Nikolay Konstantinovich Baibakov. From Stalin to Yeltsin (№ 421485)

unexplained overexposure. Here Khrushchev, breathing heavily, drank water from a glass, sore, resolute. Pause. And in the hall everything is just as quiet, and in this oppressive silence he continued to read his report already about how Stalin treated his fellow party members, about Mikoyan, about D. Bedny. The facts have been dimmed, losing their significance and sharpness. The conversation was already largely not about the personality cult, but simply about Stalin's personality in life and everyday life. It was evident that the speaker purposefully "lowers" the human appearance of the leader, whom he himself had recently praised. The Stalin portrayed by Khrushchev still did not in any way combine with the living image that I clearly remembered. Stalin tyrannized, did not recognize other people's opinions? Subtly mocked? This is not true. Was Stalin incompetent in military matters, was he in charge of operations on the fronts "on a globe"? And again - an obvious and gross lie. A man who has studied hundreds and hundreds of books on history, military art, kept in mind the plans and diagrams of almost all operations of the past war? Why should all these speculations, personal assessments coexist with the bitter sovereign truth, with our true pain? But is it really possible in our troubles to take and blame everything only on Stalin, on him alone? Some kind of thickly underlined truth came out. And where were the members of the Politburo, the Central Committee and Nikita Khrushchev himself at that time? So why build a cult on the same scale - only this time the "anti-leader"?