Loser Stalin. Death

The well-known expression “lived sinfully and died funny” can easily be applied to Stalin. More precisely, not funny, but ridiculous.

Continuation. Beginning: Loser Stalin , USSR , Holodomor , Comintern , War , Social System .

The dictator intimidated the entire country, including his comrades and guards, so much that when he was struck by a stroke, no one even dared to call doctors without an order from the owner. And the owner, of course, could no longer order anything, since he was unconscious. In general, the death of Stalin is the best illustration of how the Soviet Union was governed under him.

But this was not the main problem associated with the death of the leader. Effective governance of a country requires the existence of clear mechanisms for the transfer of power. Let’s not even talk about the advantages of democratic mechanisms now. Let them be at least authoritarian or traditional. In a monarchy, for example, power is inherited, which eliminates the possibility of chaos after the death of the monarch. "The king is dead, long live the king!" - the French said at one time, combining in one phrase both information about the death of the old ruler and the greeting of the heir. But Stalin built the mechanism of government in such a way that he could not even clearly decide on a successor. It would seem that this is not the most difficult matter, but for Stalin it became difficult, since the mechanism was created according to the principle “after us there may be a flood.”

At the time of the leader’s death, there was no clarity about who was the second person in the USSR. For a long time it was believed that this was his old ally Vyacheslav Molotov, but immediately after the war Stalin began to push him aside and humiliate him. Things even went so far as to arrest his wife, who suddenly turned out to be an enemy of the people.

Against the background of the weakening of Molotov, Georgy Malenkov and Lavrenty Beria strengthened. But at the same time, the first had a higher status in the party hierarchy, while the second had real power, supervising the security forces and having the ability to repress their political opponents. Based on the real experience of the functioning of the Soviet system, where all fundamental issues were resolved by force, Beria looked like a more promising leader, but Stalin suddenly began to form the so-called Mingrelian cause, making it clear to the elites that the “all-powerful silovik” could soon go into oblivion following his predecessors Yagoda and Yezhov.

For some time it seemed that under the tutelage of the leader, new cadres were growing up to replace him. He brought Andrei Zhdanov and Nikolai Voznesensky sharply closer. But Zhdanov died, and Voznesensky was soon shot in the “Leningrad case”, without even having time to really enjoy being close to the body.

Perhaps the only person who did not have time to really feel the kicks of the “father of nations” was Nikita Khrushchev, transferred to Moscow from Ukraine. However, his apparatus weight was small in comparison with those people who led the country for a long time together with the leader.

We don't know exactly why Stalin behaved so strangely. In all likelihood, the present was more important to him than the future. Or, more precisely, guarantees of personal power and security were more important than the long-term stability of the country.

A system of constant personnel shake-up ensured his personal leadership. A man who had recently been elevated to the top could not challenge Stalin’s power, since he did not have time to acquire connections. And by the time he became truly influential, he was removed from office or shot. Ostap Bender would have remarked something like this in this regard: “Whoever says that this is effective management, let him be the first to throw a stone at me.”

But another interpretation is not excluded. Perhaps Stalin simply did not see a figure equal to him in genius. It is characteristic that Peter I, Lenin, and Brezhnev also failed to choose a successor for themselves.

For a person in the highest position, power goes to his head so much that it seems to him that no one else can cope with the burden of big problems. And when there are no mechanisms for nominating a successor independent of the leader, the leader’s inadequate image of his beloved self becomes a grave problem for the entire country.

The period of struggle for power after Stalin's death took more than ten years. First, through their combined efforts, the leaders eliminated Beria, as the most dangerous person for them. Then Khrushchev managed to weaken the so-called group of Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich and “Shepilov, who joined them.” They also struck at Marshal Zhukov, although it is unlikely that he was preparing a military coup. And when Khrushchev’s personal leadership seemed to no longer raise any doubt, a new generation of leaders (Brezhnev, Kosygin, Podgorny, Shelepin, Semichastny, etc.) overthrew him too.

The Khrushchev Thaw was a positive era for the country. But a faithful Stalinist - if, of course, he is consistent and honest - would probably have to admit that Stalin's inability to solve the problem of a successor weakened the USSR. The leader's firm hand in resolving this issue turned out to be weak, and as a result, we never had a truly firm hand again.