Nikolai Dugin historian. Brief biography and main works. Why do you care so deeply about this whole story?

In recent years, interest in I.V. Stalin as a politician and a person has flared up with renewed vigor.
One of the first publications about “Stalinist repressions” published in the West was a book by a former employee of the Izvestia newspaper I.L. Solonevich, who was imprisoned in the camps and fled abroad in 1934.

Solonevich wrote: “I do not think that the total number of all prisoners in these camps was less than five million people. Probably a little more. But, of course, there can be no talk of any accuracy of calculation.” (emphasis added by me – A.D.).

The book of prominent figures of the Menshevik Party D. Dalin and B. Nikolaevsky, who emigrated from the Soviet Union and emigrated from the Soviet Union, is replete with figures, who claimed that in 1930 the total number of prisoners was 622,257 people, in 1931 - about 2 million, in 1933 - 1935. - about 5 million, and in 1942, in their opinion, there were from 8 to 16 million people in prison.

Other authors provide similar multi-million dollar figures: R. Conquest, S. Svyanevich, T. Cliff, P. Juwiller.

During the perestroika years and the early 90s, this interest was reinforced by myths about the fantastic scale of repression in the 20s - 50s of the last century. Various foreign and domestic authors literally competed with each other in describing the extent of the “bloody lawlessness committed by Stalin and his henchmen.” Horrifying numbers of those shot, deported, dispossessed were mentioned - even completely unimaginable data appeared about 100 million (!!!???) repressed citizens of the USSR.

The publication of R.A. caused a great resonance in society. Medvedev in Moscow News (November 1988) about the statistics of victims of Stalinism. According to his calculations, for the period 1927–1953. about 40 million people were repressed, including those dispossessed, deported, and those who died of hunger in 1933. In 1989–1991. this figure was one of the most popular in the propaganda of the “crimes” of Stalinism and became quite firmly entrenched in the mass consciousness.

A.V. Antonov-Ovseenko believes that from January 1935 to June 1941, 19 million 840 thousand people were repressed, of which 7 million were shot. Concluding a quick and far from complete review of the literature, it is necessary to name one more author - O.A. Platonov, who is convinced that as a result of the repressions of 1918-1955, 48 million people died in places of detention.

N.S. also contributed to the falsification of the question of the number of prisoners. Khrushchev, who wrote in his memoirs: “... When Stalin died, there were up to 10 million people in the camps...”.

Even if we understand the term “camps” broadly, including also colonies and prisons, then even taking this into account, at the beginning of 1953 there were about 2.6 million prisoners. The State Archive of the Russian Federation (GA RF) stores copies of memos from the leadership of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs addressed to N.S. Khrushchev indicating the exact number of prisoners, including at the time of I.V.’s death. Stalin. Therefore, N.S. Khrushchev was well informed about the true number of prisoners and deliberately exaggerated it by almost four times.

Later it turned out that all this hype had nothing to do with the real events of our history associated with the name of Stalin. Professional historians were able to show and prove the inconsistency of fabrications about the scale of criminal prosecution in our country during Stalin’s years in power.

By the way, in the 30s of the last century, Americans did not make tragedies out of their own, real-life “GULAG”. On the contrary, they presented it as some kind of charity of then-President Roosevelt. Masses of the unnecessary population were sent to public works. In total, in 1933-1939, not counting prisoners, 3.3 million people were simultaneously employed in the construction of canals, roads and bridges. In total, 8.5 million people passed through the womb of the American Gulag of “public works.” This American penal servitude was headed by the Minister of the Interior, G. Ickes. Beginning in 1932, he placed about 2 million Americans in camps for unemployed youth. Moreover, out of 30 dollars of nominal wages, mandatory deductions amounted to 25 dollars. Total, 5 dollars a month for hard labor.

If in the USSR prisoners built canals, then the American unemployed “Gulag men” in the same years built a number of hydroelectric dams, in particular the famous dam at Niagara.

A significant contribution to the fanning of anti-Stalin hysteria was made by the former head of the party and political apparatus of the Soviet Army, former army general D.A. Volkogonov. The memoirs of living employees of the Russian State Archive of Social and Political History will help us illustrate the specifics of his work with archival sources. While working on his next book of “revelations,” these archivists recall, Volkogonov received an unprecedented right to remove from the archive dozens of volumes of original documents about the life of F.E. Dzerzhinsky.

Time passed, and they received Volkogonov’s original manuscript for review, which they decided to compare with the contents of the documents issued to him. It turned out that after receiving the archives, Volkogonov used in his work the original texts of only the first and last lines of the documents. He rewrote the main, substantive part of these documents anew, in his own name. But, without mentioning your name and authorship.

This is how the perestroika falsification of the Soviet period of national history was forged. It is no coincidence that Volkogonov’s style of work was characterized by one of the authoritative Western historians, S. Cohen, as the graphomania of a man with a painful desire to rewrite the history of his country.

The already mentioned R.A. Medvedev, being a candidate of pedagogical sciences in the 80s, was not even embarrassed by the fact that he had never been to the archives. And not only was he not embarrassed, but he literally flaunted this circumstance. It would seem that almost a quarter has passed since his first publications about Stalin and R.A. Medvedev should have wised up!

In the language of motorists, it was time to hit the brakes... However... R.A. never became. Medvedev is a serious historian. Opening his recently published book “The Unknown Stalin,” we read the same old insinuations about 1937, when “several million people were arrested and died.”

Although, in fairness, it should be noted that not only R.A. Medvedev cannot (or maybe does not want?) to abandon his previous erroneous assessments of I.V. Stalin as a politician and a person. Some publicists, for example, the writer Edward Radzinsky, do not hesitate today to voice yesterday’s tales about Stalin that have outlived their scientific and political age.

The “works” of false historians of the level of Volkogonov, Medvedev, Conquest, and many other followers of the consciously sincere, voluntary distortion of Stalin’s time were and are being published in huge editions in the print media, in radio and television programs. These statements have acquired the level of axiomatic statements in the mass consciousness.

Let us cite, as an example, the recent speech of the young Italian journalist Giuseppe D. Amato in the newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets. In his article, he writes: “Throughout the entire communist period, 22 million Soviet citizens were shot or died in the Gulag, according to historian Dmitry Volkogonov, who is familiar with secret documents in the Soviet archives. His other colleagues give approximately the same figure...” The simple thought of checking the accuracy of such figures does not even occur to this journalist. Why? Probably because the stereotype about the “bloody maniac Stalin” has already been firmly formed and one no longer wants to abandon it, and sometimes it is not financially profitable. Remember the circulation of malicious and unsubstantiated fabrications about Stalin by the same Radzinsky. By the way, it would be nice for Radzinsky to remember his own participation in the publication of the multi-volume collection of archival documents “Lubyanka. Stalin and the NKVD…”, which contains materials that directly confirm the complete inconsistency of Radzinsky’s own fabrications about Stalin. But, as they say, you can’t wash a black dog white.

I would like to remind you that N.S.’s political report played a significant role in the reassessment of Stalin’s political role. Khrushchev at the XX Congress of the CPSU. The people of the Soviet Union realized with great difficulty and surprise Stalin's assessments expressed in this report. But Khrushchev’s own angry indignation at the “cult of Stalin’s personality” did not allow one to doubt the speaker’s sincerity.

Until recently, professional historians did not study the reliability of the main provisions of this report. And a few months ago, for the first time in Russian, a monograph by the American philosopher and historian Grover Furr was published, in which the author analyzes Khrushchev’s report at the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956 and proves that “... of all the statements of the “closed” report, directly "exposing" Stalin and Beria, there was not a single truthful one.

More precisely: among all those that can be verified, every single one turned out to be false. As it turns out, in his speech Khrushchev did not say anything about Stalin and Beria that turned out to be true.”

According to available information, the work of domestic experts on the “history of Stalin’s repressions,” which debunked numerous myths of Western researchers about Stalin, was even considered by the US Central Intelligence Agency. To their credit, CIA employees were forced to agree with the objectivity of the conclusions of our professionals. It would seem that questions to Stalin about the huge “GULAG Archipelago” have been removed and become a thing of the past.

But, unexpectedly, it turned out that the story of “Stalin’s repressions” did not end there. After a short break, more and more new publications began to appear, in which the emphasis was shifted from untenable assumptions about the scale of repression to the methods and means of Stalin building a new state entity - the Soviet Union.

I would like to give several examples of numerous unscrupulous, cynical insinuations resorted to by unscrupulous opponents of the objective study of national history, including its difficult and controversial period, which is directly related to the name of Stalin.

The Legend of Collectivization

Many modern historians, accusing Stalin of all mortal sins, attribute to him the inhuman idea of accelerated industrialization through the merciless exploitation of peasants, confiscating even seed grain from them, which led to “multi-million” victims of famine in the early 30s. This version is nothing more than an invention of incompetent publicists or historians, hollowing out the one-way track of “criminal” Stalinist narrow-mindedness and autocracy.

Indeed, in 1928 - 1932. The Soviet Union received 442 million rubles for grain exports, but a significant part of this amount was spent on purchasing agricultural equipment for the village. As K.K. Romanenko rightly notes, “in the country as a whole in 1932, grain exports were only 500 thousand tons. That is, with 190 million inhabitants of the USSR - 26 grams per person.”

Then a natural question arises: where did the famine come from? In the late 20s and early 30s, grain procurement was carried out not only by state, but also by cooperative bodies. In 1932, the state purchased a little more than 30% of the harvest, a significant part of it ended up in private hands; hence the speculative prices and the impossibility of the population purchasing bread at inflated black market prices. Historians with a pre-formulated concept of the “criminal Stalinist regime” generally, modestly lowering their gaze, omit these problems from their research. In historical science, this approach is called biased.

The Legend of Stalin's Suspicion

The well-known myth about Stalin’s manic suspicion is very easy to debunk by reminding readers of a few lines from the book of the greatest Russian historian Yu.N. Zhukov “The Other Stalin”:

“Almost two years after the murder of Kirov, despite the officially put forward new thesis about terrorism as the main weapon of the former opposition, the security service for senior officials of the USSR remained unchanged. It was formed in October 1920 as a special department under the Presidium of the Board of the Cheka and consisted of only 14 people, led by A.Ya. Belenky. In 1930 The special department became part of the operational department of the OGPU, receiving K.V. Pauker as its chief. And during its entire existence it increased to a little over a hundred people, which was explained simply. If, from the end of 1920, employees of the special department ensured the safety of only three - Lenin, Trotsky and Dzerzhinsky, then, starting from June 8, 1927 - already seventeen: all members and candidate members of the PB (they are also the leadership of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR). Only with the appointment of Yezhov as People's Commissar of Internal Affairs in the GUGB structure on November 28, 1936. formed an independent first department (security).” And until 1936, Stalin continued to walk from the Kremlin to Old Square for numerous party meetings. It took a special decision from the Politburo of the Central Committee for “Comrade Stalin to stop moving on foot.”

(Here it would be appropriate, in my opinion, to talk about real attempts on the life of I.V. Stalin - A.D.).

About false archival documents

Serious, professional historians and even students of history departments at universities are well aware of the auxiliary historical science called “source studies.” This science, in order not to bore readers with details, is designed to answer a simple question: is this or that document that researchers work with in archives reliable (or, as professionals say, “representative”)?

Such “unreliable” documents have been discovered in both our and foreign archives before, and they are still being discovered. For example, in the early 90s, during the trial of the CPSU, the Constitutional Court of Russia rejected two documents of the plaintiffs as not credible: a note by L.P. Beria dated March 29, 1940. on the execution of captured Polish military personnel and the corresponding decision of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of March 5, 1940.

It should be noted here that in the television program “Witnesses. Secrets of the Kremlin protocols” Valentin Falin emphasized that, wanting to snatch (literally) documents about his participation in the repressions, N.S. Khrushchev ordered the creation of a special group of 200 KGB officers to seize and falsify archival documents. (The program was aired on March 31, 2011 on the Russia 1 channel: 23:50 – 00:20)

The main impression from the new work of E. Radzinsky (“Joseph Stalin”. M., 2012), dedicated to I.V. Stalin, it is easy to express in a few words: an astonishingly broad ignorance and deliberate falsification of history, complete contempt for archival documents, inability and unwillingness to work with them, boundless hatred and malicious, militant incompetence towards I.V. Stalin as a person and politician.

Radzinsky gives his entire author's text to a certain Fuji, a childhood friend and future ubiquitous comrade-in-arms of Stalin. According to Edward Stanislavovich, in 1976 he received the typewritten text of Fuji's diary entries in Paris. Fuji is a fantastic figure, he is with Stalin everywhere and always: before October 1917 and during October, after the revolution and during the civil war, during the internal party struggle and after it, in the late 20s and 30s. Fuji is almost a witness to the murder of his father by young Joseph Dzhugashvili, Fuji as a decoy of sex - in the same cell at Lubyanka along with Bukharin, he is the organizer of the secret meeting between Stalin and Hitler, he controls the execution of Polish officers in Katyn... I just want to say - “Stalin and Fuji are twin brothers..."

And between all these internal government affairs, Fuji manages to simultaneously organize an illegal network of Soviet intelligence officers in the West... Well, Edward Stanislavovich! You have outdone yourself in terms of the variety of literary genres that you are fluent in, adding one more to the previous ones - the genre of historical fiction.

It is probably no coincidence that Fuji begins the very first pages of his diary from the last February day of 1952, when he was at Stalin’s dacha, drinking tea with him and KNEW that for Stalin “this was his last morning tea.” (p.20) To surprise the reader in such a way is called adult!!!

It seems that the author himself realized that he had gone too far with the versatility of Fuji, and after the publication of the book about Stalin, he bashfully admitted that Fuji is a collective image. In other words, if the reader of Radzinsky’s novel was supposed to understand that all responsibility for Fuji’s thoughts and words lies with this man, then after the recent recognition of Edward Stanislavovich himself, we must conclude about the indisputable authorship of Radzinsky and, accordingly, his own authorial responsibility for everything written in a novel about Stalin.

About the meetings of Stalin and Hitler

Stalin and Hitler never met, although legends about these meetings have existed for a long time.

The first legend dates back to 1913, when both lived in the same city - Vienna. There is no particular point in dwelling on this legend, since it has long been debunked and since Fuji-Radzinsky himself does not write about it.

The second legend is dedicated to the imaginary meeting of Stalin and Hitler in 1931 on the Black Sea coast.

The third legend that Edward Stanislavovich raises from oblivion is the meeting in Lvov of “Comrade Stalin and Comrade Hitler” in October 1939. This legend was brought to light by FBI Director Hoover, who reported to the then American President Roosevelt that, according to his information, Stalin and Hitler definitely met in Lvov on October 17, 1939, supposedly to conclude a new secret military-political agreement.

But Radzinsky, with straightforward honesty, referring to Hoover’s note, misses the very significant conclusion of the FBI director himself: “... it is unlikely that Stalin and Hitler had a need for a personal meeting three weeks after the signing of the Treaty of Friendship with Germany in Moscow.”

Moreover, it is completely unclear how such a meeting could be held at all? The fact is that on October 17, according to entries in the visitors’ log, Stalin worked in his Kremlin office until 22:30, and he began the next working day in the Kremlin on October 19 at 20:25. That is, it would have taken him at least 46 hours to meet Hitler. It would seem an insoluble problem. However, Radzinskaya easily solves this too! How? It’s just that our Fuji-Radzinsky sends Stalin from Moscow to Lvov by letter train, and back by plane. And this despite the fact that Stalin’s dislike of traveling by air is well known.

If Radzinsky-Fuji did what he advises himself (p.558) and looked at the log of visitors to Stalin’s office for October 1939, some other archival documents, and if he asked himself why two official heads of state would meet illegally in Lvov , just a few weeks after the signing of the Soviet-German documents - then he might have removed his next fake from his book.

Let's try to do what Radzinsky, who was sincerely honest in his delusions, could not, or rather, did not want to do. It should be admitted that Stalin really did not work on October 18, 1939 in his Kremlin office, and he began the next working day in the Kremlin on October 19 and spent more than three hours with V.M. Molotov.

It is not difficult to imagine what Radzinsky would have done if he himself had discovered a very interesting recently declassified document, which we will introduce to our readers:

ENCRYPTION TELEGRAM

Lvov: To the Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (b) Comrade Khrushchev

People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs to Comrade Molotov

People's Commissariat of Defense Comrade Voroshilov

People's Commissar for Internal Affairs Comrade Beria

DIRECTIVE of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR

It was decided to liquidate the remaining consulates of England, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Romania, Yugoslavia, France and Japan in Lviv in the coming days. The governments of the relevant countries will be notified about this in a timely manner.

Without waiting for such liquidation, the local military and civil authorities of the city of Lvov should now refrain from any official relations with these consulates, but not lead the matter to any scandals. If the latter apply, it is necessary to indicate to them that they are no longer recognized as representatives of their governments, and that their official functions are considered to have ceased. Special information will be given about the consuls of Germany, Lithuania, Estonia and Finland.

Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR

I. Stalin V. Molotov

(RGASPI, f. 17, op. 167, d. 58, l. 99)

It is easy to imagine with what casual causticity and condescending patting of the reader on the shoulder Radzinsky might have used this document in his writings.

“Well, they say, how many times have I already told you about Stalin’s treachery. Stalin went to Lvov (well, maybe not on October 17, but a day later - on October 18), and met there “with Comrade Hitler.” I saw that there were too many foreign consulates in Lvov and immediately upon returning to Moscow I ordered the closure of these spy centers.”

I would like to contact E.S. Radzinsky with a simple question: is it really true for you, one of the authors of the collection of documents “Lubyanka. Stalin and the NKVD..." (M., 2006), compiled mainly from materials from special storage funds, it was difficult to contact the relevant archives with a request to check the reality of your version of the meeting of "Comrade Hitler and Comrade Stalin on October 18, 1939 in Lvov? And then you could calmly receive an answer about the delusion of the very idea of such a meeting, about the impossibility of technically ensuring the safety of its participants. But, in this case, you would have to tell the readers the banal news about the work of I.V. Stalin in his country office.

But this is not at all interesting, is it, Edward Stanislavovich! It is much cooler, as lovers of slang literature say, to send Stalin to Lvov on a letter train, after Stalin’s arrival in Lvov, to shoot all his guards as unnecessary witnesses; then send Stalin back to Moscow by plane and, of course, after arrival, shoot the entire crew of the plane, also as unnecessary witnesses.

Oh yes Radzinsky! Ay, well done!

The fairly serious newspaper “Top Secret” recently worked in approximately the same spirit. The newspaper told the astonished reader top-secret information about the arrival of the second man in the Reich (probably Bormann) to Stalin on May 15, 1941 on a Junkers-52 plane. And this second man in the Reich managed to dissuade Stalin from the possibility of an imminent German attack on the Soviet Union.

I wonder if the authors of this sensation have at least some objective confirmation of such a “fact”? There is only a good photograph of a Junkers-52 aircraft flying over one of the German cities and a transparent hint at the sharply decreased intensity of discussion of military issues at the Politburo. We looked at the minutes of the PB meetings for May 15-June 21, 1941 (RGASPI, dd. 1040 and 1041) and found that the intensity of the discussion of military issues at that time was no different from the usual (before the alleged arrival of a plane from Germany with a certain “important”) character agendas for PB meetings. (If necessary, the PB agenda for the pre-war weeks can be given in more detail - A.D.).

In conclusion, we will try to answer seemingly simple questions: what caused such a close and such a long-lasting interest in the name and era of Stalin? Why so persistently impose the hierarchy of division of modern Russian society into “Stalinists” and “anti-Stalinists”?

Let’s imagine for a second that some competent authority recognizes Stalin as a criminal, that the Soviet state will be recognized not as one of the victors in the war against fascism, but as an accomplice in the outbreak of the Second World War.

The political and economic consequences of such a decision can clearly be easily predicted. Our sworn big and small strategic “partners” are just waiting for such a legal reason to present territorial claims and trillion-dollar claims to our country, thereby cutting the Russian Federation into large and small pieces.

Did the violent death of the Soviet Union teach us anything?... The American Rand Corporation, which professionally had a hand in the collapse of the USSR, believes that it taught us almost nothing!

What do we think ourselves?

Time will show.

Time forward!

Photo caption: Dugin Alexander Nikolaevich, candidate of historical sciences, associate professor, photo by Ruslan Voronoi/"Express newspaper"

The leader was given tablets of highly toxic dicoumarin with a horse dosage

January 1955 marked the beginning of the “black” mythologization of Soviet history and the peak of Nikita KHRUSHCHEV’s struggle for sole power.

His main competitor, Lavrenty BERIA, had already been accused of treason, shot and became such a scapegoat that the Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary soon stopped even mentioning his name.

Although in the famous Khrushchev report on the cult of personality of STALIN it is mentioned 61 times along with the name of the leader. Many researchers were convinced: Nikita Sergeevich not only slandered prominent government figures, but also contributed to their death.

But they couldn’t scientifically prove their versions. Recently discovered archival materials allowed the historian Alexander DUGIN for the first time to document Khrushchev's lies.

- Alexander Nikolaevich, what new did you find in the archive?

I went to the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History to see what documents on the history of the 1950s were transferred to RGASPI from the archive of the President of the Russian Federation. And I discovered a lot of interesting things.Firstly,confirmation of the words of Valentin Falin - he prepared analytical notes for all the country's leaders from Stalin to Yeltsin. Wrote Khrushchev's foreign policy speeches.

And in 2011, he risked publicly declaring that Khrushchev, wanting to seize archival documents about his participation in the repressions, ordered the creation of a group of 200 special employees not only to seize genuine documents, but also to make fakes. Secondly, I discovered these forgeries in the “Beria case” and realized that among the falsifiers there were also honest officers who left “beacons” for their descendants to recognize the forgery.

- What kind of “beacons”?

There are several of them.

In any case of high treason, which Khrushchev accused Beria of, according to the then Criminal Procedure Code, there must be photographs of the persons involved in the case, their fingerprints, and protocols of confrontations. But in the materials of the “Beria case” there is not a single photograph of him, not a single fingerprint, not a single protocol of confrontations with any of his “accomplices”.

In addition, on the interrogation protocols there is not a single signature of Beria himself, nor is there a single signature of the investigator of the Prosecutor General’s Office for the most important cases of Tsaregradsky. There is only the signature of Major Administrative Service Yuryeva. And on many of the interrogation protocols of Beria there are no mandatory office-work “marks”: the initials of the executive typist, the number of printed copies, mailing addressees, etc. But all of the above are only external signs of a fake. - Were there also internal signs of forgery?

Certainly. One of the handwritten “originals” of Beria’s letters, allegedly written by him when he was already under arrest, bears the date “VI.28.1953,” literally screaming “don’t believe it!” You can find it at the link: RGASPI, f.17, op.171, d. 463, l.163.

- What exactly do you “don’t believe”?

The letter is addressed to “To the Central Committee of the CPSU, Comrade Malenkov.” In it, Beria speaks of his devotion to the party’s cause and asks his comrades-in-arms - Malenkov, Molotov, Voroshilov, Khrushchev, Kaganovich, Bulganin and Mikoyan: “let them forgive, if anything was wrong during these fifteen years of great and intense joint work.”

And he wishes them great success in the struggle for the cause of Lenin - Stalin. In tone, it resembles a note to friends and colleagues, written by a person who is going on vacation or who has decided to stay at home for a couple of days due to a cold. And it begins like this: “I was sure that from that great criticism at the Presidium I would draw all the necessary conclusions for myself and would be useful in the team. But the Central Committee decided otherwise, I think that the Central Committee did the right thing.” After reading this I was almost speechless!

The fact is that neither before nor after Stalin’s death Beria was subjected to any “great criticism” at any meetings of the Presidium. The first meeting of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee, at which serious accusations of Beria’s anti-state and anti-party actions were suddenly heard, took place on June 29, 1953. That is, the day AFTER this letter from Beria from his cell.

- You were almost speechless because of the date?

Yes. If the letter were genuine, it would reject the version of a number of my colleagues, which I shared one hundred percent. That Beria was killed at noon on June 26, 1953 in his mansion on Kachalova Street, now Malaya Nikitskaya.

- Killed by whom?

A special group sent to Lavrenty Pavlovich on Khrushchev’s order by Beria’s first deputy in the Ministry of State Security, Sergei Kruglov. Lieutenant General Andrei Vedenin, a former commander of a rifle corps who became commandant of the Kremlin in September 1953, described how his unit received the order to carry out Operation Mansion to eliminate Beria. And how it was performed. Then Beria's corpse was taken to the Kremlin and presented to members of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee. After such a “confrontation,” the Khrushchevites could, without fear, at the Plenum of the Central Committee on July 2–7, 1953, accuse Beria of all mortal sins. Win five months to clear the archives to destroy traces of your crimes.

And to instill in the people the official version of Khrushchev: they say, the former Minister of Internal Affairs of the USSR, ex-Deputy Chairman of the State Defense Committee and member of the Stalinist Politburo was shot for treason on December 23, 1953 by court decision. And with Beria alive, Khrushchev could not have hidden the poisoning of Stalin and his complicity in this crime, which I have already described in detail.

Let me remind you that, in my opinion, in this double murder - first of Stalin, then of Beria - two people were most interested. The first was the Minister of State Security in 1951 - 1953, Semyon Ignatiev, to whom Stalin had serious questions in connection with a number of scandalous trials initiated by this man. Including the “Doctors’ Case” and the murder of Kirov. On March 2, 1953, the Presidium of the Central Committee was already supposed to consider the issue of removing Ignatiev from his post.

The second interested party is Khrushchev, Ignatiev’s supervisor, who since 1946 held the most important post of deputy head of the Department of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks for checking party officials and carried out all repressions against the leadership of the party and the state. If his ward failed, Khrushchev would also have thundered to the fanfare. At 10:30 pm on March 1, Stalin was found unconscious on the floor. After his death, Beria sorted through Stalin’s archive and, studying the history of his illness, could have suspected the named couple.

A double was in prison

- What exactly was Stalin poisoned with?

Commenting on the medical data published in the recently published book by Sigismund Mironin “How Stalin was Poisoned. Forensic medical examination", the chief toxicologist of Moscow, Honored Doctor of Russia Yuri Ostapenko said that the leader was probably poisoned with tablets with an increased dose of a drug that reduces blood clotting. Since 1940, dicumarin was the first and main representative of anticoagulants; for vascular problems and thrombosis, it was recommended to use it in small doses constantly, like aspirin today. However, due to its high toxicity, it was withdrawn from use at the end of the last century.

As a prophylactic measure, drink it once a day, in the afternoon. The laboratories of the NKVD-NKGB-MGB did not cost anything to produce tablets with an increased dosage and put them in regular packaging. After all, Ignatiev himself was in charge of Stalin’s personal security. “But someone should have seen Beria alive in his cell in order to confirm the version that he spent five months in prison, awaiting execution?”

He had several doubles. And, note, the funds of Molotov, Zhdanov and a number of other recipients of Beria’s “letters” are publicly available, but there are still no funds of Khrushchev and Beria. And in the official collection “The Politburo and the Beria Case” there is not a single fact confirmed by documents that could be qualified as treason. But I managed to find an important document from Stalin’s personal archive.

He confirms that Khrushchev, accusing Beria of voluntary service in the Musavatist counterintelligence that fought the labor movement in Azerbaijan, knew very well that he was blatantly lying. This document, dated November 20, 1920, reports that Beria was infiltrated into the counterintelligence censorship department on instructions from the Azerbaijani Communist Party. It was last requested from Stalin’s archive in July 1953, when the “Beria case” was fabricated. But for obvious reasons, he was not involved in it.

The body was poured with concrete

- Are you convinced that the “letters from the cell” are fake?

Yes sir. I took them to an independent handwriting examination. The chief specialist of RGASPI, Mikhail Strakhov, helped me find Beria’s original handwriting. To keep everything clean and honest, I chose lines from which it is impossible to understand who is writing to whom, and I paid for the examination out of my own pocket so that no one could influence its result. According to experts, the samples I presented were written by different people.

And this conclusion confirms that the reprisal against Beria occurred due to the fact that, having taken the post of head of the combined Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of State Security, he was looking for an answer to the question of the real reasons for Stalin’s death. Had he remained alive, there would have been no talk of any revelations about the personality cult of Joseph Vissarionovich at the height of the Cold War. And in 1961, when Norwegian biochemists analyzed Napoleon’s hair on behalf of the French government and found out that he was poisoned with arsenic, no one would urgently convene an extraordinary congress of the CPSU. And he did not raise the unexpected question of removing Stalin’s body from the Mausoleum and concreting it. Khrushchev covered his tracks!

- Why do you care so deeply about this whole story?

I decided to do this because I can’t calmly watch how the heroes of “Fricopedia” like Rezun-Suvorov and Radzinsky try to erase from people’s memory all the positive moments of Soviet history, painting it only in dirty tones. And a person, especially a young person, who despises the past of his country, cannot respect his present and build his future in a state where his father, grandfather, great-grandfather are portrayed as cattle.

“Red Monarch Stalin” - interview with historian Alexander Dugin, March 04, 2013 Number 9 (942) - http://eg.ru/daily/politics/36991/

- Radzinsky slandered the father of nations

When the name STALIN is mentioned today, passions immediately flare up. And 60 years after the death of Joseph Vissarionovich, we are trying to understand who this man was - a bloody tyrant who mercilessly destroyed the elite of a gigantic empire, or a wise ruler, whose name became a symbol of the power of the Soviet state and the Great Victory of its people over fascism. Playwright Edward RADZINSKY also decided to contribute to this debate and within a year published three books of a biographical novel about the leader. We asked historian Alexander DUGIN, who has worked in archives for over 30 years, to evaluate the TV presenter’s brainchild.

To: Alexander Nikolaevich, what surprised you most about Radzinsky?

Militant incompetence. And the fact that he is honest in his novel only in one thing - in his pathological hatred of Stalin’s personality. He was not ashamed to even present Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili as a parricide. Radzinsky’s three-chapter monster novel just begins with this slander. The author did not even think to support it with facts, although he claims that he even had access to the presidential archive. But not a single state archive, including the KGB archive, has his signature on the record sheets for the use of archival files . And without it, not a single folder will be handed over to anyone.

Radzinsky simply used the work of his colleagues in the shop - anti-Stalinists. This is a whole galaxy of historians looking for documents that, at least indirectly, can confirm the darkest versions discrediting Stalin. In recent years, the versions themselves have been brought to us from the West, more often from the USA. But even the local masters of compromising material did not think of parricide. The playwright threw this idea into the minds of young people and rubs his hands in anticipation of generous political dividends.

- Well, what are you talking about! Radzinsky hedged his bets. According to him, in 1976 he received in Paris a typewritten text of the diary entries of a certain Fuji, allegedly a childhood friend of Soso, that was Stalin’s boy’s name, and a comrade-in-arms of Koba - this is the first pseudonym of Joseph Vissarionovich. All words from the author Radzinsky attributed to this Fuji. And he is with Stalin everywhere and always: before October 1917, and during the October Revolution, and after it, and during the Civil War, and during the years of internal party struggle, and in the late 20s, and in the 30s . Fuji is in the same cell at Lubyanka with Bukharin, he is the organizer of the secret meeting between Stalin and Hitler, he controls the execution of Polish officers in Katyn...

And between these affairs, Fuji manages to organize an illegal network of Soviet intelligence officers in the West - oh yeah, Edward Stanislavovich! Young people raised on Hollywood Bond will easily believe such nonsense. As a literary device, this technique is not new, but Radzinsky insisted on the historicity of his brainchild and only recently admitted in an interview that Fuji is a “collective image.” And this is how he speaks about Stalin’s father Beso and mother Keke in “collective” Russian, I quote: “... he drank gloomily, fearfully, quickly got drunk, and instead of the Georgian table praise he immediately got into a fight - anger burned this man. He was black, of average height, thin, low-browed, and wore a mustache and beard. Koba will be very similar to him... The first years after marriage, Keke gives birth regularly, but the children die. In 1876, Mikhail died in the cradle, then George. Dead Soso brothers... It’s as if nature is resisting the birth of a child from a gloomy shoemaker.”

Historian Alexander DUGIN is ready to confirm every word he says with archival documents.

- Didn't work for security

To: What then outraged you most?

- The author doesn’t care about history in principle.This was fully demonstrated in his statement that Stalin was an agent of the Tsarist secret police. That is, he handed over his comrades. MIf appeared at the turn of the 1920s - 1930s. during the period of acute political struggle against Stalin. And it was debunked several times. Under Khrushchev, they tried to revive him for the full-scale compromise of I.V. Stalin at the 20th Congress of the CPSU. They tried to convince the people that cooperation with the secret police was Stalin’s greatest secret, because of which the repressions of 1937 allegedly began. He, they say, exterminated everyone who could know about his past as a paid provocateur.

An American journalist was the first to publicly “expose” the leader Isaac Don Levin, author of the first detailed biography of Stalin, published in the West in 1931. He made public a “document” that needs to be quoted to the letter:

“Ministry of Internal Affairs Head of the special department of the Police Department July 12, 1913 No. 2898 Top Secret Personally to the Head of the Yenisei Security Department A.F. Zheleznyakov (Stamp “Yenisei Security Department”) In. No. 512

Administratively exiled to the Turukhansk region, Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili-Stalin, having been arrested in 1906, gave valuable intelligence information to the head of the Tiflis provincial gendarme department. In 1908, the head of the Baku Security Department received a number of information from Stalin, and then, upon Stalin’s arrival in St. Petersburg, Stalin became an agent of the St. Petersburg Security Department. Stalin's work was accurate but fragmentary. After Stalin's election to the Central Committee of the party in Prague, Stalin, upon returning to St. Petersburg, became in clear opposition to the government and completely stopped contact with the secret police.I am informing you, dear sir, of what has been stated for personal considerations when conducting investigative work. Please accept sincere assurances of our utmost respect. Eremin."

To: And what's the catch?

Allegedly, in 1936, the Ministry of Internal Affairs discovered the original of this document, and it was transferred to Kosior and Yakir, and from them it came to Marshal Tukhachevsky and was the basis of the “Tukhachevsky conspiracy.” This version is a bluff. Even the most ardent opponents of Stalin met this fake with hostility. Famous Russian emigrant, meticulous scholar-historian Nikolai Vladislavovich Volsky, wrote to his friend, also an opponent of Stalin:
“The document put into circulation by Don Levin smells so false ten kilometers away that you would have to be simply blind or a fool not to notice it. Didn’t the police department really know that there is no “Yenisei Security Department”, but there is a “Yenisei Provincial Gendarmerie Department”? Captain Zheleznyakov really existed, but was not the boss...”

Volsky did not believe Don Levin for a number of reasons.
First of all, he knew that Levin was a long-time British intelligence agent!
Secondly, I remembered that Joseph Dzhugashvili began to use the pseudonym “Stalin” only in January 1913., when he first signed the work “Marxism and the National Question.” And, as of 1906 and 1908, secret police officers could not mention the agent as Dzhugashvili-Stalin - this is an absolute forgery. But let’s say that by the summer of 1913, Eremin had already gotten used to the pseudonym Stalin and simply reported to his superiors about the stages of cooperation of the obstinate agent.
And here “thirdly” arises: in Tsarist Russia the police did not use the now generally accepted form of spelling the patronymic - in pre-revolutionary spelling, Vissarionov was written instead of Vissarionovich, which meant that we were talking about Vissarion’s son. In January 1914, the tsarist secret police intercepted Stalin’s letters from exile, and in all police documents on this matter Stalin was called “the publicly supervised Joseph Vissarionov Dzhugashvili,” and not Stalin at all.

- Didn't meet Hitler

To: Radzinsky insists on a secret meeting between Stalin and Hitler. What can you say to him?

According to legends, Stalin and Hitler met three times. The first was in 1913, when both lived in the same city, Vienna. The second time - allegedly in 1931 on the Black Sea coast. Both versions were so thoroughly destroyed that even Fuji-Radzinsky does not write about them.
The third legend - a secret meeting in Lvov on October 17, 1939 - was finally pulled out of oblivion by the pop historian and playwright. I think for two reasons. Firstly, it was launched by the director of the FBI, but how could Edward Stanislavovich not support American intelligence? Secondly, he figured out how it could be carried out in time - he sent Stalin to Lvov by train, and back by plane. So, writes Radzinsky, the US National Archives has declassified the following document:

“July 19, 1940. Personally and confidentially to the respected Adolf Berl, Jr., Assistant Secretary of State... According to information just received from a confidential source of information, after the German and Russian invasion of Poland and its partition, Hitler and Stalin met secretly in Lvov on October 17, 1939. At these secret negotiations, Hitler and Stalin signed a military agreement to replace the expired pact... Sincerely yours, J. Edgar Hoover."

Radzinsky begins the game: “No, on October 16, Stalin was in his office in Moscow. And on October 17 he has a long list of visitors. I was about to leave my job, but I still looked at October 18... There was no reception on that day! Stalin did not appear in the Kremlin! And it was not a day off, a regular working day is Thursday. ...He was absent all day on October 19 and only late in the evening at 20:25 he returned to his office and began to receive visitors. ...Did this meeting really take place? Secret meeting of the century! How can you write it! They sat opposite each other - leaders, earthly gods, so similar and so different. They swore eternal friendship, shared the world, and each thought how he would deceive the other...”

To: What doesn't suit you again?

Of all the possible versions - a man fell ill, secretly met with a woman, simply allowed himself to rest once in his life - Radzinsky chooses the most awkward, but the most beneficial to all haters of the Soviet country. And by quoting the document, he hides the most important thing from the reader behind the ellipses. Hoover is obliged to report unexpected information, but he himself does not believe it. Which is what he writes to Roosevelt: “...It is unlikely that Stalin and Hitler had a need for a personal meeting three weeks after the signing of the Treaty of Friendship with Germany in Moscow.”..

To: Let's leave politics aside for a second. What kind of woman could the leader secretly meet with?

In 1930, Lvova moved to Moscow, where she was given an apartment in the center. She carried out secret orders for Stalin, but which ones exactly are still unknown. They think she tracked attempts to commit a metaphysical assassination attempt on Stalin. And not without her influence, Stalin changed the date of his birth so that astrologers would not reveal his weaknesses and come up with methods of influencing his psyche. Consulted on ways to protect against a possible psychic attack during business meetings. I was not interested in how her fate turned out.

According to archival documents - at a nearby dacha near the village of Volynskoye. But I’ll tell you what I did in about six months, when the “top secret” stamp is removed from the materials.

Social phenomena

Finance and crisis

Elements and weather

Science and technology

Unusual phenomena

Nature monitoring

Author sections

Discovering the story

Extreme World

Info reference

File archive

Discussions

Services

Infofront

Information from NF OKO

RSS export

useful links

Important Topics

- Alexander Nikolaevich, what surprised you most about Radzinsky?
- Militant incompetence. And the fact that he is honest in his novel only in one thing - in pathological hatred of the individual Stalin. I wasn't ashamed to even imagine Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili parricide. A three-chapter monster novel just begins with this libel Radzinsky. The author did not even think to support it with facts, although he claims that he even had access to the presidential archive. But not a single state archive, including the KGB archive, has his signature on the record sheets for the use of archival files. And without it, not a single folder will be handed over to anyone. Radzinsky simply used the work of his colleagues in the shop - anti-Stalinists. This is a whole galaxy of historians looking for documents that, at least indirectly, can confirm the darkest versions discrediting Stalin. In recent years, the versions themselves have been brought to us from the West, more often from the USA. But even the local masters of compromising material did not think of parricide. The playwright threw this idea into the minds of young people and rubs his hands in anticipation of generous political dividends.

- Today he doesn’t even need to back up: Stalin’s grandson is trying in vain to sue Svanidze...
- Well, what are you talking about! Radzinsky hedged his bets. According to him, in 1976 he received in Paris a typewritten text of the diary entries of a certain Fuji, allegedly a childhood friend of Soso, that was Stalin’s boy’s name, and comrade-in-arms Koby- this is the first pseudonym of Joseph Vissarionovich. All words from the author Radzinsky attributed to this Fuji. And he is with Stalin everywhere and always: before October 1917, and during the October Revolution, and after it, and during the Civil War, and during the years of internal party struggle, and in the late 20s, and in the 30s . Fuji - in the same cell at Lubyanka along with Bukharin, he is the organizer of the secret meeting between Stalin and Hitler, he controls the execution of Polish officers in Katyn...
And between these affairs, Fuji manages to organize an illegal network of Soviet intelligence officers in the West - oh yeah, Edward Stanislavovich! Young people raised on Hollywood Bond will easily believe such nonsense. As a literary device, this technique is not new, but Radzinsky insisted on the historicity of his brainchild and only recently admitted in an interview that Fuji is a “collective image.” And this is how he speaks about Stalin’s father Beso and mother Keke in “collective” Russian, I quote: “... he drank gloomily, fearfully, quickly got drunk, and instead of the Georgian table praise he immediately got into a fight - anger burned this man. He was black, of average height, thin, low-browed, and wore a mustache and beard. Koba will be very similar to him... The first years after marriage, Keke gives birth regularly, but the children die. In 1876, Mikhail died in the cradle, then George. Dead Soso brothers... It’s as if nature is resisting the birth of a child from a gloomy shoemaker.”

But he is born, to the horror of all humanity. And then Fuji recalls what made him think about Stalin’s parricide:
“We were already fourteen years old then. I clearly remember his father's voice that day. I heard their usual squabble with their mother:
- You want to make the bastard a Metropolitan! I was assigned to the seminary. No way! He will go to work. So I don’t know how to read or write, but I support you. - He grabbed her box, which always stood under the icon... A carved box from her parental home. He scooped up the banknotes and crushed them in his fist.
- Put it on it's place. Not yours! You've already drunk yours. I earned these!
- How do you talk to a man? What did you earn? F...fuck? ( Ottochie ed..) But she belongs to me too!
They are already standing in the courtyard of the house near the bushes. Cursing, the father stuffs the banknotes into his pocket... She silently hit him in the groin with a strong fist. He bent over. And when he straightened up, in his hand, as always, was a knife from his boot. But she still silently rushed at him and twisted his arm. And the knife flew into the bushes.
The father sat on the ground and cried drunkenly:
- I'll kill you anyway. Both you and him...
I noticed Soso’s figure darting into the bushes.”
In ten days, Soso will tell Fuji that his father was allegedly killed in a drunken brawl. Only an inexperienced young reader, who also does not know the laws of Georgia at the beginning of the last century, is unlikely to believe these words, following Fuji: the playwright Radzinsky is a recognized professional.

Didn't work for security

- What then outraged you most?
- The author doesn’t care about history in principle. This was fully demonstrated in his statement that Stalin was an agent of the Tsarist secret police. That is, he handed over his comrades.
This myth appeared at the turn of the 1920s and 1930s during a period of intense political struggle against Stalin. And it was debunked several times. But when Khrushchev They tried to revive him again for the full-scale compromise of Joseph Vissarionovich at the 20th Congress of the CPSU. They tried to convince the people that cooperation with the secret police was Stalin’s greatest secret, because of which the repressions of 1937 allegedly began. He, they say, exterminated everyone who might know about his past as a paid provocateur. An American journalist was the first to publicly “expose” the leader Isaac Don Levin, author of the first detailed biography of Stalin, published in the West in 1931.

He made public a document that needed to be quoted to the letter:

Dear Sir Alexey Fedorovich!
Administratively exiled to the Turukhansk region, Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili-Stalin, having been arrested in 1906, gave valuable intelligence information to the head of the Tiflis provincial gendarme department. In 1908, the head of the Baku Security Department received a number of information from Stalin, and then, upon Stalin’s arrival in St. Petersburg, Stalin became an agent of the St. Petersburg Security Department.
Stalin's work was accurate but fragmentary. After Stalin's election to the Central Committee of the Party in Prague, Stalin, upon returning to St. Petersburg, became in clear opposition to the government and completely stopped ties with the secret police.
I am informing you, dear sir, of what has been stated for personal considerations when conducting investigative work.
Please accept sincere assurances of our utmost respect.
Eremin."

- What's the catch?
- Allegedly in 1936, the Ministry of Internal Affairs discovered the original of this document, and it was transferred Kosioru And Yakiru, and from them I got to the marshal Tukhachevsky and lay at the heart of the “Tukhachevsky conspiracy.” However, this version is a bluff. Even the most ardent opponents of Stalin immediately met this fake with hostility. Famous Russian emigrant, meticulous scholar-historian Nikolai Vladislavovich Volsky, wrote to his friend, also an opponent of Stalin: “The document put into circulation by Don Levin carries such falsehood ten kilometers away that you would have to be simply blind or a fool not to notice it. Didn’t the police department really know that there is no “Yenisei Security Department”, but there is a “Yenisei Provincial Gendarmerie Department”? Captain Zheleznyakov really existed, but was not the boss...”

Volsky did not believe Don Levin for a number of reasons. First of all, he knew that Levin was an old British intelligence agent! Secondly, I remembered that Joseph Dzhugashvili began using the pseudonym Stalin only in January 1913, when he first signed Stalin’s work “Marxism and the National Question.” And, as of 1906 and 1908, secret police officers could not mention the agent as Dzhugashvili-Stalin - this is an absolute forgery. But let's say that by the summer of 1913 Eremin He had already gotten used to the pseudonym Stalin and simply reported to his superiors about the stages of cooperation of the obstinate agent. And here “thirdly” arises: in Tsarist Russia the police did not use the now generally accepted form of spelling the patronymic - in pre-revolutionary spelling, Vissarionov was written instead of Vissarionovich, which meant that we were talking about Vissarion’s son. In January 1914, the tsarist secret police intercepted Stalin’s letters from exile, and in all police documents on this matter Stalin was called “the publicly supervised Joseph Vissarionov Dzhugashvili,” and not Stalin at all.

Didn't meet Hitler

- Radzinsky insists on a secret meeting between Stalin and Hitler. What can you say to him?
- According to legends, Stalin and Hitler met three times. The first was in 1913, when both lived in the same city, Vienna. The second time - allegedly in 1931 on the Black Sea coast. Both versions were so thoroughly destroyed that even Fuji-Radzinsky does not write about them. But the third legend - a secret meeting in Lvov on October 17, 1939 - was finally pulled out of oblivion by the pop historian and playwright. I think for two reasons. Firstly, it was launched by the director of the FBI, but how could Edward Stanislavovich not support American intelligence? Secondly, he figured out how it could be carried out in time - he sent Stalin to Lvov by train, and back by plane.
So, writes Radzinsky, the US National Archives has declassified the following document:
“July 19, 1940. Personally and confidentially to the respected Adolf Berl Jr., Assistant Secretary of State... According to just received information from a confidential source of information, after the German and Russian invasion of Poland and its partition, Hitler and Stalin met secretly in Lvov on October 17, 1939.

At these secret negotiations, Hitler and Stalin signed a military agreement to replace the exhausted pact... Sincerely yours J. Edgar Hoover».
The sensational document signed by the famous FBI chief was to be seen Roosevelt. And Radzinsky begins the game:
“No, on October 16, Stalin was in his office in Moscow. And on October 17 he has a long list of visitors. I was about to leave my job, but I still looked at October 18... There was no reception on that day! Stalin did not appear in the Kremlin! And it was not a day off, a regular working day is Thursday. ...He was absent all day on October 19 and only late in the evening at 20:25 he returned to his office and began to receive visitors. ...Did this meeting really take place? Secret meeting of the century! How can you write it! They sat opposite each other - leaders, earthly gods, so similar and so different. They swore eternal friendship, shared the world, and each thought how he would deceive the other...”

Listened to the hereditary witch

- What doesn’t suit you again?
- Of all the possible versions - a man fell ill, secretly met with a woman, just once in his life he allowed himself to rest - Radzinsky chooses the most awkward, but the most beneficial to all haters of the Soviet country. And by quoting the document, he hides the most important thing from the reader behind the ellipses. Hoover obliged to report unexpected information, but he himself does not believe it. This is what he writes about: “...It is unlikely that Stalin and Hitler had a need for a personal meeting three weeks after the signing of the Treaty of Friendship with Germany in Moscow.”...

- Let's leave politics for a second. What kind of woman could the leader secretly meet with?
- Well, at least with the famous Natalia Lvova. As a person who studied at the seminary, he knew about the existence of people endowed, as they now say, with paranormal abilities. And he knew that many intelligence services around the world resorted to their services. That's why I asked somehow Kirov find him a hereditary witch. Sergei Mironovich found Lvova, one of the poetess’s close friends Anna Akhmatova, who left a number of testimonies about the unusual capabilities of her friend. In 1930, Lvova moved to Moscow, where she was given a good apartment in the center. She carried out Stalin's secret orders, but which ones exactly are still not known. It is believed that she was tracking attempts to commit a metaphysical assassination attempt on Stalin. And not without her influence, Stalin changed the date of his birth so that astrologers would not reveal his weaknesses and come up with methods of influencing his psyche. She also advised the leader on ways to protect himself from a possible psychic attack during business meetings. I was not interested in how her fate turned out.
- So where was Stalin on October 18, 1939?
- According to archival documents - at a nearby dacha near the village of Volynskoye. But I’ll tell you what I did in about six months, when the “top secret” stamp is removed from the materials.

Much of what we supposedly know about Stalin is fiction

When the name STALIN is mentioned today, passions immediately flare up. Playwright Edward RADZINSKY also decided to contribute to this debate and within a year published three books of a biographical novel about the leader. We asked historian Alexander DUGIN, who has worked in archives for over 30 years, to evaluate the TV presenter’s brainchild.

- Alexander Nikolaevich, what surprised you most about Radzinsky?

Militant incompetence. And the fact that he is honest in his novel only in one thing - in pathological hatred of the individual Stalin. I wasn't ashamed to even imagine Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili parricide. A three-chapter monster novel just begins with this libel Radzinsky. The author did not even think to support it with facts, although he claims that he even had access to the presidential archive. But not a single state archive, including the KGB archive, has his signature on the record sheets for the use of archival files. And without it, not a single folder will be handed over to anyone. Radzinsky simply used the work of his colleagues in the shop - anti-Stalinists. This is a whole galaxy of historians looking for documents that, at least indirectly, can confirm the darkest versions discrediting Stalin. In recent years, the versions themselves have been brought to us from the West, more often from the USA. But even the local masters of compromising material did not think of parricide. The playwright threw this idea into the minds of young people and rubs his hands in anticipation of generous political dividends.

- Today he doesn’t even need to back up: Stalin’s grandson is trying in vain to sue Svanidze...

Come on! Radzinsky hedged his bets. According to him, in 1976 he received in Paris a typewritten text of the diary entries of a certain Fuji, allegedly a childhood friend of Soso, that was Stalin’s boy’s name, and comrade-in-arms Koby- this is the first pseudonym of Joseph Vissarionovich. All words from the author Radzinsky attributed to this Fuji. And he is with Stalin everywhere and always: before October 1917, and during the October Revolution, and after it, and during the Civil War, and during the years of internal party struggle, and in the late 20s, and in the 30s . Fuji - in the same cell at Lubyanka along with Bukharin, he is the organizer of the secret meeting between Stalin and Hitler, he controls the execution of Polish officers in Katyn... And between these matters, Fuji manages to organize an illegal network of Soviet intelligence officers in the West - oh yeah Edward Stanislavovich! Young people raised on Hollywood Bond will easily believe such nonsense. As a literary device, this technique is not new, but Radzinsky insisted on the historicity of his brainchild and only recently admitted in an interview that Fuji is a “collective image.” And this is how he speaks about Stalin’s father Beso and mother Keke in “collective” Russian, I quote: “... he drank gloomily, fearfully, quickly got drunk, and instead of the Georgian table praise he immediately got into a fight - anger burned this man. He was black, of average height, thin, low-browed, and wore a mustache and beard. Koba will be very similar to him... The first years after marriage, Keke gives birth regularly, but the children die. In 1876, Mikhail died in the cradle, then George. Dead Soso brothers... It’s as if nature is resisting the birth of a child from a gloomy shoemaker.”

But he is born, to the horror of all humanity. And then Fuji recalls what made him think about Stalin’s parricide:

“We were already fourteen years old then. I clearly remember his father's voice that day. I heard their usual squabble with their mother: “You want to make the bastard a Metropolitan!” I was assigned to the seminary. No way! He will go to work. So I don’t know how to read or write, but I support you. - He grabbed her box, which always stood under the icon... A carved box from her parental home. He scooped up the banknotes and crushed them in his fist. - Put it on it's place. Not yours! You've already drunk yours. I earned these! - How do you talk to a man? What did you earn? F...fuck? ( Ottochie ed..) But she belongs to me too! They are already standing in the courtyard of the house near the bushes. Cursing, the father stuffs the banknotes into his pocket... She silently hit him in the groin with a strong fist. He bent over. And when he straightened up, in his hand, as always, was a knife from his boot. But she still silently rushed at him and twisted his arm. And the knife flew into the bushes. The father sat on the ground and cried drunkenly: “I’ll kill you anyway.” Both you and him... I noticed Soso’s figure rushing into the bushes.” In ten days, Soso will tell Fuji that his father was allegedly killed in a drunken brawl. Only an inexperienced young reader, who also does not know the laws of Georgia at the beginning of the last century, is unlikely to believe these words, following Fuji: the playwright Radzinsky is a recognized professional.

Didn't work for security

- What then outraged you most?

The author doesn’t care about history in principle. This was fully demonstrated in his statement that Stalin was an agent of the Tsarist secret police. That is, he handed over his comrades. This myth appeared at the turn of the 1920s and 1930s during a period of intense political struggle against Stalin. And it was debunked several times. But when Khrushchev They tried to revive him again for the full-scale compromise of Joseph Vissarionovich at the 20th Congress of the CPSU. They tried to convince the people that cooperation with the secret police was Stalin’s greatest secret, because of which the repressions of 1937 allegedly began. He, they say, exterminated everyone who might know about his past as a paid provocateur. An American journalist was the first to publicly “expose” the leader Isaac Don Levin, author of the first detailed biography of Stalin, published in the West in 1931.

He made public a document that needed to be quoted to the letter:

Dear Sir Alexey Fedorovich!

Administratively exiled to the Turukhansk region, Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili-Stalin, having been arrested in 1906, gave valuable intelligence information to the head of the Tiflis provincial gendarme department. In 1908, the head of the Baku Security Department received a number of information from Stalin, and then, upon Stalin’s arrival in St. Petersburg, Stalin became an agent of the St. Petersburg Security Department. Stalin's work was accurate but fragmentary. After Stalin's election to the Central Committee of the Party in Prague, Stalin, upon returning to St. Petersburg, became in clear opposition to the government and completely stopped ties with the secret police. I am informing you, dear sir, of what has been stated for personal considerations when conducting investigative work. Please accept sincere assurances of our utmost respect. Eremin."

- What's the catch?

Allegedly, in 1936, the Ministry of Internal Affairs discovered the original of this document, and it was transferred Kosioru And Yakiru, and from them I got to the marshal Tukhachevsky and lay at the heart of the “Tukhachevsky conspiracy.” However, this version is a bluff. Even the most ardent opponents of Stalin immediately met this fake with hostility. Famous Russian emigrant, meticulous scholar-historian Nikolai Vladislavovich Volsky, wrote to his friend, also an opponent of Stalin: “The document put into circulation by Don Levin carries such falsehood ten kilometers away that you would have to be simply blind or a fool not to notice it. Didn’t the police department really know that there is no “Yenisei Security Department”, but there is a “Yenisei Provincial Gendarmerie Department”? Captain Zheleznyakov really existed, but was not the boss...”

Didn't meet Hitler

- Radzinsky insists on a secret meeting between Stalin and Hitler. What can you say to him?

According to legends, Stalin and Hitler met three times. The first was in 1913, when both lived in the same city, Vienna. The second time - allegedly in 1931 on the Black Sea coast. Both versions were so thoroughly destroyed that even Fuji-Radzinsky does not write about them. But the third legend - a secret meeting in Lvov on October 17, 1939 - was finally pulled out of oblivion by the pop historian and playwright. I think for two reasons. Firstly, it was launched by the director of the FBI, but how could Edward Stanislavovich not support American intelligence? Secondly, he figured out how it could be carried out in time - he sent Stalin to Lvov by train, and back by plane.

So, writes Radzinsky, the US National Archives has declassified the following document: “July 19, 1940. Personally and confidentially to the respected Adolf Berl Jr., Assistant Secretary of State... According to just received information from a confidential source of information, after the German and Russian invasion of Poland and its partition, Hitler and Stalin met secretly in Lvov on October 17, 1939.

At these secret negotiations, Hitler and Stalin signed a military agreement to replace the exhausted pact... Sincerely yours J. Edgar Hoover».

The sensational document signed by the famous FBI chief was to be seen Roosevelt. And Radzinsky begins the game: “No, on October 16, Stalin was in his office in Moscow. And on October 17 he has a long list of visitors. I was about to leave my job, but I still looked at October 18... There was no reception on that day! Stalin did not appear in the Kremlin! And it was not a day off, a regular working day is Thursday. ...He was absent all day on October 19 and only late in the evening at 20:25 he returned to his office and began to receive visitors. ...Did this meeting really take place? Secret meeting of the century! How can you write it! They sat opposite each other - leaders, earthly gods, so similar and so different. They swore eternal friendship, shared the world, and each thought how he would deceive the other...”

Listened to the hereditary witch

- What doesn’t suit you again?

Of all the possible versions - a man fell ill, secretly met with a woman, simply allowed himself to rest once in his life - Radzinsky chooses the most awkward, but the most beneficial to all haters of the Soviet country. And by quoting the document, he hides the most important thing from the reader behind the ellipses. Hoover obliged to report unexpected information, but he himself does not believe it. This is what he writes about: “...It is unlikely that Stalin and Hitler had a need for a personal meeting three weeks after the signing of the Treaty of Friendship with Germany in Moscow.”...

- Let's leave politics for a second. What kind of woman could the leader secretly meet with?

Well, at least with the famous Natalia Lvova. As a person who studied at the seminary, he knew about the existence of people endowed, as they now say, with paranormal abilities. And he knew that many intelligence services around the world resorted to their services. That's why I asked somehow Kirov find him a hereditary witch. Sergei Mironovich found Lvova, one of the poetess’s close friends Anna Akhmatova, who left a number of testimonies about the unusual capabilities of her friend. In 1930, Lvova moved to Moscow, where she was given a good apartment in the center. She carried out Stalin's secret orders, but which ones exactly are still not known. It is believed that she was tracking attempts to commit a metaphysical assassination attempt on Stalin. And not without her influence, Stalin changed the date of his birth so that astrologers would not reveal his weaknesses and come up with methods of influencing his psyche. She also advised the leader on ways to protect himself from a possible psychic attack during business meetings. I was not interested in how her fate turned out.

- So where was Stalin on October 18, 1939?- According to archival documents - at a nearby dacha near the village of Volynskoye. But I’ll tell you what I did in about six months, when the “top secret” stamp is removed from the materials.