Khrushchev Nikita. Caribbean crisis

He achieved victory and entered Havana with his troops, we in the USSR, in fact, did not yet know what political direction the victors would take. They knew that individual communists were participating in the movement led by Castro, but the Communist Party of Cuba as a whole did not contact him, and the secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba even left the party to go partisan in the mountains with Castro (1). When the rebels occupied Havana (2), we only used the materials of newspapers and radio. They listened to what was transmitted from Cuba itself and what others said about it. The position was very unclear.

Fidel then left one of the figures close to him as President of the Republic of Cuba (3). This person was completely unknown to us. In addition, Cuba did not officially recognize our state, and for a long time we did not have any diplomatic relations with it (4). Our people who have been Latin America have now begun to travel to Cuba. Previously, they knew only some Cuban figures, in particular, Fidel's brother (5) - Raul Castro. Somehow, by chance, one of our comrades sailed with him to Mexico on the same ship. This comrade later told me how they met, talked, and then Raul in Mexico, in front of our comrade, was detained and arrested. Based on data received through various channels, we knew that Raul Castro is a communist. But it was believed that he allegedly hides his beliefs from his brother; he doesn't seem to know about them. Guevara (6) was also a communist, like some other associates of Fidel. But all these were rumors, and we have not yet established official relations with them.

Further events developed quickly. At that time we decided to send Mikoyan to the USA as "our ambassador's guest" to establish unofficial contacts with the American business world. Anastas Ivanovich had been there even before the war, and he had some personal connections. We believed that when Mikoyan appeared in Washington, there would be people from the business community who would want to establish contacts with us. In any case, we wanted to feel what the trends are there. Most importantly, they wanted to find out the prospects for the development of trade with the United States. When Mikoyan was in the USA, Fidel invited him to visit Cuba on his way back. Mikoyan went there, looked, talked. But only. After all, we did not have diplomatic relations with Cuba, and Castro has so far adhered to a cautious policy in relations with us.

Typical for the situation in Cuba at that time and for the role of Fidel was, for example, such an anecdote. The Cuban revolutionary leadership has gone to heaven. The apostle Peter came out to them and ordered everyone to line up, then he said: "Communists, three steps forward!" Guevara came out, Raul came out, someone else, and everyone else is standing still. Then Peter shouted to Fidel: "Hey, you big guy, can't you hear it?" That is, they believed that Fidel was a communist, but in heaven he did not consider himself a communist at all and believed that the command he heard had nothing to do with him. Here is a characteristic phenomenon for Cuba of that time.

Soon we established diplomatic relations with Cuba (7), and the USSR sent a delegation there. The Cubans were forced to turn to us for help: the Americans deprived them of oil, their main source of energy. Life on the island almost came to a standstill, and we had to urgently organize the delivery of oil to Cuba. At that time, this was a rather difficult task: we did not have a sufficient number of tankers or other suitable sea vessels, and we had to urgently mobilize from among those operating to the detriment of already going traffic, as well as purchase and order tankers in order to provide Cuba with oil products. Then the Italians sold us a lot of tankers. On this basis, even a conflict between Italy and the United States arose: the Americans accused Italy of "not showing solidarity." This case also testifies to the relationship between the capitalist countries: if you can earn money, then no solidarity is taken into account in particular.

When we established diplomatic relations with Cuba, we sent a professional diplomatic worker, SM Kudryavtsev, as ambassador there. In addition, there was a "journalist" from TASS Alekseev, a special employee (8). Fidel, and especially Raul Castro, immediately saw that this was not just a journalist, but a representative of a certain department. They established a trusting relationship with him. When they needed something, they often turned directly to Alekseev than to the ambassador. Alekseev immediately contacted the Center and informed us about the needs of Cuba. The ambassador behaved awkwardly. The situation in Cuba was heating up, they had already begun to "shoot", and he demanded that he be provided with special protection. The Cuban leadership - former partisans - was surprised and annoyed: they are, perhaps, a more profitable target for the enemies of the revolution, but they go without protection; our communist aristocrat demands for himself some special conditions that would absolutely exclude the possibility of trouble for him.

When we saw that this was leading to a deterioration in our relations, we recalled the ambassador from there. Such a person was not fit for revolutionary Cuba. They decided to appoint Alekseev (9) as the new ambassador, to whom the Cuban comrades were already accustomed, they knew him well and trusted him. He was in their eyes. So, the choice will be successful. Further more! Castro behaved like an inveterate communist. So he did not call himself yet, but the Communists began to be attracted to the government of the country.

By that time, the president, who was appointed right at the rally after the occupation of Havana, fled to the United States (10). The reason was the beginning of the nationalization of enterprises and the confiscation of the property of the American rich. Then they began to limit the landowners. There were very large latifundia. Immediately, many of those who had previously fought with Castro and hailed him as the man who led the struggle for independence and the expulsion of Batista turned away from the revolution, because many who fought alongside Castro did not want big social changes on the island. They were fed up with Batista's corrupt regime and opposed it, but they had no intention of changing the social order in Cuba. They needed a new "own man", whether it be Batista, Castro or anyone else, no matter who.

At first, the Americans also viewed Castro in this way and believed that the capitalist foundations in Cuba were indestructible. And when Castro announced that Cuba had embarked on the path of building socialism, time had already been lost and organized forces that would fight for US interests in Cuba did not exist. Therefore, for them there was now the only way out - an invasion from the outside.

Meanwhile, the Cubans asked us for weapons. We gave them tanks, artillery, and sent our instructors. In addition, anti-aircraft guns and several fighter planes were sent. As a result, Cuba is quite heavily armed. The main drawback of the Cuban army was its lack of proper combat experience. They didn't know how to use tanks at all. From the experience of guerrilla warfare, they were familiar only with personal weapons: a carbine, machine gun, grenade, pistol.

We learned about the beginning of the invasion of Cuba (11) from reports from foreign radio stations. With what forces and who invaded, we did not know. Are these Cuban conspirators or the Americans themselves? We believed that in all cases and under any brand, but the invasion must be with the participation of the Americans.

Fidel quickly mobilized his forces and got off rather lightly, defeating the counter-revolutionaries (12). The Americans trusted too much in the conspirators, believing that with the help of their weapons these Cubans would cope with Castro, but they miscalculated. After Fidel's victory, we increased our assistance to Cuba: we gave her as much weapons as the Cubans could master. The question then was not about the quantity or quality of weapons, but about the availability of personnel who could own modern weapons.

When the invading forces had not yet been defeated, Castro issued a declaration that Cuba would follow the socialist path (13). It was not entirely clear to us. After all, this did not contribute to the consolidation at that moment of a wider range of forces against the invasion and immediately threw people who personally opposed socialism away from Castro. Then separate voices were heard that Castro made this statement because, apparently, he himself did not really believe that he would defeat the invading counter-revolutionaries, and he wanted, if he were to die, so "with music." Of course, in terms of personal bravery, his actions were correct. But from a tactical point of view, this should not have been done. And yet he won, defeated the counter-revolutionaries, took some of them prisoner.

We welcomed this victory, but we were sure that this was only the beginning, that the Americans would not calm down. The Americans trusted the Cuban emigrants, the emigrants were defeated. They will not refuse to repeat the aggression, but it will become a repetition on a new basis. They will take into account the lessons of defeat and reorganize.

Meanwhile, the Berlin Crisis broke out in Europe (14). Our relations with the US have become very tense. However, President Kennedy took steps on his part to somehow reach an agreement. True, to agree on an American basis. He believed that this basis of our relations should be, as he told me in Vienna, the status quo. We also stood on the positions of the status quo (I mean our government and the Central Committee of the Party). The point was that our understanding of this status quo varied.

For example, I thought that according to the status quo, only the inviolability of borders applies to the military intervention of one state in the affairs of another. And President Kennedy extended the status quo to the internal order in each state. I told him that this was simply unthinkable: “Do you want us to come to an agreement and ensure the rule of the exploiters everywhere? The political structure is an internal matter. You yourself, the United States, liberated yourself from colonial dependence by war and fought stubbornly with England. And now you want us to take the side of the reaction just in such cases, in which you waged a war against England for your liberation?

There have already been historical examples of the failure of this approach. Originated sometime in Europe Holy Union(15), but he could not prevent anything and then fell apart. We were most concerned then with Berlin, and also with Cuba. These were the main points where we felt the possibility of a collision. There may have been a direct confrontation in Berlin. It must be said that the Americans there, in fulfilling their contractual obligations, behaved quite loyally. But they demanded that we do not violate them. This was due to the fact that they were more vulnerable there than we were, because they had to keep in touch with West Berlin (16) through the territory occupied by Soviet troops, on which a new German state was formed - the GDR, which launched construction on socialist principles.

We did everything in our power to prevent war, but also to simultaneously free West Berlin from the military influence of the Western countries, so that their garrisons would not be there. Our goal is to make Berlin a free city. We spoke about this in our speeches, both openly and through diplomatic means, and proposed appropriate negotiations. But the West rejected our proposals. Therefore, we did everything in our power then to force him to do so.

We especially fought (and this struggle still continues) against the claims of West Germany to West Berlin, its inclusion in the FRG. This is contrary to the Potsdam Agreement and the entire understanding of the post-war situation, and we did everything to prevent this. That is, in this conflict, if it would have arisen, we were more "instigators". They became "instigators" because they wanted to eliminate the tumor that existed there, and still exists, and threatens to grow and escalate into a military clash. The West opposed us and did not agree with us.

Here is one sharp point. The second point is Cuba. When Cuban counter-revolutionaries organized an attack on Cuba and landed troops there, it was clear to a sane person that this was done with the blessing of the United States. It couldn't be otherwise. The landing was possible only with the support of US military means. We expected that the US would also provide direct military support there, but this did not happen. However, an action was nevertheless taken that could cost the loss of the gains of the Cuban people, the loss of the possibility of building socialism in Cuba.

Although the counter-revolutionaries were defeated in the landing of their troops in Cuba, one had to remain a completely unrealistic person to believe that it was all over. It was only the beginning, albeit an unfortunate start. But a bad start leads to a desire to take revenge. Correspondingly, the press has already begun to process and prepare public opinion in the spirit that a new action must be expected on the part of the counter-revolution. But now there will be no such invasion, which was undertaken and which Fidel Castro easily defeated. The lesson that the United States has learned will be taken into account. Therefore, if a new action follows, then it will be organized by large forces and with better preparation. Even if the United States does not directly participate, and counter-revolutionaries again climb in, then organized, well-armed and large numbers of US troops, but in the form of Cubans, will go there with them. Until they figure out that it is not the Cuban counter-revolutionaries who are acting, but the US armed forces, the job will have already been done. Various options are possible.

It was possible to use the counter-revolutionaries again, but with a different organization, with a different balance of forces, or even direct US intervention. Moreover, Cuba is 11,000 kilometers from us, while the United States is several dozen miles from Cuba. And if we take into account the powerful American base in Cuba, then we can say that the United States is already in Cuba. They could organize an invasion from there as well. It will always be possible to announce: here, the Cubans attacked a military base, violated the treaty, and we must defend ourselves, and now, in self-defense, they punished those who attacked us. They will not reconcile themselves, they will definitely find an opportunity and justification for new aggression. The one who is strong is always right. Go later, figure out who is right and who is to blame, when there will be no more Cuba, Fidel will be gone, and some new Batista will sit down in Havana, who will start talking to the whole world on behalf of the Cuban people. It will be clear to every more or less experienced person that this is a lie and slander. But the deed is done, and there is no one to judge. And the main thing is that there is no one to judge while imperialism as a whole is still preserved. In fact, there will be no one to judge, because the United Nations judges. Where is the UN court? We already knew many examples of how the United States is judged in the UN and what the result of such a court is. What remains is the moral judgment. But when the issue is decided by weapons, morality is discarded.

Something had to be done to secure Cuba. But how? Some military forces on our side? Or any statements that we can make in the form of a note or TASS warnings? All this will not have much effect on the American aggressors, will not even make an impression on them if they do not see behind these warnings real power and some real shares. Such actions sometimes even bring harm. This is well said in an old story: the shepherds warned for prevention - there is a wolf, wolf, wolf, but there was no wolf, but when the wolf really attacked, they screamed again - wolf, wolf! However, no one paid attention, and the wolf did its job (17).

This is now the "classic" Chinese way of doing things. After a thousand stern warnings (18) that they made to the Americans, as they say, the American Vaska listens and eats. This method was dangerous before and remains dangerous now. We foresaw such a danger and believed that in a similar way should only be used in moderation. If you are warning, then think about what you can really do if the warnings do not take effect. If you warn in vain, then you will teach the enemy that you are a talker, making empty statements that do not follow any real actions, so you should not pay attention to them. So something real had to be done. I must confess that I was very interested in this problem.

The loss of revolutionary Cuba, which was the first Latin American countries robbed by the United States, embarked on a revolutionary path, will lower the will of the peoples of other countries to revolutionary struggle. On the contrary, the preservation of revolutionary Cuba, which is following the path of building socialism, in the event successful development it in this direction and raising the standard of living of the Cuban people to such an extent that it becomes, as it were, a searchlight, a welcome beacon for all the destitute and robbed peoples of Latin American countries, would be in the interests of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine. This corresponded to the desire of the peoples of the USSR to liberate the world from capitalist slavery in order to restructure social life on Marxist-Leninist, socialist, communist principles. But how to do this, bearing in mind the territorial location of our country, the remoteness of Cuba from us, the proximity of Cuba to the United States and, moreover, the presence on the territory of Cuba military base USA? A difficult situation has arisen. The United States has always considered Cuba as its own state, only not legally registered as such. The Cuban dictator Batista was a figurehead and carried out the will of the United States: he himself robbed his people and allowed the US imperialists to rob them. The United States was convinced of the inviolability of its power in Cuba. They believed that governments could change there, but the real power, the power of the American monopolies, would always remain.

Once, in a friendly conversation, I said to Fidel: "You won because it was the first such case among Latin American countries." Usually they have one dictator giving way to another dictator who comes to power by any available means, including military ones. At the same time, the United States remains neutral and takes a position of non-intervention. Everyone knows what this non-intervention is based on. One name has already been used by the US imperialists, they have already plundered Cuba and given Batista the opportunity to plunder and amass capital. Then the dictator leaves because he has outlived his usefulness and is no longer tolerant. He is kicked out by another who rises in revolt and comes to power, while the United States does not suffer. There was Batista before, let there be another in Cuba now, for example, Castro. The main thing is that the US position should be preserved in Cuba. They thought so.

If they assumed that with the expulsion of Batista, with the defeat of his troops by Fidel Castro, they would lose Cuba, lose their capital and Cuba would move to the position of socialist construction, then very little money would be needed from the United States to help Batista and prevent his defeat. They had this opportunity. Firstly, Batista himself had better troops and weapons than Fidel. He had tanks, aircraft, and artillery. Why didn't people support him? The US could find enough mercenaries to send to Cuba in the form of Cuban tankers, airmen, and even simple infantry to support Batista and prevent his overthrow. And the US would do it. But they thought that here there was simply a change of names, and the socio-political situation established in Cuba was unshakable, as in other Latin American countries in which American capital dominates and where governments directly or indirectly serve the United States and cover up the robbery of their countries by American monopolies. .

When I said this to Fidel Castro, he protested: "No! No! No! We would have beaten them." I said: "Let's not discuss this matter, let's each have our own opinion." Indeed, examples are not far to go: the Panama crisis, the intervention in the Dominican Republic, etc. (19) There, too, very favorable conditions developed for the progressive forces. But the Americans unceremoniously landed their troops when the local rulers could no longer cope, and even found some legal justification for themselves. I'm not talking about Brazil anymore. You can also mention Venezuela and Guatemala. There are many such examples. Therefore, it was to be expected that the aggressive forces of the United States would draw a conclusion from the lesson they had learned. And they were dealt, if not a military, then a moral blow, slapped in the face by Fidel, defeating the counter-revolutionary forces that were landed in Cuba. There was also US military damage, because everyone guessed that the US was arming these forces.

I was convinced that a new landing was inevitable, that it was only a matter of time, and that the Americans would repeat it in the very near future. Why would they waste so much time? We must act on the sly, while the excitement of public opinion, fueled by the invasion of counter-revolutionaries, has not subsided yet.

In 1962, I led a delegation from the Soviet Union that traveled to Bulgaria at the invitation of the Bulgarian Central Committee of the Communist Party and the government. There were good, friendly conversations, meetings with the people. What other meetings could there be in Bulgaria? I don't know what could be warmer, more sincere than these meetings. We have a long history with Bulgaria. It dates back to the time when the Turks occupied Bulgaria. Our friendship is well described, in particular, by Turgenev. Remember his hero Insarov (20)? A Bulgarian who lived and studied in Russia and then left to fight for the freedom of his homeland? Very well written. Everyone who follows social life Eastern Europe and our relations with the Bulgarians, he sees and feels all this. And those of us who have visited Bulgaria and met the Bulgarian people, especially in the villages, know this well personally. With the leaders of Bulgaria, Zhivkov (21) and other members of the Politburo and the government, the conversations were frank, direct, without any ulterior motives. Everyone immediately determined their position, and this one is ours. mutual exchange opinions resulted in a common understanding of the matter. I think that the same state of affairs exists now.

I traveled around Bulgaria, and my brain was relentlessly drilled by the thought: "What will happen to Cuba? We will lose Cuba!" This would be a big blow to the Marxist-Leninist doctrine, and it would throw us away from the Latin American countries and lower our prestige. And how will they look at us later? Soviet Union- such a powerful power, but could not do anything except empty statements, except for protests and bringing the issue to the UN for discussion, as it happens. All such protests, which are used in such cases, are almost ignored by the USA and other imperialist countries. There is, of course, a duel through the press, through the radio, and then it ends, everything is erased by time and remains as the aggressor did. This was completely clear to me.

I had to come up with something. What? It is very difficult to find this something that could be opposed to the United States. Naturally, this decision immediately suggested itself: the United States surrounded the Soviet Union with its bases, placed missiles around us. We knew that US missile troops were stationed in Turkey and Italy, but about West Germany and there is nothing to say! We assumed that they might exist in other countries as well. They have surrounded us with air bases, and their planes are within range of our vital industrial and government centers. And these planes are armed with atomic bombs. Is it possible to oppose them the same? However, all this is not so simple!

As Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Party, I had to resolve the issue in such a way as not to creep into the war. No special mind is required to start a war. It takes more mind to finish her. Fools easily start a war, and then the smart ones do not know what to do. There was another difficulty. It is very easy to succumb to the cries from the United States and go into a verbal duel, which is of little value in matters of class struggle.

And when Dulles announced his policy of chipping off, that is, the gradual separation of country after country from the socialist camp or countries that are on friendly terms with us, he aimed to subordinate them to his influence. But since the capitalist ideology is no longer particularly attractive to most peoples, here Dulles counted most of all on force, on military force. And I thought: what if, having agreed with the government of Cuba, we also put our missiles with atomic charges there, but secretly, so that this is kept secret from the United States? It will be necessary to talk with Fidel Castro, discuss our tactics and the goals that we are pursuing. When everything is discussed, you can begin such an operation. I came to the conclusion that if we do everything secretly, and if the Americans find out about this when the missiles are already in place, ready for battle, then before deciding to eliminate them by military means, they will have to think.

These funds can be destroyed by the US, but not all. A quarter, even a tenth, of what would be delivered is enough to throw one or two nuclear missiles at New York, and there will be little left. The atomic bomb dropped by the United States on Hiroshima had a capacity of 20,000 tons of explosives. And no one has yet tested our million-ton bomb. But according to our tests, it was known that the destruction is colossal. I'm not saying that everyone would die there. No, not everyone would have died, but it is difficult to say how many would not have died. In a word, scientists and the military, who are related to atomic weapons, are well aware of all this. It was thought that this could keep the United States from military action. If this were the case, then it would be nice: to some extent, there would be a “balance of fear”, as the West formulated it.

When I returned to the Soviet Union, I continued to think about this issue. Then we called a meeting, and I said at it that I would like to present my views on the question of Cuba, and said what I thought about. He said that otherwise Cuba would be defeated, that it was impossible to hope that the second time the invasion would be organized just as badly. Fidel Castro will no longer be able to achieve victory, because the experience of defeating the landing by Fidel will be taken into account, and therefore more weapons and people will be immediately thrown there, and not at one point. The island of Cuba stretches for much more than a thousand kilometers, and in some places it has only about 50 kilometers in diameter. Therefore, Cuba is very vulnerable to amphibious assault. The United States, which has a huge air and sea fleet, can easily organize an amphibious landing at any point and thus force the dispersal of Cuba's defensive forces, making them virtually ineffective. And in general, for the US Army, it will not be very difficult to defeat the Cuban army.

Comrades listened to me. And as soon as I finished my point of view, I said: “Let’s not decide this now. I just expressed my thoughts to you. a week we will meet again and once again discuss everything. We must weigh everything very well. I consider it my duty to warn that this action will entail many unknown and unforeseen things. We, of course, want to do everything to secure Cuba and so that Cuba is not crushed "But we can get involved in a war. This, too, must be kept in mind. If, for example, Cuba is liquidated as a socialist country, and the Soviet Union remains, then after some time the people of Cuba will again build up their forces and it will again be free, will become socialist. Of course, if Cuba is defeated now, such a historical opportunity will be postponed for a long time, not only for Cuba, but also for other Latin American countries. But even worse if the Soviet Union The Union will be defeated, destroyed, and will again have to be rebuilt. This will cause much more damage to the international communist movement than the loss of one Cuba.

We need to do this in order to save our country, to prevent war, but also to prevent Cuba from being defeated by US troops. It is necessary to ensure that the situation that exists now is preserved and to promote its further development towards the strengthening and development of socialist construction in Cuba. Cuba must be made a torch, a magnet for all the dispossessed peoples of the Latin American countries who are fighting against their exploitation by American monopolies. The warming fire of socialism from Cuba will accelerate the struggle of these countries for independence."

A week has passed. And I asked this question again. I ask: "Well, what did you think, comrades?" - "Yes, we thought." "So how?" Comrade Kuusinen (22) was the first to take the floor. He said: "Comrade Khrushchev, I think so. If you are now making such a proposal and think that such a decision must be made, then I believe you and I vote with you. Let's get down to business." On the one hand, I was flattered to hear this, and on the other hand, it was too hard. His answer put all the responsibility on me, but I respected Kuusinen very much, I knew his honesty and sincerity, and therefore I took his words in a good way. Comrade Mikoyan spoke with reservations. In such matters, without reservations, of course, it is impossible. But his reservations were that we were taking a dangerous step. However, this is exactly what I said. I even said that this step, to put it crudely, is on the verge of an adventure. The adventurism lies in the fact that, wishing to save Cuba, we ourselves can get involved in the most difficult, unprecedented nuclear missile war. This must be avoided by all means, and the conscious call for such a war is really adventurism.

I was against the war. But if we live only under the pressure of fear and in the sense that any of our actions in defense of ourselves or in defense of our friends will provoke a nuclear missile war, this, consequently, means paralyzing ourselves with fear. In this case, the war will arise for sure. The enemy will immediately feel that you are afraid if he comes with a war. Or, without a war, you will gradually give up your positions and enable the enemy to achieve his goals. Or else, by your fear and compliance, you will so excite the enemy that he will lose all caution and will no longer feel the line beyond which war will become inevitable.

This was a problem before and is now. We must not wish for war and do everything to prevent war - but not be afraid of war. If an unfavorable situation is created, then you must retreat. However, if the retreat is the beginning of the end of your resistance, then it is better to risk it. On the world and death is red! Try to crush your enemy, and if the war is forced on them, do everything to survive in such a war and achieve victory. Here, in fact, how we all understood the situation. I have been thinking about this a lot now. For many years now I have been in the position of a non-working pensioner: I have no special cases, in the present and in the future I will not have any special questions, so I live by analyzing the path I have traveled. And the path I have traveled is good, and I am not only not ashamed of it, but I am proud of it.

The Cuban missile crisis is an adornment of our foreign policy, including mine as a member of the collective that pursued this policy and achieved brilliant success for Cuba without firing a single shot.

How did the crisis develop further when we decided that it would be expedient to place missiles with atomic charges on the territory of Cuba and thus put the United States in front of the fact that if they decide to invade Cuba, then Cuba will be able to inflict a devastating counter attack? It would, of course, not defeat the United States. But they would have suffered great destruction. From this we concluded that this prospect would deter those in power in the United States from invading Cuba. We all came to this conclusion after discussing my proposal twice or three times. I suggested that this decision should not be forced, so that it would crystallize in the minds of everyone, and everyone, understanding its consequences, would know that it could lead us to war with the United States. The decision was taken unanimously.

The development of the operation was entrusted to Comrade Malinovsky, a narrow circle of people was admitted to this case. We calculated our resources and came to the conclusion that we could send missiles with a charge of a million power each. The flight range of these missiles was, in my opinion, most of them had two thousand kilometers, and 4 or 5 missiles could fly four thousand kilometers. Starting positions were chosen; tried on from what point which objects can be hit. That is, a study was carried out on the use of missiles in order to inflict maximum damage on the enemy. It turned out a formidable weapon, very formidable! But this was not enough.

We believed that if missiles were to be installed, then they should be guarded and protected. This requires infantry. Therefore, they decided to send infantry there as well, something like several thousand people. In addition, anti-aircraft weapons were needed. Then they decided that tanks and artillery were also needed to protect the missiles in the event of an enemy landing. We decided to send surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles there, good missiles for that time. We had anti-aircraft missiles of various calibers and designs. The first ones are already outdated, and we decided to send the latest models that were put into production and entered service. Soviet army.

Naturally, with these weapons we sent both our command staff and service personnel there. We could not involve the Cubans in this case because they were not yet prepared to operate missiles. It would take a long time for them to prepare. In addition, at first we wanted to maintain absolute secrecy and believed that what more people attracted by more opportunity information leaks. As a result, several tens of thousands of our troops were recruited. To manage them, it was necessary to create a headquarters. Malinovsky, as Minister of Defense, proposed to appoint General of the Army Pliev (23), an Ossetian by nationality, as the head. They called General Pliev, and I talked to him. He was a man already in years, sick, but knowing his business. He went through the Patriotic War, yes, in my opinion, he took part in the civil war. I more or less knew him from World War II as a commander of a cavalry corps. Smart man. Pliev said that if approved, he would consider it an honor to go to Cuba and carry out the task assigned to him.

When they accurately calculated what needed to be transferred to Cuba, the task was given to think how many ships would be needed in order to transport all this equipment in the shortest possible time. This was entrusted to employees of the army and navy rear in the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of the Navy. They had to ensure the execution of the operation. Then we decided to send our military delegation to Cuba. Its main task is to inform Fidel about our proposals and secure his consent. With his consent, our people were to inspect the area, select points for the location of missiles and study the locations of the rest of the troops. In a word, the car started spinning.

Our main concern was that our operation should not be exposed prematurely from the air. Americans continuously flew over Cuba. And Cuba can be explored not only by direct flights, but also by flying parallel to the coast over neutral waters, taking pictures of almost the entire territory of the island. After all, Cuba is long and narrow, so you can fly and photograph it like that. The Americans pursued a brazen policy, unceremoniously invading the territory of neighbors, and not only neighbors. They flew where they considered it beneficial to US defense, ignoring the sovereignty of neighboring countries. We were interested in how much secrecy can be maintained in such conditions? We developed a plan: what needs to be done to prevent premature detection from the air of our plans.

Marshal of the Soviet Union Biryuzov (24) was sent there for negotiations. I met him at Stalingrad, when, after the encirclement of Paulus' troops, the 2nd Guards Army arrived to reinforce us in order to organize proper resistance if Hitler sent troops to rescue Paulus. We deployed this army in the south at that time, and we did the right thing. Hitler just from the southwest and moved there a group of troops under the command of Manstein. Our main force on that sector of the front was just the 2nd Guards Army. She took the main blow of the enemy and dealt a crushing counterattack to Manstein. Hitler was forced to return Manstein back, thus Paulus was doomed to death. It was there that I met Biryuzov, who was the chief of staff of the 2nd Guards Army. Then he became chief of staff of the Southern Front, when I was a member of the Military Council there, and Malinovsky was commander of the troops. In a word, I knew Biryuzov and highly appreciated him.

When we agreed on the need to install missiles with nuclear heads on the island of Cuba and secured the consent of Fidel Castro, we sent, as I already said, military personnel there to continue negotiations with Fidel and to study the possibilities of deploying missile weapons on the ground. We wanted to place the missiles covertly so that the United States, through its agents and air reconnaissance, could not detect them. This was a very important circumstance. That is, we wanted to concentrate missiles in Cuba secretly from the United States. It was necessary that the United States could not preempt us and land their troops under american flag or the flag of the Cuban counter-revolutionaries. The form did not matter, we were interested in the essence: in order for Cuba to remain with its revolutionary gains and to become the flagship of the socialist countries on the American continent, it would lead its development under the Marxist-Leninist banner. Here is our wish.

So, we sent Biryuzov there with the appropriate staff of missile troops so that they could assess how best to position the missiles. They came from there and reported to us that, in their opinion, the deployment of missiles could be hidden. Here the low qualities of these scouts showed up: they naively believed that palm trees would mask the installation of missiles. The fact is that we had in mind the installation of missiles only in the ground version. In order to make mines for them and better camouflage, and most importantly, to increase their combat stability so that a bomb explosion near the delivered missile would not destroy it, we, of course, had no such thoughts. This took a lot of time, but we didn't have time. Therefore, we decided to carry out the work in two stages. First, put the rockets in the ground version. This is - simple thing because all the equipment has already been manufactured. All that was needed was to transport the missiles and launchers, and they could be delivered there in just a few days. Even the rocket teams themselves could do it.

And so the envoys brought such encouraging impressions that at the same time we decided to implement the plan. A lot of work was entrusted to the Minister of the Navy. He brilliantly coped with this task. It was necessary to mobilize the fleet, and only our own, the Soviet fleet. We had obligations, both internal and contractual, under trade agreements for the carriage of goods. In addition, it was necessary to allocate a fleet that would ensure the timely transportation of missiles. We set deadlines (now I don’t remember which ones), those were the shortest possible deadlines. It was also necessary to negotiate with foreign shipowners in order to partially charter their ships for the transportation of our usual cargoes. All in all, a difficult job, and the job was brilliantly done. We all deservedly praised the Minister of the Navy for her (25).

Our cargoes flowed to Cuba. The ships sailed without naval escort. Everything was placed on the same ships. When the missiles were being loaded, a crew in civilian clothes was also loaded, no one in military uniform was sent there by us. Even earlier, we sent troops to Cuba to guard the missiles when they were delivered. These troops met the cargoes and unloaded them in special ports, which did not allow any prying eyes. There should have been only eyes Soviet people. We agreed on this with Castro in advance, because we were afraid that there were many unreliable people among the Cubans. In ordinary ports, where a lot of people accumulate, American intelligence officers, of course, watch the incoming cargo. Therefore, the very first ship would have been spotted and it would have been deciphered what cargoes arrived. We did not want this, and everything was done by our people. The installation of missiles on the spot was also carried out by our people. The guards in the areas where the rockets were installed also consisted of our people. In a word, they wanted to protect themselves as much as possible from information leakage so that it would not become the property of American intelligence.

In my opinion, at the first stage we coped with the task set. The US did not know that we were importing missiles to Cuba (26). Then it became difficult to hide it. Ship after ship regularly pulled in single file, and these ships did not enter ordinary ports, they unloaded secretly. Naturally, intelligence had to immediately detect abnormal phenomena with the transportation and unloading of goods. If such secrecy is observed, therefore, there are some especially secret, military cargoes. The Americans began to work hard to find out what kind of cargo it was. When the rockets were in place, it was no longer difficult to find out what kind of cargo was there. When we received the aerial photographs, which were published by the American press, it was clearly seen that there were ground-to-ground missiles, that is, to strike the United States from Cuba. The Americans correctly deciphered them. The notorious palm trees did not cover anything, and our "scouts" shamefully disgraced themselves.

In addition, quite a few troops arrived in Cuba. Although these troops did not appear in settlements, but still there are people, and in a populated area. Cuba is not a desert, not a jungle, but an inhabited island. Apparently, the presence of our troops was no secret to the people of Cuba, and this also unmasked our work. But most importantly, the flow of ships. In addition to rockets, we sent there a fairly significant number of tanks, ground-to-air missiles, and Il-28 aircraft to reinforce rocket technology. They were old bombers. We have long removed them from production and gradually removed them from service. They were considered unsuitable for us. But we believed that in the conditions of Cuba, in conditions of simple defense, they would be able to play their role. They can be used for the Coast Guard. These planes had a fairly high speed, something like 900 kilometers per hour, and carried a decent bomb load. In a word, in general they were good planes. But we sent a few of them there, only a few pieces.

We also sent there boats armed with missiles, also powerful weapons. Then Coast Guard missiles. In fact, coastal artillery, but stronger, more aimed, hitting a target with one shot: surface-to-ship missiles. Our teams also arrived with them. Naturally, a large number of our people have accumulated in Cuba. It was very difficult to transport atomic charges. They did not go along with rockets, because atomic charges, as atomic scientists told us, need special transportation conditions. We sent them at the last stage of the operation. Our plot was already discovered, and we were afraid that the US Navy would be insolent, would it not be able to stop our ships and expose us? We even thought of escorting ships carrying atomic charges with submarines, but in the end we decided against it: we considered that the ships would fly under our flag, and this flag guarantees their inviolability. Indeed, the Americans observed such immunity all the time. But on that day, when the atmosphere was extremely tense, I expected every hour that they would take over the ships. Not captured. Sometimes they say that first it was necessary to install anti-aircraft missiles, close air space Cuba and then import ballistic missiles. It is pointless. How many ground-to-air missiles are needed to cover a thousand-kilometer sausage-shaped island? There is not enough strength for this. Then you fire it out, and everything is open again. "Earth - air" - missiles that are good for air defense, but they have a very small range. You can approach from the sea and shoot at these batteries (not to mention - from the air). It did nothing.

When the Americans figured out our plan and found out that we were installing rocket technology in Cuba, an incredible noise arose in the press. The republican press immediately raised a fuss, the figures of the republican party spoke, then the democrats joined them. They began to demand decisive action from their government in order to prevent the installation of nuclear missile weapons in Cuba, so that the Russians would not threaten the United States from Cuba.

Other arguments were also put forward. I will not repeat them now, because for this I would have to return to the press of that time, but I do not have such an opportunity. The intensity of the discussion was very high. We were intimidated that the US would not tolerate this and would be forced to intervene, use weapons and use its military superiority compared to Cuba.

We must bear in mind that we were very vulnerable militarily in Cuba, especially at that time. Our fleet then was not the same as it is now. At that time, we had almost no submarines with nuclear engines, and indeed 11,000 kilometers away is a distance that must be reckoned with. In addition, the approach of our submarines to the island of Cuba, as we were informed, is difficult. There are many islands, underwater shoals, reefs where it is difficult for submarines to pass. They had to sail in a rather narrow space, so that the Americans could, having a strong surface and submarine fleet, organize control well. It is not an easy matter to wage a military battle against the US off the coast of Cuba. Yes, we, in fact, never set this goal, because such a goal was simply alien to us. After all, the purpose of installing nuclear missiles, as I said, was not to attack the United States, but solely for the defense of Cuba. We wanted the US not to attack Cuba, that's all.

But US politicians, of course, could admit that we also have extremely aggressive goals directly against the US. And most importantly, it was profitable for them to oust us from Cuba. What they did long ago with respect to the Soviet Union, surrounding us with their military bases, arming them with rocket technology and building airfields, they did not take this into account. The American imperialists believed that everything was in the order of things here, that it was their right to defend themselves against the Soviet Union at a distance of thousands of kilometers from it. But here - Cuba, literally under their noses. And they seemed to deprive her of the right to have protection. Here is their moral.

Any morality is only then taken into account by the imperialist bourgeoisie, the imperialist camp, and only then do they adhere to morality, if morality is reinforced by force, by the ability to resist. If there is no such force, then morality is not taken into account. The Americans did not rely on morality and did not look for analogies to justify their actions. They did it and continue to do it now, but they themselves have never experienced anything like this in their history, they were terribly excited and frightened.

Therefore, they used every means to eliminate our missiles and eliminate the threat that these missiles posed. And quite a serious threat.

The Americans warned us informally through the channels we then had with President Kennedy and his trusted men that they knew we were planting missiles in Cuba. Naturally, we denied everything. It may be said that this is treachery. Unfortunately, in our time this form of diplomacy is preserved, and we did not invent anything new here, but only used the same means that the enemy uses against us. They did not warn us that they were installing their missiles in Turkey, that they had installed missiles in Italy and other NATO member countries. They denied that they were conducting reconnaissance work against us and sending their planes into our territory.

When we even shot down one of them, even under these conditions they at first denied that their planes were flying over our territory. And only when we presented physical evidence - pilot Powers (27) - and pinned them to the wall, they had nothing to say, and they were forced to confess. In their confession, they also did incredible stupid things, complicated their own policy. It did not fit in the minds of sane people, although of a bourgeois persuasion, how it is in peacetime, when there are normal diplomatic relations, that one country explicitly declared its right to conduct open reconnaissance of the territory of another country, because this serves its interests. It was with such a stupid statement that US President Eisenhower made when we announced that we had captured the pilot of the downed American plane.

A big duel unfolded through the press. The US press and ours published all sorts of statements and so on! This crisis just coincided with the meeting of the UN General Assembly. Comrade Gromyko, who was in the United States, was invited by US Secretary of State Rusk, and they had a corresponding conversation. There was nothing unusual about that. Whenever Gromyko attended meetings of the General Assembly, he met for discussions with Rusk or, earlier, with his predecessors. Gromyko later reported to me: “The conversation was kind, but Rask asked: “Our military men are giving us data proving that you are planting missiles in Cuba. Please note that we cannot bear it. Such internal position, by which our president will not be able to pass. There is a dangerous situation here, and therefore we would like you to leave Cuba."

It was not a vicious warning, but to some extent a request not to create such an acute situation. Then there was lunch. We drank a lot at dinner. Dean Rusk continued to spin around this topic during lunch. He allowed such expressions that they, they say, will go to any lengths and stop at nothing; that they simply have no other choice, and they ask us to take everything into account, assess the situation accordingly and take measures on our part to prevent a fatal clash that could take place if it turns out that missiles are indeed installed in Cuba, as they are convinced. Well, there was a usual skirmish here, when both interlocutors know what they are talking about, but everyone defends his point of view, looking for a moral and legal justification for his actions.

We had more legal and moral grounds than Rusk, there was no doubt about it. Indeed, at that time, American missiles with nuclear charges had long been standing in both Turkey and Italy. Rusk understood this, but he saw the difference in something else, although he did not directly speak about it. He hinted: "You are already accustomed to living surrounded by our missiles, and we just met with this and therefore received such a shock. And so far we cannot get out of it." Gromyko, of course, denied everything. That's why he's a diplomat.

Gromyko reported all this to us. But we continued to complete the transportation and installation of weapons, continued to do our job. Here the Americans began to demonstrate force. They concentrated troops near the borders of Cuba, openly mobilized reserves, and quite substantial reserves at that. They began to concentrate aviation off the coast of Cuba, to draw in the navy there, to build up various military forces, threatening us all the time through the press. And we continued our work. They continued, based on the following: firstly, it is one thing to threaten, another thing to fight. Then, from the point of view of moral and legal rights, they could not blame us: we did nothing more than the United States did. Here - equal rights and equal opportunities.

There was great tension in the foreign press, and we responded accordingly, but not so hysterically. The hysterical tone was inherent in the American press, and it was supported by NATO allies. We informed our public quite extensively, although we took into account the fact that, of course, the prospect of a clash caused alarm among our people.

The most acute phase of the crisis lasted six to seven days. In order to somehow soften the situation, I suggested to the members Soviet leadership: "Let's go, comrades, to the Bolshoi Theater. There is a tense situation in the world now, and we will appear in the theater. Our people and foreigners will see this, and this will begin to have a calming effect. If Khrushchev and other leaders are sitting in the theater at such a time, then we can sleep peacefully." But we ourselves were very worried then. Not required big mind to start a war. We didn't want war, we didn't want to have casualties ourselves, and we didn't want to inflict losses on America. What if a war starts? Then, as they say, got into a fight, do not spare your hair. That is why I then spent one most disturbing night even in the Kremlin.

There was an uninterrupted exchange of letters with President Kennedy, and I spent the night in the premises of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, expecting that alarming news might be urgently transmitted, to which it was necessary to immediately respond. The military was also alerted. We have prepared our troops as far as possible. In my opinion, they even made some statements regarding the strengthening of our combat readiness. I must now frankly say that this was only a demonstration in the press to influence the minds of the American aggressors. In practice, we did nothing serious, because we believed that war would not break out and that we had the opportunity to influence the tension that had arisen in order to prevent war.

American planes constantly circled the island. It drove Castro crazy. Castro gave the order to open fire, and our military shot down an American U-2 reconnaissance aircraft with a missile. This was the second American spy, after Powers, to be shot down by our missile.

There was a noise. We were somewhat worried that the president might not digest this. We then gave the order to our commander to carry out only our instructions, and no one else. In case of an invasion, we ordered him to coordinate his actions to repel the invasion with the Cuban army.

At that time, our comrades were in the USA. They met different people. Yuri Zhukov told me that an acquaintance invited him to settle down in his own shelter if the war began. He said so: "I will provide you with a place in my shelter." That's what the pre-war psychosis was at that time.

During the negotiations, the Americans were frank with us in many ways, especially Robert Kennedy. They believed that a war would begin, and in Cuba our people, many of our people (they exaggerated the number of our troops in Cuba, but there were enough of them), and Russian blood would be shed. The Russians will answer this, but not in America, but in Germany. All this frightened the US government.

By this time, America had already called up people from the reserve, brought the navy into the ocean, and pulled up reserves to its shores. In a word, all military preparations were completed. Apparently, the president understood what he was doing. Of course, superiority in missiles was on the side of the United States, but he understood: superiority is superiority, and those missiles that we supplied will do their job. They can blow away New York, Washington and others industrial cities and administrative centers. Of course, they will also cause damage to the Soviet Union. There will be a war, not like the first world war or the second world war, where some Americans did not even hear a gun shot. They did not know what bomb explosions were, what artillery shell explosions were. They fought in foreign territories. And in this war, if it is unleashed, they will call fire on themselves. And what a fire! Thermonuclear bombs!

We, in fact, sought to shake America up and its leadership to feel what war is, that it stands at their doorstep, that therefore it is not necessary to cross the line, it is necessary to avoid a military clash. This is the dilemma that was posed.

We studied the document sent to us by the President and responded. Now I have no materials at hand and describe everything exclusively from memory, although in memory the essence of the matter appears in relief. I lived through it and remember everything well, because from beginning to end I was primarily responsible for this action, was its initiator and formulated all the correspondence that we had with the president. It is now a consolation for me that on the whole we did the right thing and accomplished a great revolutionary deed, we were not afraid, we did not allow ourselves to be intimidated US imperialism. So many years have already passed, and we see with our own eyes and rejoice that the revolutionary cause, headed by Fidel Castro, lives and develops. The United States, having committed itself not to invade Cuba itself and not to allow the invasion of its allies, as long as it fulfills this obligation.

I would like to go back here and say a few more words about the dramatic day when the most responsible decisions were made in the entire period of the Caribbean crisis. In the midst of events, after receiving Dobrynin's report on Robert Kennedy's visit to him, I dictated a version of the telegram to President Kennedy, in which we expressed our readiness to make concessions (in the sense of withdrawing our missiles). As soon as I dictated this telegram, it was printed, and we had to discuss it in the leadership team in order to accept the text and send it, when we received a telegram from our ambassador in which he conveyed a message to us by Castro. Fidel reported that, according to reliable information received by him, the United States would invade Cuba in a few hours.

It must be said that we also had similar information: our intelligence reported that such a landing was prepared and an invasion was inevitable if we did not agree with President Kennedy. Perhaps this information was planted to us by American intelligence. After all, they often know our scouts. Therefore, it often happens that data is thrown that one side or the other would like to bring to the attention of the opposing side. The most important thing in Fidel's message was not what he was told about, but his conclusion: he believed that since an attack was inevitable, it was necessary to preempt it, and suggested that, in order to prevent our missile technology from being put out of action, immediately launch a nuclear missile first attack on the USA.

When this was read to us, we sat in silence and looked at each other for a long time. It then became clear that Fidel had completely misunderstood our goal: he believed (and when I spoke with him later, he confirmed this) that we were not planting missiles there in the interests of Cuba, but were pursuing military goals precisely in the interests of the Soviet Union and the entire socialist camps, that is, we want to use the territory of Cuba as a base close to the United States, put missiles and strike the United States with these missiles. It is true, of course, that this is a very good springboard for a surprise missile attack. But we did not want such a strike at all, we did not want to start a war at all. Such a strike is the beginning of a war, but we only wanted to exclude the invasion of Cuba by the United States and the elimination of the new social order that was established on the island after the overthrow of Batista. That was our goal, and not the beginning of the war. If Cuba had been invaded by a heavily armed US army, and not by scattered forces of Cuban counter-revolutionaries, then Fidel would not have been able to resist.

As a result of all the correspondence that was conducted through official and unofficial channels, we came to next decision and brought it to the attention of the President of the United States. We were told that we would speak publicly and insist on the following: in order to avoid conflict, we put before President Kennedy the condition that he accept the obligation not to invade Cuba if we remove missiles and other weapons from there, with the exception of conventional ones.

The Americans did not demand that we withdraw our conventional weapons. This was impossible to demand, because we would not have done so. The President of the United States understood this. We believed that the Il-28 bombers were conventional weapons and did not want to withdraw them. But then they were forced to agree with Kennedy and they were taken out too, so as not to tease the geese. In the current situation, they did not matter much. If we talk about the combat missions that these bombers could perform, then our modern fighters, which were in Cuba, could successfully replace them. Here there was no loss in terms of combat capabilities, and we demonstrated our good will. We knew that the president had pledged to his military that he would adamantly insist on the withdrawal of the bombers and that he would achieve this. And we made concessions and agreed to withdraw the Il-28 from Cuba.

American ships also began to withdraw and cleared the waters of Cuba. But their planes continued to fly over the island, and this continued to drive Fidel crazy. When two messages were published - ours to Kennedy and his to us, which spoke of the withdrawal of missiles from Cuba and the obligation of the United States to prevent invasion there, both by its armed forces and by the forces of their allies, Castro did not understand the full depth of the matter, which was embedded in our action, did not understand the political maneuver. He even stopped receiving our ambassador. When we talked about US allies, we meant mercenaries from Latin American countries. And there are many thugs who can be easily recruited if the US gives money and weapons. Therefore, we believed that the President of the United States should personally take on such an obligation. He took it and issued a statement to that effect.

This immediately began criticism from the left that Kennedy's formulations were not accurate enough. The Chinese press immediately announced that this was treachery, cowardice, capitulation on our part. What was to be done? Bring the game to war? The Chinese rested precisely on this, but we, of course, believed that this was stupidity. It doesn't take much intelligence to bring it to war. I have already said more than once that even a fool will start a war, but it is difficult for a smart person to eliminate the war later. We didn't want her. I still believe that we did absolutely the right thing by withdrawing our missiles from Cuba. And we began to explain our position to Castro in writing. He was very nervous, torn us apart, so to speak. The "revolutionary" nature of Castro and his extremism were strongly encouraged by the Chinese. And we suffered moral damage. Instead of our stocks in Cuba going up, they went down. Castro thought that we betrayed Cuba, but the Chinese support them.

Then I offered to send Mikoyan to Cuba. Knowing Mikoyan for many years, I believed that his diplomatic qualities in this case will be very helpful. He has good nerves, is calm, can repeatedly repeat the same argument without raising his tone. This is of great importance, especially in negotiations with such an ardent person as Fidel. In addition, Mikoyan has already been to Cuba, and he is little known there. In a word, we sent Mikoyan to Fidel. A few days later, Mikoyan returned and reported that Castro was very agitated, that it was difficult to conduct any negotiations with him. Any argument does not reach his consciousness. During all the negotiations, he insisted that our action was very harmful, that it would harm the entire socialist camp. In addition, Fidel demands that the Americans leave their military base in Guantanamo (30).

Then we got the impression that, despite the clear presentation of our goal to Fidel, he apparently did not understand it.

After Mikoyan returned from Cuba, I said that we should send a letter to Fidel. And I prepared a long letter in which I frankly stated all my thoughts. There I wrote: the main meaning of the Cuban Missile Crisis is that it, in fact, blessed the existence of socialist Cuba by itself. If Cuba had not gone through such a crisis, it is unlikely that the Americans would not organize a new invasion to eliminate the socialist system. And now the US is very difficult to do. There was a great heat of passion, we exchanged obligations, and suddenly after that America invades? In this case, the Soviet Union retains the right to attack in response to the United States. (So ​​it was written there.) Therefore, Kennedy will not go for it. Now we have achieved the existence of a socialist Cuba for another two years, while Kennedy is in the White House. But we have the opinion that Kennedy will be elected to a second term. So that's four more years. Total: six years. Six years to live in our time - a considerable period. Then there will be a different balance of power. It is changing more and more in favor of socialism.

Then, during our conversations, when Castro came to the Soviet Union twice, he came in a different mood, and the atmosphere with us was exceptionally warm. It allowed us to exchange opinions frankly. That was a stage already passed, we could look back, disassemble and analyze the previous incident. When we talked with him, I saw that now Castro understands us better.

When our conversations became quite friendly, I told Fidel that at the height of the crisis I had asked USSR Minister of Defense Malinovsky: “What do you think? will have to spend to defeat the forces of Cuba?". Malinovsky, after thinking, answered: "Two days." When I told Fidel about this, he got very excited and began to argue that this was a wrong assessment and that the Soviet Union would not have allowed this. I stopped him: “That’s what you say. And I agree with Malinovsky. He correctly assessed the balance of power. Let not two days, but three or four. In any case, during this time the main centers of resistance would be suppressed, and you would leave into the mountains, then the guerrilla war would have continued.Perhaps it would have dragged on for years, but the main thing would have been done: a bourgeois, counter-revolutionary government would have been created, which would have been busy suppressing the centers of the revolution, if they had survived, and hunting for the bearers of the Marxist- Lenin's ideas. That's the situation that would arise. That's why we didn't want war, but wanted peace, so that Cuba could use peaceful conditions to deepen the revolution, develop the economy and rebuild it on socialist foundations, and lay the foundation for communist construction."

We proceeded only from these positions and deployed our missiles not to attack the United States and not to interfere in the internal affairs of the United States through Cuba. If you understand it sensibly, it's simply unrealistic. For those who understand even a little about military affairs, it is known that we could strike, and it would be very strong. But the United States, of course, would strike back, and no less strong, and perhaps even stronger. We knew very well that at that time the United States outnumbered us in the number of units nuclear weapons and bomber aircraft. They still had few missiles, especially intercontinental ones. But we also had few intercontinental missiles then. We had a sufficient number of strategic missiles with a range of 2,000 and 4,000 km*. We had so many of them that, according to our operational plan, we covered all enemy targets that would have to be struck in the first days of the war. Yes, we had such an opportunity. But I say again that we did not pursue the goal of starting a war, and Fidel simply did not understand us.

When I met him later and we talked with him on the Black Sea coast, he told me: "You know, I was angry and offended why you agreed to the president to withdraw your bombers and missiles without consulting us?" I answered: "That's not true, Comrade Castro. We consulted with you." - "How? What was this advice expressed in?" - "You sent us a telegram that in so many hours the US invasion of Cuba will begin. You suggested that we preempt the invasion by launching a nuclear missile attack on US cities. But we did not want to start a world war. You indicated the hour for the start of the invasion. So do not there was time to send you our message and get a response. We had to make a decision at once. Since you categorically stated that you had irrefutable information and that there would be an invasion, we were forced to take immediate steps that would exclude this invasion. We did them and received a response from the President of the United States.

It's hard to say how much you can trust people. But I believe that the word given by US President Kennedy can be trusted that he will keep his word and will not break it. Your and our enemies are heating up the atmosphere, pushing us against the United States. Of course, Cape USA are antagonists. The USA is a capitalist country, we are a socialist one. The fight between us will continue. This is a natural process. Each country will do everything for its part so that its ideology wins. But in this struggle we stand not on military positions, but on positions of competition, of winning the minds of people on the basis of a struggle of ideas. We must attract supporters with the prospect a better life for the working people, and not through war, extermination, military subjugation. We are against it.

We firmly adhere to Leninist positions, while the Chinese are now taking a different position, which is why they are warming us up, they want to push us against the United States.

"I, Comrade Fidel, declare to you and affirm with the only reservation with which you can vouch for a person of others political views that I believe Kennedy as a person and as president. He will keep his word that he gave us. We have at least two years left for him to spend in the White House. Of course, when another president comes to the US, he may break such a promise. But that's another question. I think that after the expiration of the first presidential term, Kennedy will again put forward his candidacy, and it will be supported by the people. The people will elect him a second time, because of all the US presidents that I have known, Kennedy is the person with the highest intelligence, the smart one, who stands out sharply from the background of his predecessors.

I never met Franklin Roosevelt in person. Maybe Roosevelt was superior to him. I believe that Kennedy will be re-elected for another four years. That is, there will be not two, but six years, six years of guaranteeing the peaceful coexistence and development of Cuba in peaceful conditions, six years of its state and economic construction on socialist principles, the growth of the economy, military and cultural, the strengthening of all other benefits. In six years, the situation will change, and it will be very difficult for the next president to replace Kennedy to do anything in this plane. The invasion will no longer go unpunished. I think that then no one will dare to go for it. At that time, a completely different balance of forces will appear in the world between the countries of socialism and capitalism.

The fact is that we brought the missiles, delivered them, then a crisis arose, negotiations began, correspondence began, and as a result, we took away the same missiles. Why did we bring rockets if we had to take them away later? What were they taking? If we brought them there, pursuing only our own goals, then the US imperialists forced us to do so, intimidated and subjugated us. For mechanical thinking, here, it would seem, is a simple scheme to draw a conclusion.

But it is necessary to look at the root of the issue, as Kozma Prutkov said (31). The root is that there was Cuba, where Batista had previously been president. That Cuba, which was, in fact, a colony of the United States, where monopoly capital reigned supreme. Havana was the city where the imperialists came to spend their leisure time and indulge in the satisfaction of their lust. Now Batista has been overthrown, new people have come to power, they have created a revolutionary government. You are rebuilding Cuba on socialist lines, and now the invasion has begun. You beat him off. But is it possible to think that the Cuban counter-revolution will be satisfied with this? That the monopolists, who were defeated and forced to leave Cuba, will come to terms with this? You took advantage of their capital and nationalized them. So, the threat persisted. Do you admit that?" - "Of course!"

"Let's talk further. We put up missiles to prevent this threat, and then they were taken out, taking the right word from the President of the United States. I already told you that I believe that he will keep his word and fulfill the obligation that he assumed as president. This obligation is not only his personal, but also the obligation of the country, the US government not to invade Cuba and prevent their allies from invading.It was only as a result of such an agreement that we removed the missiles, and I think that it turned out to be a very good decision.To save revolutionary Cuba led by Fidel Castro "We supplied the missiles, caused a military shock to the US leadership and snatched out the obligation we needed. Under this obligation, we exported these missiles and, along with them, obsolete bombers. I think that we paid a cheap price.

“The governments of the capitalist countries,” I continued, “value everything in dollars. So, if we consider the issue in dollars, then there is a profitable operation. We only incurred the cost of transporting military equipment and several thousand of our soldiers. Here is the cost of guaranteeing the independence of Cuba "We did not shed blood there, neither ours nor other peoples, we did not allow war, we did not allow destruction, poisoning of the atmosphere. I am proud of this. Time will pass, and this truth will become clear to everyone." Some again may say: "He's yapping after all." And I answer them: yes, because in this case I took responsibility, took the initiative and carried out the action with the support of my colleagues, in whose team I worked. If they were against it, of course, I could not carry it out. But I was, as it were, the engine of this business, I took on a greater share of responsibility and, perhaps, to a greater extent than others, I experience the joy of the successful completion of the operation.

I was very pleased that Castro now agreed with me. In those days when he was in the USSR and we talked with him, the head of the counter-revolutionary Cuban rabble, who, apparently, is now being fed in the USA, spoke in the USA. He openly criticized the actions of the US government, criticized Kennedy for not keeping his word to support the invasion, but instead gave Khrushchev an obligation not to support or allow another invasion of Cuba. Castro knew this speaker well and told me: “I know him personally. He is our implacable enemy, but he speaks the truth. that the fulfillment of this obligation was prevented by the Soviet Union by the timely installation of missiles. The word of the president is the same as an agreement."

By the way, another part of our dialogue was also interesting. I told him: “You wanted to start a war with the USA. Why? After all, if a war had started, we would still have survived, but Cuba would certainly not exist. - "No, I didn't offer." - "How did you not offer?" The interpreter says: "Fidel, Fidel, you personally told me about this." He again insists: "No!". Then we started checking documents. It is fortunate that Fidel did not tell us this verbally, but sent a document. The translator shows him: "How to understand this word? Is this a war? A blow?" He was confused. Yes, Fidel was very hot at the time. We realized that he did not even think through the obvious consequences of his proposal, which brought the world to the brink of death.

We then established good relationship with President Kennedy. I trusted him in the sense that he would keep his word. That's what I'm talking about now about the Caribbean crisis. I repeat, it was the right move on our part. We did the right thing by supplying the missiles, and then we did the right thing again by not going into the bottle when the crisis was ripe and our "friends" began to reproach us for being a coward when we took out the missiles. They wanted to provoke us into starting a war. Thus, they would have achieved their goal: the United States and I are mutually destroying each other and destroying the economy. But we were not afraid in our souls, we were not afraid of such accusations, but, having soberly assessed the situation, we made the right decision. And I'm proud of it. In the process of negotiations, the United States set some additional insignificant conditions: they wanted us to give the right to check to their people whether we really took out the missiles, that is, to go there and look. We could not assume such an obligation, because there is Cuban territory, and we have nothing to do with the question of who will be allowed to go to Cuba. We said that this is not our competence: we can dispose of our property, because we brought it in and we export it, but the issue of admission to the island is decided by the Cuban government. Fidel immediately and sharply declared that in no case would he let the Americans go there. Then U Thant, an intelligent man, wishing to alleviate the situation and eliminate the tension, so that its sharpness would flow through the fading one, asked that he personally be allowed to come to Cuba. However, Fidel did not allow him either.

When I met with Fidel, I said: “It’s good that you didn’t let the Americans in. You did the right thing, because they could think that you were cowardly. It’s one thing to accuse the Soviet Union of cowardice. We are a big country, and an intelligent person he will correctly understand that we have nothing to be cowardly about. And Cuba is a small country. Therefore, I think that you did the right thing. But why didn’t you use the new opportunity and allow U Thant to fly in? He would fly in, you would talk to him, and he would go you could use the United Nations to your advantage U Thant would take your position and protect you within the limits of his position as Secretary General of the United Nations You pushed him away, abandoned him into a bunch of American imperialists and U Thant. I think you made a mistake." Castro replied: "Yes, I agree, I just got excited. I was in such a state that I did not take into account the arguments that you are now telling me about."

The main thing in the events described was that we did not allow ourselves to be fooled, did not retreat further in such a nervous, hot atmosphere, and did not cross the line of what was permitted. There was patience on both sides. After all, this crisis has reached its highest boiling point. We were close to war, stood on the brink of war. Anything could happen. Whether you like it or not, once one shot, the other will answer. But we didn't let it crash. In addition to the commitment not to invade Cuba, the US President also promised that when we remove our missiles from Cuba, the US will remove their missiles from Turkey and Italy. Kennedy asked us not to tell anyone about this yet. We wanted it to be documented in some way. He replied that, due to his position, he could not give written obligations. Moreover, he said the following: "If you do not keep this statement of mine secret and it leaks to the press, then I will give a refutation. But I give you my word of honor!" And he did remove the missiles from Turkey and Italy, although he removed them not only because we agreed to remove our missiles from Cuba, but mainly because the missiles that were in Turkey and Italy were outdated.

If the Caribbean crisis had not happened, the United States would have taken away missiles from there anyway, because by that time there was no need to have such missiles in these parts of the globe.

The United States already had at that time a sufficient number of intercontinental missiles that were stationed on its own territory. There they are better guarded, have better equipped positions and are better camouflaged. Their teams are also at home. All this gives great guarantees. Secondly, nuclear submarines appeared, armed with nuclear missile weapons, that is, mobile installations. The US 6th Fleet is in the Mediterranean Sea, their submarines ply there, as well as in other seas and oceans. Why keep missiles on foreign territory when you have your own team and your own mobile launch? He is less vulnerable and is always ready to fight. Technique is developing and it has now given better solutions to what the US had before when it had missiles in Turkey and Italy.

We, too, now have such capabilities, and we have a sufficient number of intercontinental missiles. We also have a submarine fleet armed with nuclear weapons. Now I have not been in the leadership of the country for many years, but I know what was left in the USSR when I left. And I guess how high level has now reached our technology in this area. Therefore, from the point of view of the United States, they did the right thing by removing their missiles from Turkey and Italy. Nothing has changed in US strategy here. Now they threaten us from submarines armed nuclear missiles. But even now we have a nuclear-powered submarine fleet armed with nuclear missiles. Therefore, if we need to threaten some point in the United States, then we always have the opportunity to send submarines with nuclear engines and missiles with nuclear charges to that shore. In this way, we not only fully compensate for the power that the missiles exported from Cuba represented, but also surpass it many times over.

President Kennedy, in this his dignity, correctly understood the situation. After the end of the conflict, he issued a statement that the United States had more nuclear weapons than the Soviet Union. They could destroy every living thing on the territory of the Soviet Union twice, and the Soviet Union has a smaller number of nuclear weapons and can destroy all life on the territory of the United States only once. This is, I would say, courage. After hearing such a statement, every thinking American could draw the right conclusion. To American journalists who asked me if I had heard the statement, I replied:

Yes, I heard. And I think that these are reasonable words. The President calculated that we can be destroyed twice, I am grateful to him for the calculations. He admits that we can destroy everyone living in the United States once. We are modest and not bloodthirsty people, why destroy the destroyed again?

But these are, so to speak, jokes, but jokes of a certain direction. Apparently, in making such a statement, Kennedy was explaining to the Americans, especially to those lovers of atomic bombs, about whom the Ukrainians say: "Rushing around like a fool with a written sack", seeking to unleash a war and end the Soviet Union by military means. Speaking about the might of the Armed Forces of the Soviet Union, Kennedy thereby emphasized that it was too late to seek a solution to disputed issues through war. What kind of madman would want to start a war, cause fire on himself and be destroyed? I believe that in the conditions of the American psychosis, such a position of the president reflected his civic courage.

I do not know how correctly he calculated arithmetically, it is not for me to judge, but I was pleased with his realism in relation to our Armed Forces. We do not need anything else, if only our potential enemy would understand: if a war is unleashed, then we can destroy him.

In the magazine "Abroad" for 1968, I read an article in which a foreign author recalls the Caribbean crisis. This article describes the assassination of President Kennedy. The article seems to be called "Six Seconds". It directly poses the question: who killed the president? Who are these people? It points out that in the course of resolving the Caribbean crisis, the US president had to be assured that the invasion of Cuba would not be allowed either by US forces or their allies. This, as the author writes, embittered the Cuban counter-revolution, and she became a participant in the conspiracy and assassination of Kennedy. Consequently, the article gives an answer to the question of who was defeated in the dispute about whether Cuba should be revolutionary or return it to the capitalist rails on which it stood under Batista.

Then some said that the Soviet Union had been defeated. And now the results of our actions are evaluated correctly. There was no war. There was a battle for the right of the Cuban people to arrange their lives as they see fit, without outside interference. We stood on this position and we stand now. In the interests of preserving the revolutionary gains in Cuba, rockets were placed there, trying to make the counter-revolutionary forces soberly assess the situation and understand that if they allow themselves to interfere in the affairs of Cuba, then our rockets can be put into action. And when we agreed that the President of the United States would give his word if we removed the missiles and prevent an invasion, we got a good example for the future. We have peacefully resolved a crisis that could have broken out into war. I think we won in the end. The Americans also won because there was no war. The aggressive forces that would like to repeat the invasion of Cuba have lost. Consequently, the aggressors lost, and the peoples won. Similar crises may arise in the future, because now there are two opposite systems in the world: capitalist, based on private property, private capital, and socialist. These systems are antagonistic, and we have to take this into account. Now the imperialist countries have passed the times of dictatorship, when they could invade anywhere with impunity and suppress revolutionary uprisings. If this has not yet been realized by all those who should be aware, then their actions can lead to tragic consequences, and then a clash will become inevitable.

If, however, the formula of peaceful coexistence is recognized by all, then this means not interfering in the internal affairs of other states from any side and recognizing that issues of the internal political structure are decided only by the people of this country, that this is the holy of holies. If such a formula is introduced into the minds of those who determine politics in the world, it can preserve peace on Earth for a long time. Otherwise, we will always live like on a volcano, and we will feel like residents of a house in which time bombs are laid. Now our government, and I am convinced of this, stands on the same positions that we occupied when I was at the head of it: a policy of peaceful coexistence, peaceful competition, non-interference in the affairs of other countries.

For the current aggravation of the international situation, I primarily blame the capitalist countries. Apparently, this is inevitable, since there are antagonistic relations between classes and between countries with different socio-political systems, the countries of socialism and the countries of capitalism. The governments of the capitalist countries cannot in any way soberly assess the current situation, understand that new forces have arisen; that socio-political storms are raging all over the world, which cannot be fought by means of suppression. Everything outdated, obsolete is inevitably doomed to destruction. History will have its say here, and it is moving inexorably in this direction.

Many years have passed, and these are already pages of history. I am proud that we were not afraid, we showed courage and foresight in taking this step, and in doing so, we kept the American aggressors from re-invading Cuba. About nine years have passed since these events, and I am very glad that there was no new invasion.

When Kennedy was assassinated, I was worried about how our relationship would develop further? I believed Kennedy, I saw that he was not in the mood for a military clash with us. And how will the new President Johnson (32) behave? When he took up his duties in the White House, he conveyed to us through the same channels that all commitments made publicly by Kennedy and assurances given through closed channels would be honored.

True, we had less confidence in him. We considered Kennedy more flexible, while Johnson had a reputation among us as a reactionary person. But, we must give him his due, he kept the obligations given by his predecessor. I will not touch on the Vietnam War, which he got into up to his ears. It was his personal stupidity. Maybe this stupidity began under Kennedy, now it's hard for me to judge. In any case, we have achieved our goal, and Cuba is developing successfully. During my last conversation with Fidel, we discussed the economic development of the country. He told me that raising the economy is their the main objective. So that for the inhabitants of Hispanic countries new, the socialist system has become attractive, it is necessary to achieve a high standard of living. I approved of his line.

“The most important thing,” I said, “is that the benefits created by the labor of the Cubans fully satisfy their needs. This is the most attractive force, the most attractive magnet to socialism and the socialist system.” It was a pleasure for me to talk with Fidel Castro after everything burned out with us. He understood our sincerity, our intentions. I did not want better relations, they were the most sincere, the most fraternal.

This, in fact, ended my political, state activity. I no longer had the opportunity to influence our policy. I now receive only some fragmentary newspaper information. We had an agreement with Cuba: we pledged to assist in the processing of 9 million tons of sugar. I see from the newspapers that they have grown enough cane. This year was delivered new goal- 10 million. It is evident from the press that they have achieved this goal as well. Well, I just rejoice and wish success to the Cuban people. I wish success to Fidel Castro in raising the economy of Cuba.

More about John Kennedy. I wanted to show Kennedy in concrete deeds. When he was killed, he sincerely regretted it. I immediately went to the American embassy and expressed my condolences. Kennedy and I are different people. I am a former miner, mechanic, worker, by the will of the party I became prime minister, and he is a millionaire and the son of a millionaire. We are representatives of opposing, irreconcilable classes. He pursued the goals of strengthening capitalism, and I pursued the goals of destroying capitalism and creating a new social system based on the teachings created by Marx - Engels - Lenin. I consider the capitalist system obsolete, just as Marx, Engels and Lenin considered it. As a communist, I believe this doctrine. Kennedy stood in other positions. Despite the fact that we were at different poles, when it came to the issue of peace and war, we were able to find common understanding and prevent military clashes. As a partner who opposed us, I pay due tribute to him, respect his memory, and highly appreciate his work. Although in many ways, in many ways, we not only did not converge, but diverged, as, for example, in Vienna. The Vienna meeting did not produce results. But then, nevertheless, on fundamental issues - issues of peace and war - we found a common language. I dictate everything from memory, even without a synopsis, so if some photographic plate that has not yet appeared in my memory appears, I may have a desire to continue ... So such a plate appeared in my memory. We have reached another agreement with the United States of America: we have signed a treaty to end nuclear weapons tests on land, in space and under water. The Americans did not go to stop testing underground, they did not accept our proposals. This was not included in the contract, and now they and we are conducting tests underground. I believe that this agreement marked the beginning of the cessation of the arms race. And this is also the merit of President Kennedy.

We also agreed with Kennedy to establish a direct telephone connection in case some kind of exceptional situation arises and personal negotiations between the president and the head of the Soviet government are needed. You may ask, what is the joy of this? There is no joy, but this element gives confidence that at a critical moment you can talk, bypassing the diplomatic labyrinths. But, most importantly, our decision gave me reason to trust this man. He was looking for ways to establish contacts and technical means by which to avoid conflict.

They may say: "But did the tension that was fraught with war arose during the Kennedy era?" This is a smart question. I speak without irony. We must keep in mind the time we live in. We live in a transitional period, when the question is being decided on a global scale: who - whom? The dying capitalist system clings to everything that can cling to, not only defending, but also strengthening its positions. And we, on the other hand, are also going on the offensive in order to strengthen our position and achieve the economic, social and political goals we need. There are two main forces in the world now - the capitalist and the socialist. If in the first years after October revolution we were the only country, an island surrounded by the capitalist world, now the economy of the socialist countries occupies about 35% of the world. Of course, there are and will be clashes during the transitional period. There is no need to be afraid of them, but one must have a sober mind and not bring things to the point of unleashing a war. To do this, you need to have a smart partner. I believe that such a partner was the representative of the capitalist world, John F. Kennedy.

With this, I must end the story of the Cuban Missile Crisis. These were very interesting, very revealing events, because here the two largest countries sort of clashed head-on. It seemed that a military denouement was inevitable. And we have already put our combat assets to the start, and the United States has surrounded the island warships, concentrated infantry and aviation. But we have shown that if we are guided by reasonable goals and the desire to prevent war, if we resolve disputed issues by means of a compromise, then such a compromise can be found. Mind won. Therefore, the best memories of the late US President remain in my memory. He showed sobriety of mind, did not allow himself to be intimidated, did not allow himself to be intoxicated by the power of the United States, did not go for broke. It didn't take much intelligence to start a war. And he showed wisdom, statesmanship, was not afraid of condemning himself from the right and won the world. This is what I wanted to tell. I think that the correct understanding of each other's positions, from which we proceeded, was the only reasonable one in the current situation.

Notes

* Meaning R-12 and R-14 missiles

(1) The Communist Party of Cuba, founded in 1925, merged in 1940 with the Revolutionary Union to form the Revolutionary Communist Union, led by J. Marinello y Vidaurreta (1898 - 1977) as chairman and Blas Roca (F.V. Calderio, 1908 - 1987) as general secretary. From 1944, the RKS was called the People's Socialist Party of Cuba and remained under the same leadership. After R. F. Batista y Saldivar (1901 - 1973) established his 7-year dictatorship in 1952, and in 1953 the activist of the Party of the Cuban People "Orthodox" lawyer F. Castro Ruz (born in 1926 .) began an armed struggle against the Batista regime and continued it in 1956, the NSPK officially kept aloof. But many of its members, ideologically inspired by the oldest Cuban communist F. Grobart, practically participated in this struggle, and K. F. Rodriguez (born in 1913) went to Castro in the mountains (probably N. S. Khrushchev has him mean here). In February 1958, the NSPK had already officially supported Castro's armed struggle, and soon its members began to systematically participate in it. Later, after the victory of the Cuban Revolution in 1959, Marinello, Blas Roca and Rodriguez became part of the new Cuban leadership. But organizationally, it was formed gradually: in 1961, the NSPK, the Castro "July 26 Movement" and the "Revolutionary Student Directorate named after March 13" merged into the "United Revolutionary Organizations", transformed in 1962 into the United Party of the Socialist Revolution of Cuba, which in 1965 was renamed the Communist Party of Cuba. F. Castro, who had not openly called himself a communist, became the General Secretary of its Central Committee.

(3) From December 31, 1958 to January 1, 1959, C. Piedra was the two-day president of Cuba, and on January 2, he was replaced by the conservative figure M. Urrutia (until July 17, 1959), about whom N. S. speaks. Khrushchev. On February 16, 1959, F. Castro himself replaced the interim prime minister X. Miro Cardona as prime minister.

(4) Under the dictatorship of Batista, the Soviet charge d'affaires G. I. Fomin left Cuba in 1952, but diplomatic relations were not officially severed.

(5) CASTRO RUS R.(born in 1931) was elected in 1965 as the second secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba. But until 1962, when he became second secretary of the National Leadership of the United Party, he was not called a communist. He previously participated in the democratic youth movement, ideologically close to the Komsomol, and was deported to Mexico (as mentioned by N. S. Khrushchev) in 1955, when he was released under an amnesty from prison, where he was serving a 15-year sentence for participation in the armed struggle against the Batista regime.

(6) GUEVARA de la SERNA E. CHE (1928 - 1967), an Argentine revolutionary, having met F. Castro in Mexico in 1955, became a participant and one of the leaders of his armed struggle, and in 1962 entered the National leadership United Party. But he was not an official member of the CPC, because in 1965, before it re-emerged, Guevara left to lead the guerrilla movement in Bolivia.

(7) More precisely, renewed. On January 10, 1959, the USSR recognized the Revolutionary Government of Cuba. In February 1960, a Soviet-Cuban trade agreement was signed. In May 1960, they agreed to resume diplomatic contacts. On July 8, 1960, the Soviet embassy in Havana reopened, and on August 22, Ambassador S. M. Kudryavtsev presented his credentials.

(8) Under S. M. Kudryavtsev (1960 - 1962) A. I. Alekseev (born in 1913, in 1941 - 1943 an employee of the Soviet embassy in Iran, in 1944 - 1951 an employee of the embassy in France , in 1951 - 1953 a senior official of the Soviet Information Bureau, in 1954 - 1958 an employee of the USSR Embassy in Argentina, in 1958 - 1960 a senior official central office Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, in 1968 - 1974 in the same place, then Ambassador to the Malagasy Republic (since 1976 - the Democratic Republic of Madagascar, since 1980 retired) was officially an adviser to the USSR Embassy in the Republic of Cuba,

(14) In 1961, on the recommendation of a meeting of the leaders of the countries participating in the Warsaw Treaty Organization, the Berlin Wall was erected in the GDR - a system of barrier structures between East and West Berlin with a length of 162 km, of which 45 km within the city. After the autumn revolution of 1989 in the GDR, it was dismantled in 1990. And in 1961, because of it, an international political crisis arose.

(15) "Holy Alliance" of Austria, Prussia and Russia, concluded on September 26, 1815 in Paris to ensure the inviolability of the decisions of the Vienna Congress of 1814 - 1815. and the suppression of revolutionary liberation movements in Europe. In fact, it fell apart after the European revolutions of 1830 - 1831, although later attempts were officially made to preserve it.

(16) Existed in fact since the collapse of Nazi Germany in 1945, and legally in 1949-1990. a special political entity with an area of ​​480 sq. km inside the GDR, but officially outside the GDR and outside the FRG.

(17) Aesop's fable, widely known to Russian readers in the translation of L. N. Tolstoy.

(18) We are talking about "warnings", which were then replaced by "severe", "serious" and "very serious warnings" that were proclaimed by Chinese diplomacy to the United States when, in the 60s and 70s, American aircraft violated the airspace of the Chinese People's Republic.

(19) It implies: the events of 1970 in Panama, when the Panamanian leadership, led by O. Torrijos Herrera, refused to extend the agreement on the American lease of the Rio Hato base and rejected all draft agreements with the United States on the new status of the Panama Canal; the events of 1963 in the Dominican Republic, when a group of military men, supported by the United States, overthrew the democratic government of X. Bosch and abolished the constitution, and the triumvirate junta seized power, introducing a state of emergency.

(20) The hero of the novel "On the Eve" (I. S. Turgenev, 1860).

(21) ZhIVKOV T. ​​(born in 1911) was in 1954 - 1981. first secretary (in 1981 - 1989. general secretary) of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party and in 1962 - 1971. Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the People's Republic of Bulgaria.

(22) O. V. KUUSINEN (1881 - 1964) was at that time the secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU and a member of its Presidium.

(23) Army General I. A. PLIEV (1903 - 1979) was then the commander of the North Caucasian Military District.

(24) BIRYUZOV S. S. (1904 - 1964) - Marshal of the Soviet Union since 1955, at the indicated time - Commander-in-Chief of the Strategic Missile Forces.

(25) From 1954 to 1970, V. G. Bakaev was the Minister of the Navy of the USSR.

(26) In addition, operational-tactical nuclear projectiles with a range of 60 km were sent to Cuba, intended for use in the event of an American invasion.

(27) Piloted by US Air Force pilot F. G. Powers, who had already made 27 such reconnaissance flights, the American Lockheed U-2 high-altitude aircraft entered Soviet airspace at 0536 hours on May 1, 1960 from the Hindu Kush. and was shot down a few hours later over Sverdlovsk. Powers was captured.

(28) A. F. DOBRYNIN (born in 1919) - member of the CPSU (b) since 1945, Hero of Socialist Labor since 1982, in 1957 - 1960. Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations, in 1962 - 1986 Ambassador of the USSR to the USA, member of the Central Committee of the CPSU in 1971 - 1990, secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU in 1986 - 1988, adviser to the President of the USSR in 1988 - 1991.

(29) R. F. KENNEDY (1925 - 1968) was in 1961 - 1964. US Attorney General, Senator since 1965. Mortally wounded in Los Angeles after declaring his intention to fight for the presidency.

(30) A city in Cuba, in the bay from which the United States has been renting territory and water area since 1903 for a naval base.

(31) A collective pseudonym under which satirical works and aphorisms were performed in the middle of the 19th century. writers A. K. Tolstoy and the Zhemchuzhnikov brothers.

(32) JOHNSON L. (1908 - 1973) - Vice President of the United States in 1961 - 1963. and President in 1963 - 1969.

7.11.

From the Program of the CPSU

“Under communism there will be no classes, social, economic and cultural will disappear.

everyday differences between the city and the countryside; according to the level of development of productive forces and the nature of labor, the forms of production relations, living conditions, the degree

the well-being of the population of the village will rise to the level of the city. With the victory of communism

will happen organic compound mental and physical labor in the production activities of people. The intelligentsia will cease to be a special social stratum, workers of physical labor will rise in their cultural and technical level to the level of people of mental labor. Thus, communism will put an end to the division of society into classes and social strata, while the entire history of mankind, with the exception of primitive times, has been the history of class society.

The division into opposite classes leads to the exploitation of man by man,

class struggle and antagonism between nations and states. Under communism there will be

there is an ever greater all-round rapprochement of nations on the basis of complete commonality

economic, political and spiritual interests, fraternal friendship and cooperation.

Communism is a system where abilities and talents, the best moral qualities of a free person, flourish and are fully revealed. Family relations will finally be cleansed of material calculations and will be entirely based on feelings of mutual love and friendship. The CPSU, as a party of scientific communism, puts forward and solves the tasks of communist construction to the extent of preparing and maturing the material and spiritual prerequisites, guided by the fact that it is impossible

to jump over the necessary stages of development, as well as to linger on what has been achieved, to hold back progress. The solution of the tasks of building communism is carried out in successive stages. In the next decade (1961-1970), the Soviet Union, creating the material and technical basis of communism, will surpass the most powerful and richest in production per capita.

the country of capitalism - the USA; the material well-being and the cultural and technical level of the working people will rise significantly; in the main, the needs of the Soviet people in well-appointed dwellings will be satisfied; heavy will disappear physical work; The USSR will become the country of the shortest working day. As a result of the second decade (1971-1980), the material and technical base of communism will be created, providing an abundance of material and cultural benefits for the entire population; Soviet society will come close to implementing the principle of distribution according to needs, there will be a gradual transition to a single public property. Thus, a communist society will be basically built in the USSR. The building of communist society will be completed in the next period. The majestic edifice of communism is being erected by the hard work of the Soviet people - the working class, the peasantry and the intelligentsia. The more successful their work, the closer the realization great purpose– building a communist society”.

Questions and tasks for the document:

1) Indicate what characteristic features of the future communist society are noted in this document?

2) Indicate what circumstances guided the members of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU when they made a decision to publicly condemn the cult of personality and its consequences at the XX and XXII Party Congresses

ANSWER:

1) - Under communism there will be no classes, socio-economic and cultural will disappear -

everyday differences between the city and the countryside;

In terms of the level of development of productive forces and the nature of labor, the forms of production relations, living conditions, and the degree of well-being of the population, the village will rise to the level of the city.;

With the victory of communism, there will be an organic combination of mental and physical labor in the productive activity of people;

The intelligentsia will cease to be a special social stratum, workers of physical labor will rise in their cultural and technical level to the level of people of mental labor;

Communism will put an end to the division of society into classes and social strata;

2) The 20th Congress is usually considered the moment that put an end to the Stalin era and made the discussion of a number of social issues somewhat freer; it marked the weakening of ideological censorship in literature and art and the return of many previously forbidden names. However, in reality, criticism of Stalin was voiced only at a closed session of the Central Committee. Reports discussed at the meeting central authorities parties and the main parameters of the 6-year plan. The congress condemned the practice of separating "ideological work from the practice of communist construction", "ideological dogmatism and dogmatism".

The international situation, the role of socialism as a world system and its struggle against imperialism, the disintegration of the colonial system of imperialism and the formation of new developing countries were also discussed. In this regard, the Leninist principle was confirmed about the possibility of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems.

The congress decided on the diversity of forms of transition of states to socialism, pointed out that civil wars and violent upheavals are not a necessary stage on the path to a new social formation. The congress noted that "conditions can be created for peacefully carrying out fundamental political and economic transformations."

Condemnation of Stalin's personality cult

The main events that made the congress famous took place on the last day of work, February 25, at a closed morning session. On this day, N. S. Khrushchev delivered a closed report “On the cult of personality and its consequences”, which was dedicated to the condemnation of the cult of I. V. Stalin. It voiced a new point of view on the recent past of the country, listing numerous facts of the crimes of the second half of the 1930s - early 1950s, the blame for which was laid on Stalin. The report also raised the problem of the rehabilitation of party and military leaders who were repressed under Stalin.

Despite the conditional secrecy, the report was distributed to all party cells of the country, and at a number of enterprises, non-party people were also involved in its discussion; the discussion of the report was also conducted in the cells of the Komsomol.

A "softened" version of the report was published as a resolution of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union dated June 30, 1956, entitled "On Overcoming the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences", which set the framework for acceptable criticism of Stalinism. Decisions of the congress on transport.

7.12.

“For how many years I have been in the position of a non-working pensioner: special

I have no business, in the present and in the future I will not have any special questions, so I live by analyzing the path I have traveled. And the path I have traveled is good, I am not only not ashamed of it, but I am proud of it. The Cuban Missile Crisis is the crowning glory of our foreign policy, including mine as a member of such a collective that pursued this policy and achieved brilliant success for Cuba without firing a single shot. How did the crisis develop further when we decided that it would be expedient to place nuclear-capable missiles on Cuban territory and thus expose the United States to the fact that if they decide to invade Cuba, Cuba will be able to strike a devastating retaliatory strike? It would, of course, not defeat the United States. But they would have suffered great destruction. From this we concluded that this prospect would deter those in power in the United States from invading Cuba. We all came to this conclusion after discussing my proposal twice or three times.”

1) What are the events of world history known to you that occurred in the same period as the event described in the memoirs?

2) Indicate what bright events in life in the USSR occurred during the period indicated in the document?

April 16 - The research station "North Pole-11" is organized under the leadership of N. N. Bryazgin:

July 3 - France declared the independence of Algeria, as 91 percent voted in favor of this decision in a referendum (July 1). The provisional government of Algiers in exile returned to the country;

August 4 - African National Congress leader Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for 28 years. During this time, he became a symbol of the struggle of the black population of the Republic of South Africa against the racist apartheid regime. After his release, Mandela was elected president of the country;

2) Novocherkassk uprising of 1962

7.13 .

began. At about 11 o'clock in the morning I appeared at the meeting of the Council of the Republic and asked N.D.

Avksentiev, chairman of the Council, to provide me with something other than the chairman of the Provisional

of the Government immediately for an urgent message which I must make to the Council of the Republic. Having received the word, I declared that I had at my disposal indisputable evidence of the organization of an uprising against the Revolutionary Government by Lenin’s employees. I declared that all possible measures to suppress the uprising had been taken and were being taken by the Provisional Government, that it would fight the traitors to the Motherland and the revolution to the end, that it would resort without any hesitation to military force, but that for the success of the struggle, the government needed the immediate assistance of all parties and groups represented in the Council of the Republic, the help of the whole people is needed. I demanded from the Council of the Republic every measure of confidence and assistance. In order to restore the atmosphere of that time, to imagine the mood of the audience, it is enough to remember that during my speech, the members of the Council of the Republic more than once stood up, with a special enthusiasm, testified to their complete solidarity with the Provisional Government in its struggle against the enemies of the people. At the moment of this general national outburst, only some of the leaders of parties and groups closely connected with the two extreme flanks of the Russian public could not overcome all the running hatred of the government of the March Revolution: they continued to sit when the whole assembly rose as one person. These irreconcilables were sd internationalist Martov, Commander Milyukov, and two or three Kornilov Cossacks. Confident that the representatives of the nation were fully aware of the exceptional gravity and responsibility of the situation, I, without waiting for the vote of the Council, returned to the headquarters for the interrupted urgent work, confident that within 1.5 hours I would receive a message about all the decisions and business undertakings of the Council of the Republic and assistance to the government. Nothing like that happened."

Questions and tasks for the document:

1) What events in world history occurred in the same period as the event described in the memoirs?

2) Indicate what bright events in life in the USSR occurred during the period indicated in the document.

answer

1) 10/24/1917 The battle of Caporetto begins on the Italian front (until November 10). The troops of Austria-Hungary and Germany manage to break through the front line. The Italian units are creating a new line of defense along the Piave River.

10/27/1917 Yasha Kheyfets, a violinist originally from Russia, at the age of 16, performs his first concert in the USA (Carnegie Hall).

10/28/1917 Vittorio Orlando becomes prime minister of Italy.

2) None, the USSR did not yet exist.

7.14.

Excerpts from an interview with the magazine "Knowledge" Corr. USSR Academy of Sciences A. Aganbegyan in April 1965. (not published) “In the last 6 years, the pace of development of our economy has decreased by about 3 times. The pace in agriculture– about 10 times (from 8% per year to 0.8%). During this time, the growth of trade decreased by about 4 times. During the same period, the growth of real incomes of the population of the USSR, which are generally extremely low, has greatly decreased (at present, in the USSR, per capita real income averages 40-50 rubles per month). external reasons. We spend a considerable part of our funds on defense... Of the 100 million employed in the USSR, 30-40 million are employed in the defense industry. We have a constant non-equivalent exchange with other countries. We trade mainly in raw materials, because many countries, including socialist ones, do not want to buy finished products from us because of their low quality. The main reasons are internal.

1. Wrong direction of economic development of the country.

2. Non-compliance with the modern requirements of life of the system of planning, stimulation and management of the Soviet economy.

pursued a course beyond industrialization. Even in recent years, when the need for this has disappeared, this course has continued. ... Our system of planning, stimulating and managing industry took shape in the 30s. After that, only the signs changed: everything remained based on the administrative methods of leadership and planning. Excessive centralism and the absence of democracy in the economy are having a very hard effect on our economy... In fact, we do not have the role of price and value relations. The main one is centralized distribution.

Questions and tasks for the document:

1) What are internal causes the phenomenon described in the document?

2) What are the main features of the Soviet economy given period.

ANSWER

1) 1. The wrong direction of the economic development of the country.

2. Non-compliance with the modern requirements of life of the system of planning, stimulation and management of the Soviet economy

3. excessive centralism and lack of democracy in the economy.

4. there is no role of price and value relations

5. The main thing is - centralized distribution

2) - incomplete reforms;

Decline in economic growth rates;

The crisis in the agricultural sector and the aggravation of the food problem;

Backlog in the field of scientific and technological revolution;

Complete bureaucratization of power;

Diktat of the party-state apparatus.

7.15

“On the question of the expulsion from Russia of the Mensheviks, Popular Socialists, Cadets and the like, I would like to ask a few questions in view of the fact that this operation, begun before my vacation, has not been completed even now. Resolutely "extirpate" all populists? People's Socialists Peshekhonov, Myakotin, Gornfeld? Petrishcheva and others. In my opinion, send everyone away. More harmful than any Socialist-Revolutionary, for it is more dexterous. The same A.I. Potresov, Izgoev and all the employees of the Economist (Ozerov and many, many others). Mensheviks: Rozanov (doctor, cunning), Vigdorchik Migulo or something like that), Lyubov Nikolaevna Radchenko and his young daughter (heard of as the worst enemies of Bolshevism); I.A. Rozhkov (it is necessary to send him, incorrigible); S.L. Frank (author of "Methodology"). Commission supervised by Mantsev, Messinga and others. should submit lists, and several hundred such gentlemen should be sent abroad ruthlessly. Let's clean up Russia for a long time. As for Lezhnev (the former Den), think a lot about whether to deport him? Will always be the most insidious, as far as I can tell from the articles I've read. Ozerov, like all the employees of The Economist, are the most merciless enemies. All of them - get out of Russia. This must be done right away. By the end of the SR trial, no later. To arrest several hundred without announcing motives - leave, gentlemen! All the authors of the "House of Writers", St. Petersburg "Thought"; Kharkov to rummage around, we don't know him, this is "abroad" for us. It is necessary to purge quickly, not later than the end of the process of the Socialist-Revolutionaries.

Questions for the document:

2) What is the historical (cultural) consequence of the implementation of the measure referred to in the document

ANSWER

1) the expulsion of the Mensheviks, People's Socialists, Cadets from Russia;

Resolutely "extirpate" all populists (people's socialists). Arrest several hundred without announcing motives - leave, gentlemen!

2) the establishment of a one-party system in the country, the beginning of mass repressions.

7.16.

From the transcript of the first meeting of the conference of heads of government of the USSR, the USA and Great Britain “Roosevelt. ... I want to assure... the members of this conference gathered around this table... that we are all here for the same purpose, to win the war as soon as possible. ... I think ... that the three nations, united in the process of the present war, will strengthen the ties between themselves and create the preconditions for close cooperation of future generations. Churchill. This is the greatest concentration of world forces that has ever been in the history of mankind ... Stalin. ... I hope that we will take all measures to ... use the power and power that our peoples ... Roosevelt has given us. ... Turning to a more important and more interesting issue for the Soviet Union - operations through the Channel<Ла-Манш>, I want to say that we have been drawing up our plans for the past year and a half, but due to lack of tonnage, we have not been able to determine the date of this operation ... If we conduct large landing operations in the Mediterranean, then an expedition through the Channel, perhaps will have to be delayed by 2 or 3 months. Therefore, we would like to receive advice from our Soviet colleagues in this matter ... We would very much like to help the Soviet Union and pull back part of the German troops from the Soviet front.

Questions and tasks for the document:

1) Based on the text from the knowledge of history, indicate at least three main issues discussed at the conference.

2) What reasons for the delay in the planned operation across the English Channel did F. Roosevelt mention in his speech?

ANSWER

1 This is the Tehran Conference, where the following questions were decided:

Opening a second front

Division of Germany.

Creation of the UN.

2) ... If we carry out large landing operations in the Mediterranean Sea, then the expedition through the Channel may have to be postponed for 2 or 3 months.

7.17.

From a joint statement by L. Kamenev and G. Zinoviev “We ​​are deeply convinced that declaring an armed uprising now means putting at stake not only the fate of our party, but also the fate of the Russian and international revolution.<...>The chances of our party in the elections to the Constituent Assembly are excellent. The talk that [our] influence ... is starting to decline and the like, we consider absolutely unfounded. In the mouths of our political opponents, these statements are simply a political game calculated precisely to provoke [our] action ... under conditions favorable to our enemies. [Our] influence ... is growing. Entire strata of the working population are only just beginning to be captured by it. With the right tactics, we can get a third or even more seats in the Constituent Assembly.<...>Only on the Soviets can the Constituent Assembly rely in its revolutionary work. The Constituent Assembly plus the Soviets - this is the combined type of state institutions to which we are moving.<...>They say: 1) later

the majority of the people in Russia and 2) for us the majority of the international proletariat. Alas! Neither is true, and that's the whole point. In Russia, the majority of the workers and a part of the soldiers support us. But everything else is in question. We are all sure, for example, that if things now come to the elections to the Constituent Assembly, then the peasants will not vote in the majority for the Socialist-Revolutionaries. Is this an accident? The mass of soldiers support us not for the slogan of war, but for the slogan of peace.<...>If we, having taken power now alone, come (by virtue of the whole world situation) to the need to lead revolutionary war, the mass of soldiers will recede from us ... But, since the choice depends on us, we can and must now confine ourselves to a defensive position. The provisional government is often powerless to carry out its counter-revolutionary intentions. It's shattered. The forces of the soldiers and workers are sufficient to prevent such steps of Kerensky and company from being carried out.

Questions and tasks for the document:

1) Based on the text and knowledge of history, indicate at least three arguments that

cited by supporters of an armed uprising.

2) Indicate at least three arguments that are given in the statement against the idea of ​​holding an armed uprising at this historical stage.

ANSWER

1) The following arguments can be given:

1) for the Bolsheviks - most of the people;

2) the Bolsheviks have already taken control of many Soviets, including the Petrograd Soviet,

3) the Bolsheviks can rely on the help of the international proletariat;

4) the influence of the Bolsheviks will begin to decline with further delay;

5) the Bolsheviks cannot win elections for the Constituent Assembly, i.e. legally come to power;

6) the revolution and its achievements are threatened by the "counter-revolutionary" measures of the Provisional Government.

2) The following arguments can be specified:

1) the influence of the Bolsheviks does not fall, but only grows with time;

2) the Bolsheviks had good chances to get more than three votes in the Constituent Assembly and legally become the predominant political force;

7.18.

From the resolution of the XIX All-Union Party Conference

“The 19th All-Union Party Conference ... states: the strategic course for the comprehensive and revolutionary renewal of Soviet society and the acceleration of its socio-economic development, worked out by the party at the April Plenum of the Central Committee and the 27th Party Congress, is steadily being implemented. to meet the basic needs of the people. New methods of respiration are gaining strength. The law on cooperation was developed, widely discussed and adopted. New, progressive forms of intra-production labor relations based on contracts and leases, as well as individual labor activity, are entering life. There is a restructuring of the organizational structures of management aimed at creating favorable conditions for the efficient management of the primary sectors of the economy. Practical measures are being taken to increase the production of food and consumer goods, and to expand housing construction. Education and health reforms are being carried out. Spiritual life becomes a powerful factor of progress

countries. Significant work has been done to rethink the current realities of world development, to update and give dynamism to foreign policy. Thus, perestroika enters the life of Soviet society ever deeper and has an ever-increasing transformative effect on it.

Questions and tasks for the document:

1) What directions of the internal policy of the CPSU and the state are named in the resolution? Indicate any four directions

2) What are the political results of the implementation of the considered strategic course of the party .

ANSWER

1) The Nineteenth All-Union Conference of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was held in Moscow from June 28 to July 1, 1988. It opened in Moscow on June 28, 1988. MS Gorbachev delivered a speech at the opening. It talked about the advantages of perestroika, building housing by the year 2000 and humanizing socialism.

Transfer of associations and enterprises to self-sufficiency and self-sufficiency.

The law on cooperation was widely discussed and adopted.

New, progressive forms of intra-production labor relations based on contracts and leases, as well as individual labor activity, are entering life.

1) results, for example:

Failure to overcome the crisis;

The collapse of the USSR;

2) reasons such as:

Limited opportunities for reforming the command model of the economy;

Lack of public consent;

Separatism of the Union Republics.

The results can be formulated differently. Other reasons may be given

7.19.

“On October 24, it was already quite obvious that the uprising was inevitable, that it had already begun. At about 11 o'clock in the morning I appeared at the meeting of the Council of the Republic and asked N.D. Avksentiev, chairman of the Soviet, to give me, as chairman of the Provisional Government, the floor immediately for an urgent message that I must make to the Council of the Republic. Having received the floor, I declared that I had at my disposal indisputable evidence of the organization by Lenin and his collaborators of an uprising against the Revolutionary Government. I declared that all possible measures to suppress the uprising had been and were being taken by the Provisional Government, that it would fight to the end against traitors to the Motherland and the revolution, that it would resort without any hesitation to

military force, but that for the success of the struggle, the government needs immediate

the cooperation of all parties and groups represented in the Council of the Republic, the help of the whole people is needed. I demanded from the Council of the Republic every measure of confidence and assistance. In order to restore the atmosphere of that time, to imagine the mood of those gathered, it is enough to recall that during my speech, the members of the Council of the Republic more than once stood up, with special enthusiasm, testified to their complete solidarity with the Provisional Government in its struggle against the enemies of the people. At the moment of this general national outburst, only some of the leaders of the parties and groups closely associated with the two extreme flanks of Russian public opinion could not overcome their burning hatred for the government of the March Revolution: they continued to sit when the whole assembly rose as one person. These irreconcilable were s-d the internationalist Martov, Commander Milyukov, and two or three Kornilov Cossacks. Confident that the representatives of the nation were fully aware of the exceptional gravity and responsibility of the situation, I, without waiting for the Council’s vote, returned to the headquarters for the interrupted urgent work, confident that within 1.5 hours I would receive a message about all the decisions and business undertakings of the Council of the Republic and assistance to the government. Nothing like that happened."

Questions and tasks for the document:

1) What three events in world history took place in the same year as the event described in the memoirs? List them.

2) What are the most striking events that took place during the period indicated in the document? List at least three. Bringing historical facts to reveal historical meaning one of them

ANSWER

1) THE FALL OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE;

End of World War I;

The October socialist revolution divided the world into two camps - capitalist and socialist.

2) The correct answer must contain the following elements:

consequences, for example:

Approval of the policy of "war communism";

Rampant Red Terror;

Organization of the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army;

The beginning of the Civil War in Russia;

reasons, for example:

Dispersal of the Constituent Assembly by the Bolsheviks, the majority of whose delegates refused to recognize the decrees of the Congress of Soviets;

The clearly expressed class policy of the Bolsheviks, their course towards world revolution.

Consequences can be formulated differently. Other reasons may be given

The United States, which has a huge air and sea fleet, can easily organize an amphibious landing at any point and thus force the dispersal of Cuba's defensive forces, making them virtually ineffective. And in general, for the US Army, it will not be very difficult to defeat the Cuban army. Comrades listened to me. And as soon as I finished my point of view, I said: “Let’s not decide this now. I just expressed my thoughts to you. a week we will meet again and once again discuss everything. We must weigh everything very well. I consider it my duty to warn that this action will entail many unknown and unforeseen things. We, of course, want to do everything to secure Cuba and so that Cuba is not crushed "But we can get involved in a war. This, too, must be kept in mind. If, for example, Cuba is liquidated as a socialist country, and the Soviet Union remains, then after some time the people of Cuba will again build up their forces and it will again be free, will become socialist. Of course, if Cuba is defeated now, such a historical opportunity will be postponed for a long time, not only for Cuba, but also for other Latin American countries. But even worse if the Soviet Union is defeated , will be destroyed, will again have to be restored. This will cause much more damage to the international communist movement than the loss of one Cuba.

We need to do this in order to save our country, to prevent war, but also to prevent Cuba from being defeated by US troops. It is necessary to ensure that the situation that exists now is preserved and to promote its further development towards the strengthening and development of socialist construction in Cuba. Cuba must be made a torch, a magnet for all the dispossessed peoples of the Latin American countries who are fighting against their exploitation by American monopolies. The heating fire of socialism on the part of Cuba will accelerate the process of these countries' struggle for independence." A week has passed. And I again raised this question. I ask: "Well, what did you think, comrades?" - "Yes, we thought." " Comrade Kuusinen was the first to speak. He said: "Comrade Khrushchev, I think so. If you are now making such a proposal and consider that such a decision should be made, then I believe you and I vote with you. Let's do business." On the one hand, I was flattered to hear this, and on the other, it was too hard. His answer placed all the responsibility on me, but I respected Kuusinen very much, knew his honesty and sincerity, and therefore took his words in a good way "Comrade Mikoyan came out with reservations. In such matters, of course, it is impossible without reservations. But his reservations consisted in the fact that we were deciding on a dangerous step. However, I myself immediately stated this. I even stated that this step, if rudely to formulate, stands on the verge of an adventure.

The adventurism lies in the fact that, wishing to save Cuba, we ourselves can get involved in the most difficult, unprecedented nuclear missile war. This must be avoided by all means, and the conscious call for such a war is really adventurism. I was against the war. But if we live only under the pressure of fear and in the sense that any of our actions in defense of ourselves or in defense of our friends will provoke a nuclear missile war, this, consequently, means paralyzing ourselves with fear. In this case, the war will arise for sure. The enemy will immediately feel that you are afraid if he comes with a war. Or, without a war, you will gradually give up your positions and enable the enemy to achieve his goals. Or else, by your fear and compliance, you will so excite the enemy that he will lose all caution and will no longer feel the line beyond which war will become inevitable. This was a problem before and is now. We must not wish for war and do everything to prevent war - but not be afraid of war. If an unfavorable situation is created, then you must retreat. However, if the retreat is the beginning of the end of your resistance, then it is better to risk it. On the world and death is red! Try to crush your enemy, and if the war is forced on them, do everything to survive in such a war and achieve victory. Here, in fact, how we all understood the situation.

I have been thinking about this a lot now. For many years now I have been in the position of a non-working pensioner: I have no special cases, in the present and in the future I will not have any special questions, therefore I live by analyzing the path I have traveled. And the path I have traveled is good, and I am not only not ashamed of it, but I am proud of it. The Cuban missile crisis is an adornment of our foreign policy, including mine as a member of the collective that pursued this policy and achieved brilliant success for Cuba without firing a single shot. How did the crisis develop further when we decided that it would be expedient to place nuclear-capable missiles on Cuban territory and thus expose the United States to the fact that if they decide to invade Cuba, Cuba will be able to strike a devastating retaliatory strike? It would, of course, not defeat the United States. But they would have suffered great destruction. From this we concluded that this prospect would deter those in power in the United States from invading Cuba. We all came to this conclusion after discussing my proposal twice or three times.

I suggested that this decision should not be forced, so that it would crystallize in the minds of everyone, and everyone, understanding its consequences, would know that it could lead us to war with the United States. The decision was taken unanimously. The development of the operation was entrusted to Comrade Malinovsky, a narrow circle of people was admitted to this case. We calculated our resources and came to the conclusion that we could send missiles with a charge of a million power each. The flight range of these missiles was, in my opinion, most of them had two thousand kilometers, and 4 or 5 missiles could fly four thousand kilometers. Starting positions were chosen; tried on from what point which objects can be hit. That is, a study was carried out on the use of missiles in order to inflict maximum damage on the enemy. It turned out a formidable weapon, very formidable! But this was not enough. We believed that if missiles were to be installed, then they should be guarded and protected. This requires infantry. Therefore, they decided to send infantry there as well, something like several thousand people. In addition, anti-aircraft weapons were needed. Then they decided that tanks and artillery were also needed to protect the missiles in the event of an enemy landing.

We decided to send surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles there, good missiles for that time. We had anti-aircraft missiles of various calibers and designs. The first of them are already outdated, and we decided to send the latest models that were put into production and entered service with the Soviet Army. Naturally, with these weapons we sent both our command staff and service personnel there. We could not involve the Cubans in this case because they were not yet prepared to operate missiles. It would take a long time for them to prepare. In addition, at first we wanted to maintain absolute secrecy and believed that the more people involved, the greater the possibility of information leakage. As a result, several tens of thousands of our troops were recruited. To manage them, it was necessary to create a headquarters. Malinovsky, as Minister of Defense, proposed to approve General of the Army Pliev, an Ossetian by nationality, as the head. They called General Pliev, and I talked to him. He was a man already in years, sick, but knowing his business. He went through the Patriotic War, yes, in my opinion, he took part in the civil war. I more or less knew him from World War II as a commander of a cavalry corps. Smart man.

Pliev said that if approved, he would consider it an honor to go to Cuba and carry out the task assigned to him. When they accurately calculated what needed to be transferred to Cuba, the task was given to think how many ships would be needed in order to transport all this equipment in the shortest possible time. This was entrusted to employees of the army and navy rear in the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of the Navy. They had to ensure the execution of the operation. Then we decided to send our military delegation to Cuba. Its main task is to inform Fidel about our proposals and secure his consent. With his consent, our people were to inspect the area, select points for the location of missiles and study the locations of the rest of the troops. In a word, the car started spinning. Our main concern was that our operation should not be exposed prematurely from the air. Americans continuously flew over Cuba. And Cuba can be explored not only by direct flights, but also by flying parallel to the coast over neutral waters, taking pictures of almost the entire territory of the island. After all, Cuba is long and narrow, so you can fly and photograph it like that.

“Everyone was perfectly aware that given the situation that had arisen and the actual leadership and direction of internal policy by irresponsible public organizations, as well as the enormous corrupting influence of these organizations on the mass of the army, it would not be possible to recreate the latter, but, on the contrary, the army as such should fall apart in two or three month. And then Russia will have to conclude a shameful separate peace, the consequences of which would be terrible for Russia. The government took half-measures, which, without correcting anything, only prolonged the agony and, while saving the revolution, did not save Russia. Meanwhile, the gains of the revolution could be saved only by saving Russia, and for this, first of all, it is necessary to create a real strong government and improve the rear. General Kornilov presented a number of demands, the implementation of which was delayed. Under such conditions, General Kornilov, not pursuing any personal ambitious plans and relying on the clearly expressed consciousness of the entire healthy part of society and the army, which demanded the speedy creation of a strong government to save the Motherland, and with it the gains of the revolution, considered it necessary to take more decisive measures that would ensure the establishment of order in the country ... "

2) For what purpose did General Kornilov initiate the events, the cause of which is explained by the author of the document?

From the resolution of the XIX All-Union Party Conference

“The 19th All-Union Party Conference ... states: the strategic course for the comprehensive and revolutionary renewal of Soviet society and the acceleration of its socio-economic development, worked out by the party at the April Plenum of the Central Committee and the 27th Party Congress, is steadily being put into practice. The country's slide into an economic and socio-political crisis has been halted ... The process of improving the country's economy has begun, its turn towards meeting the urgent needs of people. New methods of management are gaining momentum. In accordance with the Law on State Enterprises (Associations), associations and enterprises are being transferred to self-financing and self-sufficiency. The law on cooperation was developed, widely discussed and adopted. New, progressive forms of intra-industrial labor relations based on contracts and leases, as well as individual labor activity, are coming into life. Perestroika underway organizational structures management, aimed at creating favorable conditions for the effective management of the primary links of the economy. The work launched on the initiative of the Party made it possible to resume the growth of the real incomes of the working people. Practical measures are being taken to increase the production of food and consumer goods, and to expand housing construction. Education and health reforms are being carried out. Spiritual life is becoming a powerful factor in the progress of the country. Significant work has been done to rethink the current realities of world development, to renew and give dynamism to foreign policy. Thus, perestroika is entering deeper and deeper into the life of Soviet society, exerting an ever-increasing transformative influence on it.

Questions and tasks for the document:

1) What areas of the internal policy of the CPSU and the state are named in the resolution? Specify any three directions

2) What is the result of the implementation of the considered strategic course of the Party?

From the Program of the CPSU

“Under communism there will be no classes, socio-economic and cultural differences between the city and the countryside will disappear; in terms of the level of development of productive forces and the nature of labor, the forms of production relations, living conditions, and the degree of well-being of the population, the countryside will rise to the level of a city. With the victory of communism, there will be an organic combination of mental and physical labor in the productive activity of people. The intelligentsia will cease to be a special social stratum, workers of physical labor will rise in their cultural and technical level to the level of people of mental labor. Thus, communism will put an end to the division of society into classes and social strata, while the entire history of mankind, with the exception of primitive times, has been the history of class society. The division into opposite classes led to the exploitation of man by man, class struggle and antagonism between nations and states. Under communism there will be an ever greater all-round rapprochement of nations on the basis of a complete commonality of economic, political and spiritual interests, fraternal friendship and cooperation. Communism is a system where abilities and talents, the best moral qualities of a free person, flourish and are fully revealed. Family relations will finally be cleansed of material calculations and will be entirely based on feelings of mutual love and friendship. The CPSU, as a party of scientific communism, puts forward and solves the tasks of communist construction to the extent of preparing and maturing the material and spiritual prerequisites, guided by the fact that it is impossible

to jump over the necessary stages of development, as well as to linger on what has been achieved, to hold back progress. The solution of the problems of building communism is carried out in successive stages. In the next decade (1961-1970), the Soviet Union, creating the material and technical base of communism, will surpass the United States, the most powerful and rich country of capitalism, in per capita output; the material well-being and the cultural and technical level of the working people will rise significantly, material prosperity will be ensured for everyone; all collective farms and state farms will be turned into highly productive and highly profitable farms; in the main, the needs of the Soviet people in well-appointed dwellings will be satisfied; heavy physical labor will disappear; The USSR will become the country of the shortest working day. As a result of the second decade (1971-1980), the material and technical base of communism will be created, providing an abundance of material and cultural benefits for the entire population; Soviet society will come close to implementing the principle of distribution according to needs, there will be a gradual transition to a single public property. Thus, a communist society will be basically built in the USSR. The building of communist society will be fully completed in the subsequent period. The majestic edifice of communism is being erected by the hard work of the Soviet people - the working class, the peasantry and the intelligentsia. The more successful their work, the closer the realization of the great goal - the construction of a communist society.

Questions and tasks for the document:

1) What characteristic features of the future communist society are noted in this document? List any three characteristics.

2) Involving historical knowledge, indicate what circumstances guided the members of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU when they made a decision to publicly condemn the cult of personality and its consequences at the 20th and 22nd Party Congresses.

From the Program of the CPSU

“Under communism there will be no classes, socio-economic and cultural differences between the city and the countryside will disappear; in terms of the level of development of productive forces and the nature of labor, the forms of production relations, living conditions, and the degree of well-being of the population, the countryside will rise to the level of a city. With the victory of communism, there will be an organic combination of mental and physical labor in the productive activity of people. The intelligentsia will cease to be a special social stratum, workers of physical labor will rise in their cultural and technical level to the level of people of mental labor. Thus, communism will put an end to the division of society into classes and social strata, while the entire history of mankind, with the exception of primitive times, has been the history of class society.

The division into opposite classes led to the exploitation of man by man, class struggle and antagonism between nations and states. Under communism there will be an ever greater all-round rapprochement of nations on the basis of a complete commonality of economic, political and spiritual interests, fraternal friendship and cooperation. Communism is a system where abilities and talents, the best moral qualities of a free person, flourish and are fully revealed. Family relations will finally be cleansed of material calculations and will be entirely based on feelings of mutual love and friendship. The CPSU, as a party of scientific communism, puts forward and solves the tasks of communist construction to the extent of preparing and maturing the material and spiritual prerequisites, guided by the fact that it is impossible to jump over the necessary stages of development, as well as to linger on what has been achieved, to hold back progress.

The solution of the problems of building communism is carried out in successive stages. In the next decade (1961-1970), the Soviet Union, creating the material and technical base of communism, will surpass

per capita the most powerful and richest country of capitalism - the USA; the material well-being and the cultural and technical level of the working people will rise significantly, material prosperity will be ensured for everyone; all collective farms and state farms will be turned into highly productive and highly profitable farms; in the main, the needs of the Soviet people in well-appointed dwellings will be satisfied; heavy physical labor will disappear; The USSR will become the country of the shortest working day. As a result of the second decade (1971-1980), the material and technical base of communism will be created, providing an abundance of material and cultural benefits for the entire population; Soviet society will come close to implementing the principle of distribution according to needs, there will be a gradual transition to a single public property. Thus, a communist society will be basically built in the USSR.

The building of communist society will be fully completed in the next period. The majestic edifice of communism is being erected by the hard work of the Soviet people - the working class, the peasantry and the intelligentsia. The more successful their work, the closer the realization of the great goal - the construction of a communist society.

Questions and tasks for the document:

1) Indicate what characteristic features of the future communist society are noted in this document?

2) Indicate what circumstances guided the members of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU when they made a decision to publicly condemn the cult of personality and its consequences at the 20th and 20th Party Congresses.

“For many years now I have been in the position of a non-working pensioner: I have no special cases, in the present and in the future I will not have any special questions, so I live by analyzing the path I have traveled. And the path I have traveled is good, I am not only not ashamed of it, but I am proud of it. The Cuban Missile Crisis is the crowning glory of our foreign policy, including mine as a member of such a collective that pursued this policy and achieved brilliant success for Cuba without firing a single shot. How did the crisis develop further when we decided that it would be expedient to place nuclear-capable missiles on Cuban territory and thus expose the United States to the fact that if they decide to invade Cuba, Cuba will be able to strike a devastating retaliatory strike? It would, of course, not defeat the United States. But they would have suffered great destruction. From this we concluded that this prospect would deter those in power in the United States from invading Cuba. We all came to this conclusion after discussing my proposal twice or three times.”

Questions and tasks for the document:

1) What are the events of world history known to you that occurred in the same period as the event described in the memoirs?

“On October 24, it was already quite obvious that the uprising was inevitable, that it had already begun. At about 11 o'clock in the morning I appeared at the meeting of the Council of the Republic and asked N.D. Avksentiev, chairman of the Soviet, to give me, as chairman of the Provisional Government, the floor immediately for an urgent message that I must make to the Council of the Republic. Having received the floor, I declared that I had at my disposal indisputable evidence of the organization by Lenin and his collaborators of an uprising against the Revolutionary Government. I declared that all possible measures to suppress the uprising had been taken and were being taken by the Provisional Government, that it would continue to the end.

to fight traitors to the Motherland and the revolution, that it will resort without any hesitation to military force, but that for the success of the struggle the government needs the immediate assistance of all the parties and groups represented in the Council of the Republic, the help of the whole people. I demanded from the Council of the Republic every measure of confidence and assistance. In order to restore the atmosphere of that time, to imagine the mood of those gathered, it is enough to recall that during my speech, the members of the Council of the Republic more than once stood up, with special enthusiasm, testified to their complete solidarity with the Provisional Government in its struggle against the enemies of the people. At the moment of this general national outburst, only some of the leaders of the parties and groups closely associated with the two extreme flanks of Russian public opinion could not overcome their burning hatred for the government of the March Revolution: they continued to sit when the whole assembly rose as one person. These irreconcilables were Socialist Internationalist Martov, Commander Milyukov, and two or three Kornilov Cossacks. Confident that the representatives of the nation were fully aware of the exceptional gravity and responsibility of the situation, I, without waiting for the Council’s vote, returned to the headquarters for the interrupted urgent work, confident that within 1.5 hours I would receive a message about all the decisions and business undertakings of the Council of the Republic and assistance to the government. Nothing like that happened."

Questions and tasks for the document:

1) What events in world history occurred in the same period as the event described in the memoirs?

2) Indicate what bright events in life in the USSR occurred during the period indicated in the document?

The answers to tasks 1-19 are a number, or a sequence of numbers, or a word (phrase). Write your answers in the answer boxes to the right of the task number without spaces, commas or other additional characters.

1

Arrange historical events in chronological order. Write down the numbers that represent historical events in the correct sequence.

1. the beginning of the activities of the Supreme Administrative Commission

2. the beginning of the reforms of Patriarch Nikon

3. the introduction of "elderly" as a duty for peasants using the "right of exit"

2

Establish a correspondence between events and years: for each position of the first column, select the corresponding position from the second column

3

Below is a list of terms. All of them, with the exception of one, relate to events and phenomena in the history of Russia in 1917-1945.

1) autonomization plan; 2) regime of personal power; 3) gold chervonets; 4) worker control; 5) Helsinki process; 6) separate peace.

4

Write down the term you are talking about.

G.V. Plekhanov and his like-minded people founded the ________ group in Geneva, whose main business was to promote the ideas of Marxism.

5

Establish a correspondence between processes (phenomena, events) and facts related to these processes (phenomena, events): for each position of the first column, select the corresponding position from the second column.

6

Establish a correspondence between fragments of historical sources and their brief characteristics: for each fragment, indicated by a letter, select two corresponding characteristics, indicated by numbers.

A) “... We hope that all the noble Russian nobility, feeling so much of our generosity towards them and their descendants, by their all-submissive loyalty and zeal to us, will be encouraged not to retire, to hide from service, but with jealousy and desire to to enter, and in an honest and shameless way, at the very least, to continue it, no less than to teach their children with diligence and diligence in decent sciences, for all those who have not had any service anywhere, but only as themselves in laziness and idleness will pass all the time so we do not use our children for the benefit of our fatherland in any useful sciences, we, as if they are negligent about the good in common, despise and humiliate all our loyal subjects and true sons of the fatherland, and below our court visit or in public meetings and celebrations will be tolerated.

B) “In the nest of the boyars most persecuted by Boris, headed by the Romanovs, in all likelihood, the idea of ​​an impostor was hatched. They blamed the Poles for setting it up; but it was only baked in a Polish oven, and fermented in Moscow. No wonder Boris, as soon as he heard about the appearance [of the impostor], directly told the boyars that it was their business, that they framed the impostor.

1. The passage refers to False Dmitry I.

3. This document was signed by Catherine II.

4. This document refers to the reign of Peter III.

5. After the publication of this document, most of the nobles set their serfs free.

6. This document is an excerpt from the Manifesto on the Granting of Liberty to the Russian Nobility, 1762.

Write the chosen numbers under the corresponding letters.

Fragment A		Fragment B

7

Which three of the following provisions were characteristic of the popular movement led by Emelyan Pugachev? Write down the numbers under which they are indicated.

1. Proclamation by the head of the movement of the liberation of peasants from serfdom

2. exclusively peasant composition of the rebels

3. imposture

4. participation of foreign forces in support of the uprising

5. participation in the movement of mining workers

6. lack of support for the movement from foreigners

8

Fill in the gaps in these sentences using the list of missing elements below: for each sentence marked with a letter and containing a gap, choose the number of the element you want.

A) ______ became the leader of the Russian Liberation Army.

B) The partisan movement during the Great Patriotic War was led by ______.

C) During the battle for Manchuria in 1945, one of the commanders of the Soviet troops was ______.

1. R.Ya. Malinovsky

2. A.A. Vlasov

3. I.Kh. Bagramyan

4. P.K. Ponomarenko

5. K.K. Rokossovsky

6. I.D. Chernyakhovsky

9

Establish a correspondence between events and participants in these events: for each position in the first column, select the corresponding position from the second column.

10

Read an extract from a document and name its author.

“A heavy burden has been placed on me by the will of my brother, who handed over to me the imperial all-Russian throne in the time of an unprecedented war and unrest of the people

Therefore, invoking the blessing of God, I ask all citizens of the Russian state to submit to the Provisional Government, which, at the initiative of the State Duma, has arisen and is invested with all the fullness of power, until the Constituent Assembly, convened as soon as possible on the basis of a universal, direct, equal and secret vote, by its decision about the form of government will express the will of the people.

11

Fill in the blank cells of the table using the list of missing elements below: for each gap indicated by letters, select the number of the required element.

2. Caribbean Crisis

4. Yalta Conference

5. Yuri Gagarin

6. landing astronauts on the moon

7. Albert Einstein

12

Read an excerpt from the memoir politician.

“For many years now I have been in the position of a non-working pensioner: I have no special cases, in the present and in the future I will not have any special questions, so I live by analyzing the path I have traveled. And the path I have traveled is good, I am not only not ashamed of it, but I am proud of it. The Cuban Missile Crisis is the crowning glory of our foreign policy, including mine as a member of such a collective that pursued this policy and achieved brilliant success for Cuba without firing a single shot. How did the crisis develop further when we decided that it would be expedient to place nuclear-capable missiles on Cuban territory and thus expose the United States to the fact that if they decide to invade Cuba, Cuba will be able to strike a devastating retaliatory strike? It would, of course, not defeat the United States. But they would have suffered great destruction. From this we concluded that this prospect would deter those in power in the United States from invading Cuba. We all came to this conclusion after discussing my proposal twice or three times.”

Using the passage and knowledge of history, select three correct judgments from the list provided.

2. The crisis referred to in the memoirs refers to the second half of the 1950s.

3. The crisis mentioned in the text was resolved by peaceful political means on the basis of mutual concessions from the USSR and the USA

6. The head of the Cuban state during the period described in the text was Fidel Castro.

Review the diagram and complete tasks 13-16

13

Indicate the name of the city indicated on the diagram by the number "2".

14

Write (in one word) the name of the battle whose area is shown in the diagram as the number "3".

15

What is the name of the Russian emperor, during whose reign the events reflected in the diagram took place.

16

What judgments related to the events indicated in the diagram are correct? Choose three sentences from the six offered. Write down the numbers under which they are indicated in the table.

1. The participants in the hostilities indicated on the diagram were Generals A.N. Kuropatkin, R.I. Kondratenko, P.K. Rannenkampf.

2. Place of death of Admiral S.O. Makarov in the diagram is indicated by the number "1".

3. As a result of the war, Russia acquired South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands.

4. The ships of the Baltic Fleet took part in the battle, shown in the diagram by the number "3".

5. In this war, Russia had allies in the person of France and Great Britain.

6. A peace treaty following the war, the events of which are depicted in the diagram, was signed in Portsmouth.

17

For each position in the first column, select the corresponding position from the second column.

Look at the picture and complete tasks 18-19

18

What judgments about the coin shown in the photo are correct? Choose two sentences from the five offered. Write down the numbers under which they are indicated.

1. The coin was issued after the 1917 revolution.

2. One of the people depicted on the coin was killed in Yekaterinburg in 1918.

3. The coin was issued in memory of the Battle of Kulikovo.

4. One of the people depicted on the coin is the son of Patriarch Philaret.

5. The face value of the coin is ten rubles.

19

Specify the portraits depicting rulers who do not belong to the dynasty in honor of which the coin was issued. In your answer, write down the two numbers under which these photos are indicated.

1.

2.

3.

4.

Part 2.

First write down the task number (20, 21, etc.), and then a detailed answer to it. Write your answers clearly and legibly.

“After the end of the Patriotic War, the Soviet people proudly celebrated the glorious victories achieved at the cost of great sacrifices and incredible efforts. The country experienced a political upsurge. The Party emerged from the war even more united, and the cadres of the Party were tempered in the fire of the war. Under these conditions, no one could even think of the possibility of any kind of conspiracy in the party. And in this period, the so-called "Leningrad case" suddenly arises. As has now been proven, this case was falsified. Innocently died TT. Voznesensky, Kuznetsov, Rodionov, Popkov and others. How did it happen that these people were declared enemies of the people and destroyed? The facts show that the “Leningrad case” is also the result of the arbitrariness that Stalin allowed in relation to the cadres of the party. If there were a normal situation in the Central Committee of the Party, in the Politburo of the Central Committee, in which such questions would be discussed, as it should be in the Party, and all the facts would be weighed, then this case would not have arisen, just as other similar cases would not have arisen. It must be said that in the post-war period the situation became even more complicated. Stalin became more capricious, irritable, rude, his suspicions especially developed. The mania of persecution increased to incredible proportions. Many workers became enemies in his eyes. After the war, Stalin further fenced himself off from the team, acted exclusively on his own, without regard for anyone or anything. The Central Committee of the Party checked the so-called "Leningrad case", the innocent victims have now been rehabilitated, the honor of the glorious Leningrad Party organization has been restored. The question arises: why were we now able to sort out this matter, and did not do it earlier, during the life of Stalin, in order to prevent the death of innocent people? Because Stalin himself gave direction to the "Leningrad case" and the majority of the members of the Politburo of that period did not know all the circumstances of the case and, of course, could not intervene. As soon as Stalin received some materials from Beria and Abakumov, he, not understanding the essence of these fakes, gave instructions to investigate the "case" of Voznesensky and Kuznetsov. And this already sealed their fate.

Indicate the generally accepted title of the document from which the excerpt is given. To the nearest decade, indicate the time when the speech was made, an excerpt from which is given. Who served as First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU in given time? Enter your last name.

Peculiarities:

The need for political maneuvering between boyar-aristocratic groups, nobles and archers;

The significant role of the favorite V.V. Golitsyn in governing the state and determining domestic and foreign policy;

Strengthening repressions against the Old Believers and other forms of dissent.

Other explanations can be given

There are debatable problems in historical science, on which different, often contradictory points of view are expressed. Below is one of the controversial points of view that exist in historical science.

"The vassal dependence of Russia on the Horde was a military-political alliance, very beneficial for the Russian lands."

Using historical knowledge, give two arguments that can support given point view, and two arguments by which to refute it. When presenting arguments, be sure to use historical facts.

Write your answer in following form.

Arguments to support:

Arguments in rebuttal:

Show answer

The correct answer must contain arguments:

in confirmation, For example:

Recognizing the power of the Horde, the Russian princes acquired a powerful patron in the person of the khan, who actively supported and exalted the vassal rulers loyal to him;

The power of the Horde limited the internecine struggle of the Russian princes;

In the face of the threat to the Russian lands from Catholic Europe, the union of Russia with the Horde was one of the significant factors that restrained the onslaught of Western chivalry against Russia;

in rebuttal, For example:

The Horde levied huge tribute from the Russian principalities, which weakened the economic development of Russia and repeatedly led to armed opposition to the Horde in the Russian lands;

The influence of the Horde, which directly affected the strengthening of princely power in the localities, played a fatal role in the fate of Russian veche traditions;

The policy of the Horde khans did not contribute to the unification of the Russian lands, significantly delaying this process.

Other arguments may be given

You need to write a historical essay about ONE of the periods in the history of Russia:

1. 980-1015;

2. 1632-1634;

3. 1894-1917

Indicate at least two events (phenomena, processes) relating to a given period of history;

name two historical figures whose activities are associated with the indicated events (phenomena, processes), and, using knowledge of historical facts, to characterize the role of these individuals in the events (phenomena, processes) of a given period of Russian history;

Indicate at least two cause-and-effect relationships that existed between events (phenomena, processes) within a given period of history.

Using the knowledge of historical facts and (or) the opinions of historians, give one historical assessment of the significance of this period for the history of Russia. In the course of the presentation, it is necessary to use historical terms, concepts related to this period.

Share your results or ask how to solve a particular problem. Be polite guys.