The official version of the events 70 years ago is as follows: on March 1, 1953, at a nearby dacha with I.V.
Stalin had an apoplexy, aka a stroke.
On March 4, his serious illness was announced, at the same time the medical term “Cheyne-Stokes breathing” appeared, which was interpreted by people knowledgeable in medicine in the sense that the leader’s condition was hopeless.
However, even non-physicians understood that the very public announcement of a stroke meant that Stalin was dying, if not dead at all.
According to the official version, death occurred at 21:50 on March 5.
On the 6th his death was announced and the era of the Diadochi began.
The death of the leader, who ruled for more than 30 years, caused a lot of rumors that do not stop to this day.
They say that the comrades-in-arms left the leader, who was broken by a stroke, and for more than a day - and with a blow, every minute counts - lay without medical care.
Another version is copied from The Death of Ivan the Terrible.
Godunov, having learned from the royal doctor that
"Vessels,
that carry blood away from the heart
And again to the heart, so tense,
What can their slightest excitement
suddenly break,
decides to cause such an uproar.
John exclaims:
“You dare me in the eyes - a villain!
- you - you -
I understand your look!
- You kill me -
Came to kill!
— Traitor!
- Executioners!
—
and dies.
As Godunov, who provoked the blow, some call Khrushchev, others - Beria, others - the entire staff of the Politburo.
Of course, you can't vouch for anything.
There were rumors upstairs about a new purge, and the comrades-in-arms could show the courage of despair.
In the spirit of 9 Thermidor.
On the other hand, everything could be explained by purely natural causes.
His predecessor V.I. died of apoplexy.
Lenin, US President Wilson became disabled, and, by the way, all members of the Big Three died from a stroke.
First Roosevelt, then Stalin, then, already in 1965, Churchill.
Moreover, the first blow happened to the British Prime Minister back in 1951.
The blow in 1953 was also not the first for Stalin, so perhaps the whole thing is pressure.
Perhaps the abundance of conspiracy theories is associated with the belief that a deity (good or evil - it does not matter) cannot just die from a brain hemorrhage.
Other reasons are needed.
Perhaps, historically, the almost instantaneous rejection of the Stalinist heritage was inclined to such versions.
From the purely domestic - the cessation of the night work of the ministries, which previously adjusted to the Stalinist daily routine, the opening of GUM on Red Square - to the less domestic.
Termination of the "doctors' case", strong Malenkov's indulgences to the collective farms, the rejection of anti-worker legislation, the Beria amnesty for criminals, the execution of Beria himself, then a mass release to the will of the political.
In international affairs - a truce in the Korean War, a timid détente with the West, the "spirit of Geneva", the de-occupation of Austria.
Khrushchev's report on the cult of personality, delivered at the 20th Congress, i.e., at the beginning of 1956, three years after Stalin's death, was not a simple outburst of the eccentric Nikita, but already a summing up of the great work to dismantle the Stalinist system.
Moreover, the work in which all the Diadochi participated in one way or another.
It is not for nothing that Albanian, Chinese and other foreign orthodox communists, while condemning the Kremlin, which has embarked on the path of revisionism, did not particularly single out Khrushchev as the main revisionist.
As such, they all turned out to be.
Which suggests that the de-Stalinization that occurred after 1953 was the fruit of a broad public consensus.
From an ordinary collective farmer to a member of the Politburo.
Everyone had reason to support the easing.
Which, however, did not exclude either the aggravation of the class struggle (softening and aggravation always go hand in hand), or the fierce battle of the Stalinist diadochi.
But no one used the slogan “With us everything will be like under grandfather again”.
Obviously, from the understanding that such a slogan would be unpopular.
The cautious “Yes, there was a cult, but there was also a personality” is somewhat from a different opera.
Nobody wanted the resumption of landings and executions, because everyone remembered the very recent past.
Over the decades that have passed since then, of course, a Stalinist legend has appeared - as in the 19th century, after the death of Bonaparte, a Napoleonic legend appeared.
But one thing is dissatisfaction with modern decay and longing for the idealized former greatness, another thing is the desire to return the happy Stalinist Arcadia in full.
For there were rather unpleasant things in this happy Arcadia.
And this is very mildly said.
If our external and internal life were more peaceful, i.e., the heroes of Ukraine and their Western friends, as disgusting as they are today, would not be in it, just as the liberal opposition (emigration too) would not sink to a completely crazy hatred of Russia and Russians, the Stalinist legend would also be in the background:
When Askold lived grandfathers
“Happier than your grandchildren.
How to drink plain water
Honey and strong wine", etc.
But when Khokhols, Poles, singers and artists are what they are now, that is, a direct abomination before the Lord, this revives the Stalinist legend to the extreme, greatly adding to it in strength and malignancy.
People begin to openly and publicly dream of mass arrests and executions.
And about many other signs of that time.
And to prevent noble rage from turning into outright lust, is the urgent task of a well-intentioned lover of the fatherland, who remembers the events of 70 years ago.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.