such the ball must be unwound carefully and carefully - otherwise you can quickly end up at your own solemn funeral.

And here Vasily’s expansiveness could, on the one hand, interfere with the delicate investigation, and on the other hand, could break the head of Vasily himself. In this case, by ordering his arrest, Beria acted, firstly, in the interests of the investigation, and secondly, he simply saved Vasily’s life!

This assumption of mine is also confirmed by the fact that Vasily Stalin was arrested under Beria, but he continued to sit in prison even after Beria’s arrest. If Vasily suspected Father Lavrenty Pavlovich as the murderer, then it would seem that it would be better - after Beria’s arrest, to release another “innocent victim” of his “tyranny,” and that would be the end of it. And let Vasily, having gotten tipsy, once again publicly send curses to the vile murderer. But no! Stalin's son both “sat” under Beria and continued to “sit” under Khrushchev. The question is: who did Vasily Stalin blame for his father’s death?

And the next day was his funeral.

| |

Download Joseph Davydovich Kobzon gave documentary consent to the publication of his memories and reflections in the form of a literary entry “Joseph Kobzon As Before God,” authored by Nikolai Alekseevich Dobryukha. Full annotation Comment: 0: 0: 0: 0: 0: 0: 0 How Stalin was killed

Dobryukha Nikolay Alekseevich

Birthday: 12/21/1879 Age: 73 years old Place of birth: Gori, Russia Date of death: 03/05/1953 Place of death: Moscow, Russia Citizenship: Russia Original name: Dzhugashvili Original name: Jugashvili On December 21, Stalin would have turned 126 years old. On the eve of this date, Arguments and Facts learned that the secret of his death had been revealed.

Reviews about ""

Soon we united in the group “Skomorokhs”. Besides us, it included: Vladimir Polonsky (percussion instruments) and Sapozhnikov (bass guitar), but very soon he was replaced by Yura Shakhnazarov. At first, due to the lack of an organ, I played the phono. Gradsky took over lead guitar and vocals, however, everyone sang if necessary.

AuthorHistory Politics

The year of publishing

The name of Oka Ivanovich Gorodovikov, the author of the book of memoirs “In Battles and Campaigns,” is one of the legendary heroes of the Civil War. A farm laborer and shepherd, after the Great October Revolution he became one of the prominent commanders of the Soviet Army, a colonel general, was awarded ten orders of the Soviet Union, and in 1958 was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union.

Biography and books of the author Dobryukha Nikolai Alekseevich

(This was not published in the newspapers then. Most likely, when one of the doctors, already having a repeat test in hand, told Stalin’s son Vasily, in great secrecy, what really happened to his father. And Vasily, as his sister Svetlana writes , began to shout: “Father was poisoned!..” - Author)

Nikolai Dobryukha - How Stalin was killed

Read “How Stalin was Killed” - Dobryukha Nikolai... - LitMir

(discuss on the forum) Language: All languages ​​Russian (ru) Sort by: alphabet series date of publication year of publication popularity genre file size number of pages Hide genres Annotations Hide ratings Biographies and Memoirs Average rating: 2.7
— As before God 3916K, 203 pp. (read) download: (fb2) — (epub) — (mobi)

History, Biographies and Memoirs

Nikolai Dobryukha - How Stalin was killed

The study “How Stalin was Killed” is powerful material. Very strong material. Convincing... The documents about Stalin's last illness and death are so significant that now no one can turn away from them. For the first time, we are dealing not with a set of memories, rumors and assumptions about Stalin’s death, but with a study of authentic documents.

"Dobryuchiada"

After the publication of the book “How Stalin was Killed,” all existing versions (memoirs, textbooks, encyclopedias and various monographs) relating to the death of the leader lose their meaning and turn into political waste paper. This book is not to blame or praise, but to let people know how it was.

Nikolai Dobryukha: news, biography, photos, publications

With a cry of “Hurray-ya-ya!!” the guy made a discovery that I described five years ago in the book “The Killers of Stalin and Beria” and then repeated in the book “The Killers of Stalin.” And I believe that he did not read these books of mine, because it seems that he read little at all. Dobryukha is not a reader, Dobryukha is a writer! And so someone allowed poor Dobryukha access to the documents, giving him the task: “Blame it all on Beria!” Well, Dobryukha piled on “from the heart”, without imagining what exactly he piled up?

An important meeting with the historian and publicist, the son of the editor of Leninets, Alexei Vasilyevich Dobryukha, took place in the editorial office of Selskaya Gazeta.

While reconstructing the list of names of all editors over the 85-year history of Selskaya Gazeta, I was faced with the fact that absolutely nothing is known about some of the leaders. Only last names... Residents of the area who were more or less familiar with the editors provided meager information about them; it was not possible to identify relatives. But we can’t be journalists if we don’t get information by hook or by crook.

Book - How Stalin was Killed - Dobelly Nikolai - Read online, Page 123

The more you know the past, the more easily you understand why the present is like this, and the better you imagine how the future will turn out. Nikolai Nad is the pseudonym chosen by Nikolai Alekseevich Dobryukha, the author of sensational historical studies that became famous thanks to the millions of copies of central newspapers and magazines. The pseudonym, made up of the first letters of the author’s first name, patronymic and last name, reflects his desire to be ABOVE the battle of the parties in order to see where the truth is.

Nikolai Alekseevich Dobryukha: new books on Kullib

Show: Titles Annotations Covers Sort by: alphabetically series date of receipt popularity ratings year of publication size Select all Mass download in format: Showing books: (Author) (all books) Number of books by role: Author - 2. Total books: 2. Volume of all books: 7 MB (7,768,874 bytes)
AuthorHistory Politics

From the series “Radzinsky’s School”

Perhaps the most striking and convincing evidence of the unprecedented flowering of culture, as, of course, of everything else in the new democratic Russia, was the emergence of the most progressive historical school of Edward Radzinsky, who had previously dealt with the problems of love and marriage from the time of Seneca to the present day. By all accounts, he is still the head of the school, which perhaps reached its peak last year. Other pillars of the school are the historian Dobryukha and the journalist Pravdyukha.

The first of them not so long ago clearly formulated in the weekly "Arguments and Facts" No. 32"05 the initial philosophical postulate of the school: "What the hell isn't joking" (p. 10).

The school has gained such popularity and influence that its works are now studied by presidents, thinkers and comedians. Thus, our President V. Putin regularly watches Radzinsky’s historical one-man performances on television, and recently in Paris, when meeting him in the Greek hall of the Louvre, he expressed his admiration for them. And President Bush, as reported, is eager to read Radzinsky's newest writings about Tsar Alexander II. But it is unknown whether he has read it or whether something is bothering him - either Typhoon Katrina, or the UN anniversary, or falling off his motorcycle.

In recent times, the greatest contribution to Russian history and to the reputation of the school has been made by the fearless Nikolai Dobryukha. This is his work “Who is buried instead of Stalin?”, published in the mentioned issue of “AiF”, as well as a fundamental study “How Stalin was killed” in two parts with an epilogue, published there at the very end of last year in issues 51 and 52.

Unfortunately, the title of the first work does not express its essence: the historian is not at all interested in who exactly is buried, but he is sure that it is not Stalin who is buried at the Kremlin wall. The sensational discovery of Dobryukha was announced as a headline on the entire front page of the weekly: “How many years did the doppelgänger rule the country?” And again, not entirely accurate: It’s not so important for Dobelly to know how old he is, but both he and the editors are sure that for 16 years the country was ruled not by Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, who was poisoned a long time ago, but by nameless, mysterious doubles.

The head of the school himself masters the above-mentioned creative method. For example, he wrote and spoke, and Putin, with his presidential ears hanging, listened to this on television: what a shame, they say, Stalin personally met with Hitler! And, imagine, he named the exact date - October 17, 1939, and indicated the place - Lvov, and found a living witness - an old railway worker, albeit nameless.

They tell him that, firstly, if the meeting had taken place, there would have been nothing shameful in it, because, on the one hand, let’s say, Alexander the First in the summer of 1807 met in Tilsit with the “Corsican monster”, and even concluded a Russian agreement with him - the French defensive-offensive alliance joined the Continental blockade against England - so what? Who put him to shame for this? On the other hand, the leaders of England, France, Poland in the 30s of the last century, all these prime ministers and foreign ministers, lords and noble lords - Daladier, Chamberlain, Halifax, Beck - constantly wandered to Hitler, shook his hand, did eyes and shook their heads. Back in 1934, as soon as Hitler became chancellor, the Poles concluded a non-aggression pact with him, and later, together with Germany, took part in the torn apart of Czechoslovakia. The proud sons of Albion signed a “Naval Agreement” with Hitler back in 1935, which essentially encouraged Hitler to disregard the military restrictions of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. In September 1938, after the Anglo-French betrayal of Czechoslovakia in Munich, on the initiative of the English Prime Minister, the Anglo-German Declaration was adopted, signed by Hitler and Chamberlain. In December of the same year - a similar “Franco-German Declaration”. Both of them were, in fact, declarations of non-aggression, which gave Hitler confidence in carrying out the planned aggression against Russia with impunity.

Yes, it would be impossible to see anything extraordinary or reprehensible in Stalin’s meeting with Hitler. And Hitler wanted this meeting. But - she wasn’t there! After all, they couldn’t have met face to face: there would have been advisers, assistants, translators, security, both we and the Germans would have had some documents, and it couldn’t have remained a secret for sixty-five years, especially since everything The archives both here and in Germany have been rummaged through. But after his death, Stalin discovered so many all-powerful enemies: from Khrushchev to Yeltsin and Pravdyukha, who were extremely interested in comprehensively discrediting Stalin. They wouldn't miss their chance.

So, there was no meeting! But Radzinsky, in response, pulls out his universal postulate “What the hell isn’t he kidding”, hits his adversaries on the head with it and continues: “All witnesses to the meeting were shot, hanged, poisoned. Only my railway worker remained, who on that day in 1939 saw on the tracks Lvov station suspicious carriage. And as soon as I arrived in Lvov in 1972, he rushed to me with tears: “Edik! Where have you been for so many years? I've been waiting for you!" And he told me everything..."

Here is an excellent student from the Dobryukha school. He writes that, according to the information he has, “the real Stalin was poisoned on December 23, 1937.” Just think: he also knows the exact date! And who poisoned? Most likely Kirov, right? In retaliation for the fact that Stalin was a friend, but he did not give up the position of General Secretary, although both Roy Medvedev, who calls himself a historian, and Pan Radzinsky himself asked very much. How was it? Well, it’s simple: on December 21, Stalin celebrated his birthday, friends gathered, so Kirov poured the “gift of Izora” into a glass of kindzmarauli for him. The man suffered for a day and a half and is ready.

Wait a minute! But Kirov was no longer alive. Trifle! For such an occasion I rose from the grave. You never know. Where did the body of the poisoned man go? A military secret. Well, everything is very plausible!

What's next? Like what! A new Stalin was prepared in advance, fake, but just as talented and with the same eye color. He began to rule. Who did this? Beria, or what? But he was still in Georgia then. So, Yezhov? It is not yet known for sure...

And the double, not yet having time to get used to his new position, immediately wrote an angry letter to Detgiz:

“I am decisively against the publication of “Stories about Stalin’s Childhood”. The book is replete with a mass of factual inaccuracies, distortions, exaggerations, and undeserved praise. The author was misled by fairy tale hunters, liars (maybe “conscientious” liars”), sycophants<…>I advise you to burn the book."

I wonder who wrote this book. I wouldn’t be surprised if over time it turns out that Radzinsky’s dad is Stanislav Adolfovich, who was just accepted into the Writers’ Union that year.

And the double wrote to Detgiz, of course, to convince someone of his authenticity.

And how long did this secret double rule? It turns out that almost ten years - until March 26, 1947 (again, the exact date!). This means that it is unknown who prepared the country for war, and during the war became the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, and led the Red Army to Berlin, and received the title of Generalissimo, and two Orders of Victory... Yes, yes, yes, it is unknown, says Dobryukha.

What happened on the fateful day of March 26, 1947? The double was also poisoned, he says. Here you go! For what? A military secret. What's next? Like what! A second double was prepared in advance, equally talented and with the same Georgian accent. So he died on March 5, 1953.

However, no, he died not on the 5th, but on the 1st of March. Where did you get it from? Well, he says, compare the doctors’ testimony with what Pyotr Lozgachev, assistant commandant of Stalin’s dacha, who was the first to enter the leader’s office on March 1, said. He claimed that he was lying by the table on the carpet “in nothing but a soldier’s undershirt.” Do you remember? It’s immediately obvious that it’s fake: why on earth would the generalissimo wear a soldier’s shirt! And now from the doctors’ journal we find out how it really was: “The patient was lying on the sofa in an unconscious state in a suit.”

Not on the floor, but on the sofa, not in an undershirt, but in a suit. It's clear? But “Lozgachev nowhere (!) says that Stalin was dressed for the arrival of the doctors.” If he doesn’t say it, it means that “he was immediately found dead, and then half-naked was replaced by an “urgently ill” double dressed in a suit,” more precisely, the second double, who reigned in 1947, was replaced by a third. It turns out that he was forced to urgently die by March 5, according to plan. Wonderful!

But why does the analyst, in one case, not believe Lozgachev when he talks about specific facts and names them, and in the other, when he draws the conclusion he needs from what Lozgachev does not talk about? Strange. Moreover, Lozgachev does not talk anywhere about many other things, for example, he does not mention the arms and legs of Stalin III, in what position they are. Does this really mean that there were no arms or legs either?

Then they rushed after Dobelly... Who do you think? "Truthists"! They caught up with him and overtook him. On August 5, the front page printed this: in February 1953, “left completely alone, Stalin decides to take a desperate step - he invites his military marshals on March 1: Vasilevsky, Konev, Timoshenko.” This raises questions. Firstly, it turns out that loneliness was not “complete” at all? Secondly, I.S. Konev at that time commanded the Carpathian Military District, and Timoshenko commanded the Belarusian Military District and, presumably, the first was in Lvov, the second in Minsk. If Stalin invited them, then why didn’t he invite, say, Rokossovsky, whom he highly valued, who was then in Warsaw? After all, some kind of “desperate” thing was planned.

However, alas, he was ahead of him: “The meeting did not take place. Already on the night of February 28, all telephones to Stalin were turned off.” Well, exactly how the authorities turned off Khasbulatov in September 1993.

“Stalin spent the night of March 1 in the Kremlin, and not at the dacha. In the morning, a group of members of the Presidium of the Central Committee gathered. Malenkov sat in the chairman’s seat, with Beria and Mikoyan on both sides of him.”

That is, Malenkov arbitrarily took Stalin’s place, and he sat quietly on the sidelines? But why didn’t he, like Khasbulatov, immediately become indignant and exclaim: “What are you guys doing? Who turned off my phones? How dare you?”

Then the picture is worse than the last day of Pompeii: “There were two speakers: Kaganovich and Mikoyan. The first demanded the cancellation of the upcoming Zionist trials in March, the second demanded the resignation of Stalin from all posts.” Just think - from everyone! And, apparently, without severance pay. And this is the same Mikoyan who, at the 17th Congress, named the name of Stalin, the great and brilliant, more than all the speakers - 41 times, the same one who survived the 27th Baku commissar, the same one who after that - “from Ilyich to Ilyich without heart attack and paralysis"?

Further even more terrible: “Not a single one of the loyal people was nearby. Everything was calculated precisely - the leader found himself in a trap. The blood vessels of the brain could not stand it. He suddenly turned black, began to tear at the collar of his uniform and fell to the floor. The crime was committed - the plot was a success...” At the same time, Stalin did not throw in Malenkov’s face: “And you, Brutus?!”

Final: “The Soviet people learned the fatal news on the morning of March 6. However, our haters abroad were rejoicing for the fifth day already. Radio Liberty (Savik Shuster?) began its broadcasts on March 1 with a message about Stalin’s death. On the same day, the news was picked up by “Golos” America", "Voice of Israel", "Voice of Sweden" and BBC. Yes, the “pravdists” overtook Dobryukha: Stalin died not on March 1 at his dacha, but on February 28 right at a meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee.

It’s been a long time since I’ve seen anything like this in printed form... It’s scary to even touch this Babel tower of intellect and erudition.

How to explain such a publication in Pravda, where, it would seem, everyone knows about Stalin better than in the rest of the country's newspapers combined? I can't imagine!

It is also surprising why neither Dobryukha nor Pravda, when publishing their Homeric discoveries, exposed or even mentioned those who portray themselves as eyewitnesses of Stalin’s death on March 5 at a nearby dacha in Volynskoye. After all, this is a lot of people - from Svetlana’s own daughter to Khrushchev and other members of the Politburo, from famous luminaries of medicine to unknown cleaners and cooks, who, by the way, staged a real riot, demanding that Malenkov, Beria, Khrushchev call doctors to the patient as soon as possible, with which they criminally delayed almost a whole day.

This is how Svetlana Alliluyeva wrote about these people: “The servants and security came to say goodbye. That’s where the true feeling was, sincere sadness. Cooks, drivers, security dispatchers on duty, servers, gardeners - they all quietly entered, approached the bed, and everyone cried . They wiped away their tears, like children, with their hands, sleeves, handkerchiefs. Many cried bitterly, and the sister gave them valerian, crying herself... Here everything was genuine and sincere, and no one demonstrated their grief or their fidelity to anyone. Everyone knew each other for many years. Everyone knew me, and that I was a bad daughter, and that my father was a bad father, and that my father still loved me, and I loved him. No one here considered him neither God, nor a superman, nor a genius, nor a villain - he was respected and loved for the most ordinary human qualities, which the servants always judge unmistakably...”

But let's return to the good fellow Dobryukha. He writes: “On March 9, 1953, comrades-in-arms could have buried a completely different person instead of Stalin.” Of course, if you wish, you can bury anyone - even Dobryukha, even Pravdyukha. And aren’t we present at the funeral of Comrade. Zyatkov, editor-in-chief of AiF?

But, excuse me, historian, how is it possible - “instead of Stalin”? According to you, he was poisoned on December 23, 1937, replaced by a double, and he was poisoned, replaced by a second double, and on his deathbed the second was replaced by a third. It turns out that in 1953 this third person was buried, and not Joseph Vissarionovich. But the historian has his own: “It is unknown where they put the dead Stalin.” Yes, this is not Stalin, but a second double! “It is possible that they initially hid it in a refrigerator at the dacha. Then they secretly buried it or walled it up in the basement.” What horrors! I wish he himself could be locked up in a cell or walled up alive in the basement of Pan Radzinsky’s dacha...

“It was not Stalin who was taken for a pathological examination - there is no doubt about that.” Of course, if the body of the deceased is already in the refrigerator or walled up, then they delivered not Stalin, and not a second double, but a third. Where did they get it? As where! It was stored in advance, like firewood for the winter. There was no need for an accent here. They quickly killed him and sent him to autopsy.

Here begins the most fascinating presentation of the quick mind of Radzin's leaven. Dobryukha compares the data from medical examinations of Stalin in 1925, 1926, 1929, and even “during his arrest in 1904” with the data from the examination and autopsy of his body after death, discovers a number of discrepancies and exclaims: “Eureka! This is not Stalin! "

Of course, Archimedes, this is your “third double.”

Dobryukha admired the meticulousness of the pathologists who performed the autopsy: “Numerous pigment spots ranging in size from a pinhead to 0.6x0.5 cm are scattered on the skin of the back surfaces of the hands.” And he rejoices: in 1904 these spots did not exist! This means that “the body being opened did not belong to Stalin!!!” How old are you, dear Dobryukha - 25? Wait forty years, and such spots will appear. Pravdyukha, who is nearly seventy, probably already has it. As for 1904, historian, then Stalin was not arrested at all; on the contrary, on January 5 of this year he gained freedom - he fled from the village of Novaya Uda, in the Irkutsk province, where he was exiled for three years. It’s scary to imagine: in the Siberian frosts across the whole country without a passport... As they sang then:

I walked both at night and in broad daylight,

Near the cities I looked vigilantly;

Peasant women fed me bread,

The guys supplied us with shag...

Do you, Dobryukha, know where Siberia is? What is shag?

By the way, in the editorial sidebar to the great publication it is said: “Not so long ago, the journal of ten doctors about the last days of Stalin was declassified.” And so, they say, having analyzed this declassified document, the innovative historian “is revolutionizing all ideas about what happened from March 2 to March 6, 1953.” There is nothing more exciting and rewarding than making such revolutions. And then, what kind of declassification, when all the most important medical documents related to the illness and death of I.V. Stalin were published long ago and entered into literary circulation with dates and names of doctors: these are Tretyakov, Lukomsky, Tareev, Konovalov, Myasnikov, Filimonov, Glazunov, Tkachev, Ivanov (see at least E. Guslyarov. Stalin in life. M, 2003. P. 627). Those who performed the autopsy on March 6 and who were present are also known: professors Strukov, Lukomsky, Myasnikov, Anichkov, Mordashev, Skvortsov, Migunov, Rusakov (Ibid., p.630). So all this innovative sensation makes me very sick. Although it may touch some of the many millions of AiF readers right to the liver, to the belly.

But several months passed, and on the eve of the New Year, the fearless Dobryukha, with the blessing of Comrade. Zyatkova launched a new crushing brain attack against the weekly's multi-million readers. Here he talks as if he had never mentioned any doubles before. Now he proves that the real Stalin was poisoned at the dacha, but not on the 5th, but on the 1st of March.

As before, Dobryukha refers to his latest research in the “former Kremlin archive” and in the “Old Square archive”. Excellent, but very dangerous! After all, such archives did not exist. Even teacher Radzinsky knows this. That’s why he never names archives, but speaks abstractly about his hard labor in unknown archives. And, moreover, smiling jubilantly, he poisons the gruel something like this: “I always suspected, I was even sure that such a document existed. I rummaged through mountains of archival papers. And imagine my joy when, after seven years of sleepless work, I finally found it. Here it is - the journal of visitors to Stalin's office in the Kremlin!" And this journal was published a long time ago in the Izvestia of the Central Committee of the CPSU. And so - always and everywhere. So Dobryukha presents us, for example, with the "secret notes of doctors" at Stalin's deathbed, and from the very beginning there was nothing secret about them, they were published at least in V. Boldin’s book “Red Sunset”.

Such “archives”, such “secrets” have long been fed up, but this time the researcher also has something unexpected - “new data obtained from the last surviving person from Stalin’s entourage.”

Well, first of all, why the last one? Hello, thank God, to Svetlana Iosifovna, Stalin’s own daughter, who wrote the most interesting book that we quoted, and Artyom Fedorovich Sergeev, his adopted son, who recently published memories of Stalin in Zavtra, and his niece, Kira Pavlovna Alliluyeva, who gave so long ago there was a great interview with Moskovsky Komsomolets, and Vladimir Fedorovich Alliluyev, the nephew of Stalin’s wife, who wrote the wonderful book “Chronicle of a Family”. On May 9 last year, he and I congratulated each other over the phone on the anniversary of the Victory... If our innovator does not know about these people, then what kind of historian is he? And if he knows, but for effect he declared his acquaintance “the last of the circle” (how can you not believe the latter!), then this is outright fraud.

Secondly, what is this “last man”? Meet G.N. Kolomentsev, a pensioner of eighty years. Who was he in “Stalin’s entourage”? It turns out that he is the “chief of the kitchen.” And in this capacity, he tells us a lot of the most important historical information: Stalin loved simple cabbage soup, dumplings, baked potatoes in their jackets, drank dry white wine in the summer, red wine in the winter, and “allowed himself only two small glasses” of cognac. Wonderful!

What does the “chief of the kitchen” say about Stalin’s death? He himself was not present; Ivan Mikhailovich Orlov, commandant of Stalin’s dacha in Volynsky, where he died, told him about it, confirming the sensational news about March 1. I told him at the dacha. Amazing! The most authoritative source. When did you tell me? "About a month after Stalin's funeral."

And here questions come up again. After all, Kolomentsev himself says that “when Stalin died, Beria dispersed all the “servants”. All of them!” And, moreover, “urgently.” How could a conversation take place with one of the members of the completely dispersed “servants” a month later, and even at the dacha? Unclear…

But even more important is the fact that Orlov himself was not at the dacha in those mournful days, but his deputy was - the mentioned Pyotr Lozgachev.

This means that we get what Dobryukha is telling now from third or even fourth hands. Of course, the degree of reliability here is very low. Moreover, the very fact of death is given this way or that way - choose what you want. At the beginning it is said that when on the evening of March 1 some unnamed persons from the Main Security Directorate appeared and “opened the door,” they saw that “Stalin was lying on the floor, already dead...” Elsewhere: “The poison acted almost instantly. Stalin immediately fell It was then that the dacha servants saw him, breaking open the doors to the leader’s chambers.”

And again questions. Firstly, who “broke down the doors”: the people of their State Administration or the dacha workers? And no one. Here is what P. Lozgachev wrote: “At 22.30 the mail arrived. Here I took advantage of the moment. I took the mail and with a decisive, firm step headed towards Stalin. Walked through one room, looked into the bathroom, looked around the large hall, but Stalin was neither there nor there. I had already left the large hall into the corridor and noticed the open door to the small dining room, from which a strip of electric lighting was shining through. I looked in and saw a tragic picture in front of me. Stalin was lying on the carpet near the chair... I was numb..." As you can see, there was no need to open any door. This means that either the security had the keys, or the doors were not locked at all. In addition, from the memoirs of the guards it does not at all “turn out that Stalin was poisoned right away.” Quite the opposite: “I quickly called Starostin, Tukov and Butuzova, who were on duty that night, over the intercom. They came running and asked: “Comrade Stalin, should I put you on the couch?” It seemed that he nodded his head. They did, but it was small. All four "They carried Comrade Stalin into the large hall. It was clear that he was already cold in only his lower soldier's shirt. Apparently, he had been lying in a semi-conscious state since 19 o'clock, gradually losing consciousness. They put Stalin on the sofa and covered him with a blanket."

But then another snag in the investigation emerges. Now it turns out: Stalin, despite the poison, remained alive. “Among the documents,” writes the incomparable Dobryukha, “one seemed especially mysterious to me. It concerns an adrenaline injection given by Moiseev’s sister. After it, Stalin died immediately. This is what gave rise to rumors that Stalin was sent to the next world with a special injection by a specially trained Beria is a woman of Jewish origin."

Well, first of all, what kind of special preparation is required to give the injection? My wife, having no medical education, gives injections to the entire village where we live, and even to dogs. If Radzinsky, who lives right there, asks, he will do it for him: either adrenaline or shoe polish.

But the main thing here is the name of nurse Moiseeva. This really reveals to the bottom the entire mental abyss of thinkers like Dobryukha and editors like Zyatkov. They are firmly convinced that if she is Moiseeva, then she must certainly be Jewish. Why, sir, they heard about the Jewish prophet Moses!.. And therefore they consider the famous revolutionary Pyotr Moiseenko, the famous choreographer Igor Moiseev, the People's Artist of the USSR Olga Moiseeva, and the former chief of the General Staff Mikhail Moiseev to be Jews. They included all the Abramovs as Jews. What is there! Even Shostakovich - there too. But their Radzinsky is a great Russian patriot, because he proves that “vile shows cannot be banned” (“AiF” No. 35 “050). This is supposed to be in the interests of the moral health of the great Russian people. That is why he does not leave the pages of “AiF” "as the founder of the great historical school of the era of Putin's democracy.

And this is the epilogue of the great work.

"Comment by the former head of the KGB of the USSR V.A. Kryuchkov:

Strong material... Very strong material... Convincing material... The documents are so significant that now no one can turn away from them..." Who is "nobody"? Who can't get away with it - Beria? Malenkov? Mairanovsky? Moiseeva? Lukomsky? But there is no one anymore alive...

I'm not lazy. On January 3, I called Kryuchkov and asked if he really assessed this Dobryuchiada that way. Vladimir Aleksandrovich replied that he can judge the material, give it an assessment only after he reads it, but for now he has not read it. Then I called A.F. Sergeev and V.F. Alliluyev. I told them about Stalin’s three doubles, brutally killed by the merciless Dobelly. They both laughed long and inconsolably.

Nikolay Nad

How Stalin was killed

The study “How Stalin was Killed” is powerful material. Very strong material. Convincing... The documents about Stalin's last illness and death are so significant that now no one can turn away from them. For the first time, we are dealing not with a set of memories, rumors and assumptions about Stalin’s death, but with a study of authentic documents.

Head of Soviet intelligence (1974–1988) Chairman of the KGB of the USSR (1988–1991) Vladimir Kryuchkov

There is nothing secret that would not become obvious...

Gospel of Mark (chapter 4, verse 22)

He started out as a poet. True Poetry is akin to Revolution. He chose the Revolution.

Brief historical background on Stalin's political career

Head of the Russian Bureau of the Central Committee of the RSDLP(b) since 1912.

And about. Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars from approximately December 23 to December 28, 1917 (during Lenin's medical leave)

Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars (since 1946, Council of Ministers of the USSR) from May 5, 1941 to March 5, 1953.

Real Stalin

J.V. Stalin was a world-famous dictator, but he could become a poet, artist and even a singer...

The key to Stalin's fate is his poems

Until now there were only rumors that Stalin was poisoned. But the moment came when it became possible to present strict documentary evidence. However, in order to be understood in all respects, I will start with the poems that Stalin wrote.

This is my next attempt to translate the poetic experiments of early Stalin. The first gave unexpected results: it was published in Komsomolskaya Pravda, and then replicated around the planet in the voice of Innokenty Smoktunovsky in the Soviet-American film “Monster”. In the new translations, it was possible to correctly convey the original poems, which were inspired by the young Joseph Dzhugashvili.

Why is this necessary? One of the greats said that only the pen of a new Shakespeare could understand the uniquely complex personality of Stalin. Well, while there is no new Shakespeare, it makes sense to conduct research that could serve the new Shakespeare with the materials from which historically instructive masterpieces are created. My determination to do this was confirmed after discovering, at first glance, Mikhail Bulgakov’s incredible revelation about Stalin in a purely personal message to Veresaev. Here it is: “...at the very time of despair... the Secretary General called me... Believe my taste: he spoke forcefully, clearly, stately and elegantly. Hope was kindled in the writer’s heart...” This determination was also facilitated by the seemingly unthinkable dying confession the most famous exposer of Stalin’s personality cult, N.S. Khrushchev, who said: “Stalin is really great, I still confirm this, he was undoubtedly many heads taller than everyone else.”

Everything was not as simple as they say on every corner now, or as they said on every corner fifty years ago. It is no coincidence that the poet, the prophet Boris Pasternak, has the lines: “And with the dark forces of the temple / It was given over to the scum for judgment, / And with the same ardor, / As they glorified before, they curse.” Meanwhile, people appeared who began to compare Stalin with Hitler, to compare the incomparable from the very beginning. If Hitler is a talented ignoramus, then Stalin... However, it will be better if Western historians, known for their irreconcilable criticism, speak out about Stalin instead of me.

So - the famous Sir Alan Bullock: “In his youth, Stalin sang in the church choir, where his voice attracted attention. He graduated from the theological school with an honorary diploma and successfully passed the entrance exams to the seminary... It should be noted that Stalin studied hard to achieve the necessary knowledge in disciplines, which included, in addition to the Church Slavonic language and the Law of God, the Latin and Greek languages, Russian literature and history... Stalin developed phenomenal memory..."

As a boy, Hitler, according to the same sir, “was not stupid, but from an early age he began to show persistent aversion and hatred of discipline and regular studies... the only subject in which Adolf had a positive assessment was drawing... he dreamed of becoming an artist... In In adolescence, Hitler continued to shirk any work... He always considered himself an artistic person, thereby justifying his inability to study systematically.” Both of his attempts to enter the Vienna Academy of Arts ended in failure. And further observations are not in favor of Hitler. If Adolf, as he was, remained a great ignoramus, then Stalin over the years became more and more an educated person, even by modern times, and did not stop his education until his last days. His role in cybernetics looks especially amazing (contrary to all the rumors!), namely: in Moscow there is still a computer from 1952, which was the first in Europe and the second in the world... after the USA. It is fantastic! After all, it was created despite the most destructive of wars, while the United States “participated” in this war... waiting out the most difficult time overseas. By the way, the attempts of our illiterate leaders for almost 40 years after Stalin’s death to abolish market production with strong-willed decisions cost the people dearly. Stalin, back in 1952, in his work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR,” convincingly proved the destructiveness of such abolition for the national economy of the country.

It is also striking how biographical information about Stalin appears. The American Robert Tucker and the Englishman Alan Bullock are among the most famous researchers of the “Russian dictator”, because humanity’s views on the personality of Stalin are largely based on their works. Let's start with Tucker, and... it will immediately turn out that very often he borrowed “facts” from Roy Medvedev and Dmitry Volkogonov. However, both Medvedev and Volkogonov, in turn, refer to Tucker. That is, it turns out: one of them invented something or made an assumption, and then they copied it from each other and this assumption became no longer an assumption, but a “fact” with reference to such and such a supposedly extremely reliable foreign source. As a result, the myth invented in this way begins to walk around the world as “the most verified fact”...

As confirmation, you can take the confessions of any of them, well, at least the same R. Medvedev. He writes: “I did not use any archives, any “special storage facilities,” or any secret materials and am not familiar with them. It’s just... I had the opportunity to familiarize myself with almost all the books about Stalin and Stalinism published in different countries, to accumulate facts and testimonies of those who passed through Stalin’s prisons and camps, as well as the memories of other eyewitnesses of those years...”

Now confirmation from the Western side, written by the hand of the respected Sir Bullock: “... I would like to especially highlight those whose works have greatly enriched my knowledge... Regarding Soviet history, where I cannot be called an expert, this is... Robert Tucker... Roy Medvedev... Dmitry Volkogonov ..."

But Volkogonov’s revelations about foreign sources: “Great assistance in working on the book (“Stalin” - NAD.) was provided by... the revelations of Isaac Deutscher... Robert Tucker... and other Sovietologists.”

Let us turn to references to sources and Tucker himself: this is primarily Volkogonov D. “The Triumph and Tragedy of Stalin”, Medvedev R. A. “Zet History judge: The Original and Conseguenees of Stalinism” - New York. - 1989, etc. Well, what can we take from them? You have to live, so they write what they pay for.

Do you need specific facts of biographical myth-making? Please! Non-essential and essential - your choice!

Volkogonov provides insignificant details: “Of the three sons, Mikhail and Georgiy, died without even living a year, leaving only Coco (Joseph). But he, too, fell ill with smallpox at the age of five and barely survived..."

And Sir Bullock informs the world: “Before the birth of Joseph, three Dzhugashvili children died as soon as they were born. At the age of five, he himself almost died from smallpox...” Question: “How many brothers did Stalin have?”

Volkogonov reports: “... having lived until July of the tragic year of 1937, Stalin’s mother died quietly...”

And Sir Bullock spreads to the whole world: “...Stalin did not really appreciate the sacrifices that his mother made for him: ...and he offended the feelings of Georgians when he did not show up for her funeral in 1936.” Question: “How many times did Stalin’s mother die?”

This is how strangely a damaged political telephone works! Meanwhile, if these famous authors had turned to the newspapers of those years, they would have read, following the lawyer Andrei Sukhomlinov, that “J.V. Stalin’s mother, E.G. Dzhugashvili, fell ill on May 13, 1937 and died on June 4, 1937.” .

Y. MUKHIN - NO

THANK YOU, GOOD ONE!

Well done, Dobryukha! Or “Over-Belly”?!

With a cry of “Hurray-ya-ya!!” the guy made a discovery that I described five years ago in the book “The Killers of Stalin and Beria” and then repeated in the book “The Killers of Stalin.” And I believe that he did not read these books of mine, because it seems that he read little at all. Dobryukha is not a reader, Dobryukha is a writer! And so someone allowed poor Dobryukha access to the documents, giving him the task: “Blame it all on Beria!” Well, Dobryukha piled on “from the heart”, without imagining what exactly he piled up?

The poor guy writes: “As soon as Beria and his proteges Malenkov and Khrushchev came to lead the country on March 3, 1953...”. After Stalin's death, Khrushchev headed the CPSU, and Malenkov - the USSR. And who then, according to Dobryukha, was Beria, for whom Khrushchev and Malenkov were “proteges”? Lord God?

Or he writes: “The old security officer Naum Eitingon testified that he once “was present during experiments in Mayranovsky’s laboratory” and observed “the injection of kukarin poison into four experimental victims. The poison acted almost instantly...” But the “old security officer” Eitingon was the deputy of the even more “old security officer” P. Sudoplatov, and he writes about “Laboratory X”, which was led by Mayranovsky: “All the work of the laboratory, the involvement of its employees in the operations of the special services, as well as access to the laboratory, strictly limited even for the leadership of the NKVD - MGB, were regulated by the Regulations approved by the government and orders for the NKVD - MGB. Neither I nor my deputy Eitingon had access to Laboratory-X and the special chamber.” Moreover, Sudoplatov for some reason claims that even Beria could not have known about this laboratory before his return to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. And somehow I believe Sudoplatov more, since it’s unlikely that onlookers were invited to the secret laboratory, like to a football match.

Or poor Dobryukha claims that “Beria arrested Grigory Moiseevich Mairanovsky,” however, without explaining who hung this noodles on Dobryukha’s ears. Although Sudoplatov reports on the fate of Mayranovsky that despite the fact that the investigation into the case of MGB workers arrested in 1951 for connections with the Zionists along with Abakumov, including Mayranovsky, was carried out until 1954, none of them were killed during this time tried. But Mayranovsky’s case was urgently brought into separate proceedings by Ignatiev, and a Special Meeting at the Ministry of Internal Affairs chaired by Ignatiev in 1952 quickly sentenced Mayranovsky to 10 years and sent him to Vladimir prison. So Beria could not have arrested him, since Mairanovsky was already in Vladimir prison in March 1953. But since there are letters from Mairanovsky from prison to Beria, it means that Beria demanded to interrogate Mairanovsky in the Vladimir prison, and from this it follows that Beria himself conducted the investigation in order to find out who poisoned Stalin. It is interesting that Sudoplatov reports about the further fate of Mayranovsky that when Professor Mayranovsky was released from prison, he asked for an appointment with Khrushchev and he accepted him, which in itself is surprising. (After all, in a similar case, he refused to accept Stalin’s son, although he, having no job, really wanted to meet with him.) But at the reception, Mairanovsky, apparently, told Khrushchev something that was not necessary. As a result, Mairanovsky was arrested two days later by the KGB and deported from Moscow to Makhachkala, where he quickly died with a diagnosis very similar to the one that would have followed after using his own poison on him.

Dobryukha blames everything on Beria, either not knowing, or not wanting to show that the main reprisals against the witnesses to Stalin’s murder were carried out after the murder of Beria. For example, Avtorkhanov, with reference to a book by Western historian T. Vitlin dedicated to Beria, writes: “Most of the doctors from these two commissions disappeared immediately after Stalin’s death. One of the doctors who participated in the autopsy of Stalin’s body, Professor Rusakov, “suddenly” died. The Kremlin's medical and sanitary department, responsible for Stalin's treatment, is immediately abolished, and its chief I.I. Cuperin is arrested. USSR Minister of Health A.F. Tretyakov, who was in rank at the head of both commissions, was removed from his post, arrested and, together with Kuperin and two other doctors, members of the commission, sent to Vorkuta. There he receives the position of chief physician of the camp hospital. Their rehabilitation occurs only after several years...” But if T. Vitlin is not mistaken regarding the fact of the arrest of these doctors, then they were not arrested “immediately after Stalin’s death,” but a year later, since A.F. Tretyakov was removed from the post of minister on March 1, 1954. Consequently, what these doctors could tell over time was scary not to Beria, but to Khrushchev.

It’s interesting that Dobryukha is trying to convince us that Professor Lukomsky rewrote the conclusion about Stalin’s death after the murder of Beria, allegedly in order to avoid becoming an accomplice in the “doctors’ case.” But the “doctors’ case” is about the murder of Zhdanov, and this case was initiated after the act of the commission chaired by the same Lukomsky, in which Lukomsky proved that Zhdanov died from the treatment of doctors. So Lukomsky was afraid not of Beria, but of Khrushchev.

It is also interesting what exactly they gave Dobryukha to look at in the archive. Before him, another historian, A. Fursenko, looked at the same materials. But he wrote in more detail about the appearance of these “archival documents” Dobryukha:

“When reading the official report on Stalin’s illness and death, a number of questions arise that suggest that it could have been fabricated under pressure from Stalin’s inner circle in order, if necessary, to present this document to the highest party and Soviet elite with one single purpose: to It never occurred to anyone that Stalin was killed by his comrades who had fallen out of favor.

The conclusion, printed on 20 pages of typewritten text and signed by the entire council, differs from handwritten detailed records of previous diseases. The document is not dated, but its draft bears the date July 1953, i.e. 4 months after Stalin’s death, which in itself casts doubt on its complete authenticity. As follows from the text of the conclusion, it was compiled on the basis of a handwritten Medical Journal, which was kept during March 2–5. But the journal is missing from the case of Stalin’s illness, and, as competent persons told the author of these lines, it no longer exists in nature at all. In other words, the Medical Journal has apparently been destroyed.

True, some “Rough records of medicinal prescriptions and duty schedules during the illness of I.V. Stalin, March 2–5, 1953” have been preserved. on separate sheets of paper, preceded by a cardboard cover cut out from a folder of a former case in Stalin’s medical history entitled in this way. Moreover, out of two dozen sheets of such records, judging by their initial numbering, then crossed out, the file is missing the first few pages, from which one could judge when, on what day and hour the treatment began. There is also no duty schedule and doctors' conclusions after each of them. Finally, on the cut-out cover of a cardboard folder entitled “Rough Notes...”, Volume X is listed, indicating that there were nine more volumes in Stalin’s medical history. What their fate is is also unclear.

All this raises puzzling questions, suggesting that the draft notes and the Medical Journal contained data that did not fit into the official conclusion. It appears that at some stage the Medical Journal and some of the draft notes were deliberately removed. One cannot ignore the fact that the typewritten text of the conclusion was drawn up a few days after Beria’s arrest, on June 26, 1953. When the investigation into Beria’s case began, probably someone from the Kremlin leadership wanted to destroy the Medical Journal in order to eliminate possible evidence that Stalin was poorly treated and killed. At the June 1957 plenum of the Central Committee, Molotov criticized Khrushchev, who had been appointed chairman of the Commission on the Stalin Archives, for the fact that he had never assembled the Commission in four years. Which speaks for itself."

First of all, on June 26, 1953, Beria was not arrested, but was vilely killed; everyone already understands this, except those who are “up to their stomachs” about history. And below.

But if immediately after the murder of Beria, Khrushchev destroyed the chronicle of Stalin’s illness, then it turns out that Beria was killed so that Khrushchev had the opportunity to destroy her. Isn't that right, Darling?

But Fursenko did not say what exactly was written in those remaining documents, but Dobryukha did! And from Dobryukha’s message it most definitely follows that STALIN WAS POISONED! All the rest of Dobryukha’s speculations are, as Komsomolskaya Pravda wrote, “political waste paper.”

And the fact that STALIN WAS POISONED is already a fact!

As they say, I take this opportunity to inform you that my new, but no longer journalistic, but artistic and documentary book, “USSR named after Beria,” has been published, in which, based on the most reliable facts, I restore the motives for the murder of Stalin and how this happened, and who committed this murder.

From the book Duel 2009_11(610) author Newspaper Duel

CREATIVE EVENING Y.I. MUKHIN Somehow it happened that on March 22 of this year I will turn 60 years old. However! The publisher and the public demand a creative evening. In this regard, on Sunday, March 22, my creative evening will take place at the Baku cinema. The meeting starts at 13.30

From the book 2008_50(598) author Newspaper Duel

YU. MUKHIN - IT'S INCREDIBLE! A LONG LONG TIME AGO...The National Assembly adopted a statement on the Law “On the Trial of the People of Russia over the President and Members of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation” (http://www.nationalassembly.ru/483C04BDEB3B0/48EA063A76EEE.html), but the curia of nationalists that initiated it - patriots

From the book Duel 2009_13(612) author Newspaper Duel

THANK YOU! Yu.I. MUKHIN On March 22, my anniversary creative evening (or rather afternoon tea, since it was on from 13 to 16-30) took place at the Baku cinema. I am very touched by the words that were spoken to me both in the lobby and from the stage, I am incredibly touched by the abundance of flowers and gifts that

From the book 2008_47(595) author Newspaper Duel

A LITTLE HIT! Yu.I. MUKHIN Andrei Illarionov wrote an article “How Democracy Works”, which surprised me very much because the Saakashvili regime was presented as democracy. Typically, I have no complaints about Illarionov’s conclusions, but only if they are taken “in vitro” - on their own:

From the book 2008_32 (580) author Newspaper Duel

Y. MUKHIN - NO ABOUT RESPECTABILITY AND FEAR SchizophreniaA. Podrabinek really likes living in the American empire, which is why he really doesn’t like the National Bolsheviks, who set themselves the goal of creating an empire on the basis of Russian civilization, and therefore he really doesn’t like those democrats who

From the book Duel 2009_ 15 (614) author Newspaper Duel

MUKHIN, KEEP IT UP! In the central bookstore “Moscow”, which is opposite the capital’s mayor’s office, on the rack where the most popular books on socio-political topics are displayed, there is also a section with a sign “Mukhin”. The books placed there do not stay stale, and therefore

From the book 2008_36 (584) author Newspaper Duel

Y. MUKHIN - YES: THE KREMLIN IS YOURS! The need for a National AssemblyThe war in South Ossetia and Georgia provides an opportunity to show the people of Russia the need for a National Assembly in the current conditions of lack of PROPER popular representation in the country. But I’ll start with

From the book People's Whip author Mukhin Yuri Ignatievich

Yu.Mukhin. People's Whip

From the book 2008_38 (586) author Newspaper Duel

Yu.I. MUKHIN - NO YOU HAVEN'T GOT IT YET We are very different And you, Evgeny Vitalievich, are asking for a trifle, but I cannot fulfill this request of yours, and not because I am a stubborn crest, but for completely different reasons. And believe it or not, it would be easier for me

From the book 2008_40 (588) author Newspaper Duel

Yu.I. MUKHIN - NO WHIP IN YOUR HANDS! Thinking is not harmful, but it is difficult. Saying what you think is not difficult, but it is painful. It doesn’t hurt to think about what I said, but it’s too late. From the Internet Doctor Now the chatter of a former comrade in the National Assembly (after his betrayal of the oath I don’t even know

From the book 2008_4 (553) author Newspaper Duel

N. DOBRYUKHA - YES. HOW STALIN WAS KILLED “Our correspondent N. DOBRYUKHA received secret documents that shed light on the death of the Generalissimo. Rumors that Stalin was poisoned began to spread while he was still alive. But it was possible to collect documentary evidence only after 55 years.

From the book Klikushi of the Holodomor author Mukhin Yuri Ignatievich

Yu.I. Mukhin Klikushi of the Holodomor Mukhin Yuri Ignatievich (b. 1948) This person never coordinates his conclusions with authorities and public opinion - he does not care what others think about him. Only the truth is important to him, and not his own image. After graduating in 1973

From the book Newspaper Day of Literature # 178 (2011 6) author Literature Day Newspaper

Vitaly MUKHIN THE HOUR OF METAMORPHOSIS *** And the name of this star is Wormwood. My hour, of blind revelations, struck upon Russian glory and the fiery Savior of blind revelations. It is not the wild boar crows screaming beyond the Bug, it is not the dry rivers that are pounding in the veins, but the horror of epiphany.

From the book Selling Girl Genetics author Mukhin Yuri Ignatievich

Yuri Mukhin Selling girlGeneticsMOSCOW "Publisher Bystrov" 2006 Design of a series by artist P. VolkovBBK 87.21 M 92Mukhin Yu.I.M92 Selling girl Genetics. - M.: Publisher Bystrov, 2006. - 416 p. - (Russkaya Pravda). ISBN 5-9764-0043-4 The long-awaited new book by Yuri Mukhin is poignant,

From the book Russia. Not yet evening author Mukhin Yuri Ignatievich

Yuri Mukhin This book is a real brainwashing, an “attack on mirages”: it will make you doubt the most established and “generally accepted” opinions and finally begin to think with your own head, and not with an imported TV. The long-awaited new book by Yuri Mukhin is sharp,

From the author's book

Yuri Ignatievich Mukhin The author of the book is known for his detective investigation of secrets - his books “The Murder of Stalin and Beria”, “Katyn Detective” and “Anti-Russian Meanness” revolutionized ideas about our history. But this book is unusual - Yu. I. Mukhin undertook to investigate the meaning