Distortion of the historical truth about the USSR

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

All post-Soviet power rests on the distortion of the historical truth about the USSR.

THE LEADING ROLE IN DISTORTING THE HISTORICAL TRUTH ABOUT THE USSR BELONGS TO THE SCIENTIFIC INTELLIGENCE AND THE MEDIA. SORRY, OUR INTELLIGENCE HAS BEEN HOSTED TO RUSSIA ALMOST FROM BIRTH. POSSIBLY BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON NERUSSIAN PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T UNDERSTAND AND DIDN'T LOVE RUSSIA.

From generation to generation, an intelligentsia hostile to Russia was raised. The only exception was Stalin's time in the period from 1934 to 1953, but even then many of its representatives simply went underground.

Our pro-Western intelligentsia also spat upon the Motherland 100 years ago, as it has spat upon the Soviet Union for 30 years and Stalin's time for more than 60 years. The Russian writer, publicist and philosopher V. V. Rozanov wrote back in 1912: “The French have“beautiful France”, the British have“Old England”, the Germans have“our old Fritz.” - "cursed Russia".

During Gorbachev's perestroika, scientists were especially vicious: Zaslavskaya, Agangebyan, Shmelev, Bunich, Yuri Afanasyev, Gavriil Popov and others. At the congresses they came out one after another and cursed the Soviet Union, its past and present. Their speeches had nothing to do with the truth, but were an unprecedented slander against the USSR.

In order to collapse the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, a variety of methods were used. First of all, the historical truth was distorted, and then, on the basis of falsified information, a massive manipulation of the consciousness of citizens was carried out.

For these purposes, they used, for example, the Non-Aggression Pact concluded between the USSR and Germany in 1939 (liberals call it the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). Any educated person knows that the treaty allowed us to win the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945, since it was at this time that new types of weapons were designed and put into mass production, including tanks and aircraft.

They shouted hysterically about the Katyn case. Its essence is that in 1941 the Germans near Smolensk shot 12 thousand captured Polish officers in the same way as they shot tens of thousands of captured Soviet officers throughout the war.

But in 1943, in order to turn the Poles and other peoples of Europe against the USSR, Goebbels' department suddenly started talking about the fact that the captured Polish officers were shot by the Russians in 1940.

Immediately after the liberation of the Smolensk region by the troops of the Red Army from the Nazi invaders, in 1944, a commission was created, which confirmed that the captured Poles were shot by the Nazis. The entire Western world agreed with this, despite the fact that, like Germany, it was interested in aggravating relations between the Russians and the Poles. I agreed because the facts indicated by the commission were too convincing.

But in the 1980s, the ultra-liberal circles of the USSR, personally A. N. Yakovlev, voiced to the whole world a fake fabricated by Goebbels, and Russia, through the efforts of traitors, pleaded guilty to the shooting of Polish officers. The USSR was discredited, both in the person of the peoples of the Western countries, in such a way that it was especially destructive for the Soviet state, in the gases of its own people.

In the annotation to his book "Anti-Russian meanness" Yuri Mukhin wrote that this provocation was revived in order to deprive Russia of allies and push the countries of Eastern Europe into NATO. Today, this provocation prevails over Russia, and during the time of Gorbachev it aroused hatred of the Poles and other peoples of Europe and the world towards the USSR.

Of course, the USSR did not shoot captured Polish officers. In our country, individual war criminals could be tried and sentenced to capital punishment, but they never shot ordinary prisoners: German, Italian, Romanian, Hungarian, Finnish and the armies of other countries and peoples who attacked us in 1941, and also did not shoot the captured Poles in 1940. This is proven by the volumes of cases left by the 1944 commission.

In general, the USSR was very tolerant of the Poles. For example, during the war, the Soviet government armed Poles who wished to fight Nazi Germany. But the Poles, armed by us, declared that they wanted to fight the Germans not in the Red Army, but on the side of our allies, that is, the armies of England and the United States. The Soviet government released the Poles and helped to get to the allied armies. True, the allied armies did not spare them and threw them to the slaughter. The Poles also fought with the Red Army of the Soviet Union against the troops of Germany and its allies.

It is a pity that the majority of Russian people are ready to believe the most vicious Russophobes in assessing political and historical events, cultural and technical achievements.

The great Russian writer, diplomat and military man Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov wrote about the admiration of the Russian elite before the West in his immortal comedy in verse "Woe from Wit", whose murder was prepared by the British special services in Tehran for his political views and actions. His murder was prepared by foreigners in the same way as they prepared the murders of A. S. Pushkin, M. Yu. Lermontov, S. A. Yesenin, N. M. Rubtsov. They also killed Igor Talkov after he began to deal with the events taking place in Russia and give a well-deserved assessment to the democrats.

But, in spite of everything, faith in the West and admiration for the West continue to this day. This blind faith in the West turns the victorious people into repentant, incapable sinners for anything great. The international conspiracy against the USSR and Russia, realized in the "cold war" unleashed by the West, put the USSR in a state of constantly justifying itself, without guilt, the guilty party.

It is not customary to talk about the role of the media in the black business of destroying the USSR, while with the beginning of perestroika, our domestic media began to transform and in a short time were turned into a US shock army in the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

The media “bathed in money”, receiving it both from the state budget of the USSR, so, one might say, from the state budget of the United States (many, probably, still receive it). Chief Researcher of the Institute of Socio-Political Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor, Sergey Georgievich Kara-Murza recalls the following about the media of that time: “In 1988, Academician Nikolai Amosov published his manifesto in Literaturnaya Gazeta, in which he promoted unemployment and the division of people into strong, up to the psychophysiological study of the entire population of the USSR. In his opinion, in the personal file of each person there should be a stamp: "weak" or "strong", so that only the strong are allowed to power.

I wrote a very correct answer article about this manifest. And he began to go to the editorial offices of his own friends with a request to publish this text. Everyone said that the article was good, that it should be published, but no one ever published it. That is, by this time, when the doctrine of reforms was already being put forward, there was no room for polemics. And this is one of the conditions for manipulating the consciousness of the people. In order for it to be charmed by change. For a long time, of course, this could not continue, but this time was enough for something that we now know perfectly well to happen."

What Amosov called for was called for by the fascists. Liberals praised him all over the country, wrote about what a wonderful surgeon he was, doing operations for ten hours in a row, from which his cervical vertebrae even grew together. Many admired Amosov. But much later the article "Running from a heart attack or to a heart attack?" Many of his admirers became thoughtful. Later it became clear that Amosov subsumes the theory of the seizure of power by the liberals and the transformation into slaves of the majority of the representatives of the Russian nation, among which, by liberal standards, there are many "weak" people.

The media presented their pages to everyone who worked for the destruction of the USSR. The head of the department of periodicals at Moscow State University, ex-Minister of Press of the USSR, Mikhail Fedorovich Nenashev, describes the media as a force that made a huge contribution to the destruction of the Soviet Union, who said: “In fact, the media can do a lot. I proceed from the fact that I have seen such journalism, such media. I argue that of the three stages that our journalism has gone through over the past 25 years, the stage of perestroika - in 1985-1991 - was the stage when journalism and the media were really the "fourth estate".

In essence, they were also the main instrument of perestroika. Indeed, during these years, the trust in the media was enormous. There was euphoria of glasnost … The media then formed even the political elite, and today we say that they are more often in the service of the political elite. Democrats of the new wave Anatoly Sobchak, Gavriil Popov, Yuri Afanasyev, and Andrei Sakharov, as one of the most famous democrats of that time, were essentially created by the perestroika media. They were created by the media. This is how the media were integrated into the political movement and led this movement."

Nenashev confirms that this political movement led to the disintegration of the country. It should be noted that through the media, the US special services led the political movements in the USSR, nominating people who hated the USSR and Russia into the ranks of the political elite who were working to destroy the Soviet Union not only for generous rewards, but also in connection with a pathological hatred of Russian civilization.

The hosts of the television program "Vzglyad": Lyubimov, Zakharov, Listyev, Mukusev even became deputies. Kurkova and Nevzorov, as well as newspapermen from Izvestia, became deputies: Korotich, Yakovlev, Laptev and other media representatives. This is who destroyed our country. And everyone is trying to convince us that the USSR collapsed on its own.

And the USSR could have been saved even in 1991. Many participants in those events speak about this. In particular, the former Deputy Minister of Defense of the USSR, the former commander of the Airborne Forces, the youngest general of the USSR, Colonel-General Vladislav Alekseevich Achalov.

He confirmed that Marshal Yazov had asked for his forgiveness and at the same time said: "Forgive me, you old fool, for dragging you into these matters." He was referring to 1991, the State Emergency Committee. Achalov replied to Yazov: “You’re not sorry for that, Dmitry Timofeevich… You should then sit in a chair, roll back into a corner, and before falling asleep, say:“Comrade Achalov, go for it!” I had 7 airborne divisions at that moment! But … he didn’t say.”

At 45, Achalov was kicked out of the army and retired for defending the Soviet Union. VI Ilyukhin also spoke about the possibility of preserving the USSR in 1991, who said: “We could have saved the Soviet Union even then! In November 1991, there was no fatal inevitability of its downfall! Even later, after the Belovezhskaya agreements, the army and state security agencies remained on Gorbachev's side. If this person wanted to save the USSR, he could well have done it. For a certain period - no doubt. Apart from the Baltic states, not a single people of the other republics wanted to leave their Union. In Ukraine, the question at the referendum was raised incorrectly: "Do you want to live in an independent Ukraine?" In March, more than 70 percent of the population voted for the preservation of the USSR. Gorbachev had support! After Belovezhie Yeltsin constantly feared arrest."

The events that took place during the almost seven-year rule of M. S. Gorbachev completely deny the assertions of the liberals that the USSR allegedly collapsed on its own. The USSR destroyed the forces that sought to destroy Russia and the Russian nation a thousand years ago. For the entire last thousand years they tried to realize the desire to destroy Russia, and after they succeeded in February 1917 - the USSR that replaced the Russian Empire. I think that this does not raise doubts for every sane person, regardless of his political views and what he says with one purpose or another.

By the way, the above statements of people, many of whom were in the highest echelons of power, can be called a confession. Most of them said what was written in this chapter at a very old age, when a person becomes outspoken, like a soldier before a deadly battle.

At present, despite a sharp change in the assessment of certain periods of the history of the USSR, on the whole, a true assessment is still far from being and it is distorted no less actively than before. None of the magazines I know of in today's Russia will publish a text that positively evaluates the Soviet socialist system. It would seem that, unfortunately, there is no official state censorship, but the censors remained, and they monitor the materials submitted for publication in newspapers, magazines and for broadcasting on television much more strictly than the censorship of the Soviet era and they impose liberal, pro-Western values on society, including a look at the history of the USSR and the pre-revolutionary Russian Empire.

And only a few, rare books telling the truth about life in the USSR, for example, S. G. Kara-Murza, S. N. Semanov, V. I. Kardashov, M. P. Lobanov, Yu. I. Mukhin, V. S. Bushin and other lesser-known authors are still published. Often they are published for the money of the authors and at a loss to the authors. But thanks to this asceticism, liberals in Russia cannot completely master the minds of people, tear and throw Russia into a primitive society that does not create either material or spiritual values.

Thanks to them, some citizens came to their senses and understood what Western democracy is. Now they speak with love about the calm Brezhnev times. Nevertheless, many of them still do not associate this calm with the socialist socio-political system. Even some of those who destroyed the USSR remember it with a kind word. For example, Stanislav Sergeevich Govorukhin said the following about life in the USSR: “People were different … more honest, oddly enough, more decent, there was no current cynicism and the pursuit of money. The art was different, everything was different … The streets were different: then it was possible to walk on them calmly, but today bandits walk along them, and right-abiding citizens sit behind bars and steel doors.

In the Soviet Union, there was education, science, and there was a school. Now there is none of this, but there is some kind of monkeying from the West - either from America, or from England, the devil knows where they ripped it all from! These exam ?! There is even nothing to say about science! Previously, a person dreamed of being an engineer, agronomist, biologist, teacher, scientist … and now women want to be models, prostitutes or designers, at worst - what the hell, in my opinion!.. . But Govorukhin remained true to himself; he does not understand, it is strange, why people in the USSR were more honest and decent.

Many today talk about the greatness of the state called the USSR, which other countries respected and feared at the same time. That they lived quietly without drug addiction and, although they drank, there was no mass alcoholism. About our mighty armed forces, advanced industry, the highest culture. But few people said about the highest standard of living of the peoples of the USSR.

Many did not understand the main thing - property in the USSR was public and the profit it brought was distributed among all members of society without exception. "Private property in today's Russia, being one of the main forms of ownership, does not lead to any improvement in the life of the people, but is only a tool for the enrichment of the elites," many educated citizens of our country believe.

In relation to public property, one can judge whether it is our person or pro-Western. For example, MF Nenashev, either out of ignorance or out of long-standing dislike for Soviet power, denies the existence of public property in the USSR, but tries to prove its absence by purely liberal methods. He said: “What was the ideology of socialism based on? On public property, which, in fact, was not public property, otherwise the people would not have allowed this predatory privatization to be carried out."

And I must say that if it were not for the Nenashevs, who directed the press and the State Television and Radio of the USSR, the people would have known everything about property and about Russian socialism. But the Nenashevs hid everything from the people, and even educated people did not understand these issues. They published millions of copies and invited the people to read the anti-Soviet and anti-Russian works of Sorokin, Granin, Nabokov and similar writers.

Nenashev nevertheless called the privatization predatory, but did not say who was robbed during the privatization? I think he understands that the people were robbed, since the privatized property belonged to the people. Thanks to this property, the people received free medical care, including the most expensive operations, almost free places in kindergartens and nurseries, free all types of education, from school to graduate school, including training in sports, music, dance, aircraft modeling and other types sections and circles, all types of housing, in most cases new, comfortable and modern.

For students and graduate students, the state paid a scholarship and assumed the costs not only for training, but also related to the maintenance and provision of all necessary scientific laboratories, which were used by graduate students and students. In addition, in the USSR there was no collection of most of the taxes available in the countries of the world, and the available taxes were insignificant in comparison with taxes in Western countries and the level of income of a Soviet citizen.

Thanks to public ownership in the USSR, there were also the lowest in the world, incomparably low prices for utilities, travel in urban and intercity transport, including air transport, for children's goods, basic foodstuffs, vouchers to rest homes and sanatoriums, basic necessities, etc. a number of other benefits received from public consumption funds, as well as services established by the state.

In the USSR, all prices and services were set by the state, and a price was stamped on each sold item on which a price could be stamped, and a price was indicated on each package of other goods. This share of the profit, added to wages, provided a high standard of living for Soviet people. A citizen of the USSR at the beginning of the 1980s consumed an average of 98.3 grams of protein (the United States - 100.4), that is, almost the same as the citizens of the richest country in the world. The Soviet people consumed more dairy products than the Americans, namely: 341 kg per person per year, while the Americans - 260 kg.

The standard of living in the USSR was as high as it can be among the peoples of the country, who have gone through three major wars in 45 years with the strongest enemies who were trying to exterminate us. The standard of living of the citizens of the USSR was constantly increasing, and in the West it was understood that there was very little time left when the USSR would outstrip the whole world in terms of living standards.

Since the rejection of socialism, the standard of living of most citizens of Russia and the former republics of the USSR cannot increase even theoretically: an increase in the size of wages or pensions immediately leads to an increase in prices, which do not correspond at all to the socially necessary labor costs necessary for the production of a particular product or the provision of services … The rise in prices even outstrips the rise in income. Before Gorbachev came to power, the citizens of the USSR did not even know what inflation was. The purchasing power of the ruble has remained at the same level for a decade.

After the destruction of the USSR, many understood this. But, apparently, not all. To compare the standard of living of citizens of the USSR with those of the West in terms of wages is to manipulate facts, that is, to engage in falsification. It is necessary to take into account the income of the Soviet citizen from owning part of the public property and the absence of spending by the Soviet citizen, which in Western and other capitalist countries are actually mandatory and constitute the bulk of the expenses of citizens of these countries. Currently, most of these spending have become mandatory in Russia.

All post-Soviet power rests on the distortion of the historical truth about the USSR. That is why, to the delight of the West, television screens have been filled with anti-Soviet films and programs for decades.