When Mikhail Gorbachev became the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, how did it all begin? General Secretary Gorbachev
March 11, 2015 marks 30 years since the election of M.S. Gorbachev as General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee.
As you know, the coming to power of a new leader was greeted with enthusiasm, but after 6 years the state he had taken over lay in ruins, and society was struck by apathy, ethnic conflicts, sects and hypnotic experiments of Kashpirovsky, and other manifestations of social decay.
In this regard, you always involuntarily return to the same question: was another possible development of events in March 1985? Was perestroika so objectively predetermined that it would have happened in any case, even if M.S. Gorbachev had not existed?
For 30 years, propaganda, organized at one time during Gorbachev’s reign, has been trying to convince everyone that in 1985 the USSR was on the verge of economic collapse and social disunity, the people’s lack of faith in their government. Nowadays, Mikhail Sergeevich repeats long-memorized words: “Change was knocking on the windows and doors. It was necessary to decide on them, no matter how risky and even dangerous it was. But change could not begin on its own. They became possible because a new generation of politicians came to leadership in the USSR, capable of modern thinking and ready to take responsibility...”
However, was it worth sacrificing the state and social harmony for the sake of “change”? main question, which I would like to ask Mr. Gorbachev.
The perestroika he announced initially did not have clearly defined boundaries; they were always blurred, approximate, and verbose. And this is understandable, because the main goal was the restructuring of socialism into capitalism, and declaring this was politically risky from the very beginning.
Gorbachev's rise to power to this day causes a lot of talk and speculation. And this is no coincidence. It is difficult to find an example in history when, in peacetime, 3 (!) heads of state pass away in a row within 3 years.
The theses that, they say, Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko were already “old” are ridiculous. I would like to remind you that this “age” at the time of death was: Brezhnev - 75 years old, Andropov - 69 years old, Chernenko - 73 years old. Is this a lot? I don’t think so, especially considering that US President Ronald Reagan was the same age as Chernenko (b. 1911) and died only in 2004, and in the US no one considered him a “sick old man”. Continuing the list, we can make more interesting comparisons: L.I. Brezhnev’s wife, Victoria Petrovna Brezhneva (b. in 1907), died only in 1995, and K.U. Chernenko’s wife, Anna Dmitrievna Chernenko (b. 1913) - died only in 2010 (!).
One cannot help but recall the living party and government figures from the times of perestroika, who have long been “far beyond”: M.S. Gorbachev - 84 years old, A.I. Lukyanov - 85 years old, N.I. Ryzhkov - 86 years old, Dolgikh V .AND. – 91 years old, E.K. Ligachev is 95 years old.
So why did the wives of general secretaries and the “heirs” of general secretaries survive them by 15–20 years, and the leaders of the state and party themselves, having first-class medical service, looked like they were not 70, but 120 years old?
Of course, here this question should be addressed to the Kremlin doctors and, first of all, to Mr. E.I. Chazov.
V.A. Kaznacheev, Gorbachev’s ally in leadership positions in Stavropol, cites interesting information: “I have already talked about the fact that Academician Chazov, coming to the Stavropol region, shared a lot with Gorbachev, in particular, regularly informed about the lifestyle of the Kremlin inhabitants. From the outside it seemed like friendship. But it only seemed so.
Being aware of the health status of all Kremlin leaders, the academician hinted to Gorbachev that death was taking the leaders one after another as soon as their relations with the United States worsened. Moreover, they get sick and die in some strange, absurd way. So, Brezhnev, a man with extraordinary energy, suddenly fell ill with asthenic syndrome. His slow reaction and difficult speech caused ridicule and served as material for pop artists.
Chernenko is developing phlegmon with incredible speed. Also, Andropov’s illness suddenly worsened. The military leaders of Russia (meaning the USSR - D.L.) and Czechoslovakia Ustinov and Dzura fell ill with the same disease after the maneuvers, which led to their death. If it is possible to argue about the deaths of general secretaries whether they were accidental, then the passing of Ustinov and Dzur is clear evidence that a purposeful action was taken against them.”
Thus, it was difficult not to notice the all too obvious suspicion of the deaths of 3 Secretary Generals in a row. It is no coincidence that even now all the US’s opponents are getting sick “strangely,” “ridiculously,” and in the same way. Suffice it to recall the sudden oncological diseases at the President of Venezuela Hugo Chavis, the President of Brazil Dilma Rousseff and the President of Argentina Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. And, apparently, the American technique was “tested” on Soviet leaders.
However, it seems that Chazov’s words about the health of party and state leaders did not greatly upset M.S. Gorbachev. However, they did not upset his wife, R.M. Gorbachev, who did not miss a single day without inquiring from the security: “what information is from Moscow?”
In December 1984, D.F. Ustinov died. It must be said that he died very successfully, at the most opportune moment, since Ustinov was the person who determined the candidacy of the future Secretary General. This was the case with the nomination of Andropov, and this was the case with the nomination of Chernenko. Now Ustinov is gone.
Just 3 months later, K.U. Chernenko also passed away. Surprisingly, 2 times, declaring his intention to leave the post of General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Chernenko received categorical objections and advice from the Politburo and its individual members to “just get a little treatment.” Why was this so? I think it was because there were experienced people in the Politburo who understood that no one just leaves their post. If Chernenko leaves, he will definitely name a successor, and the members of the Politburo wanted to elect a new secretary general themselves, and, therefore, for this they must wait until the death of the previous one.
And this death occurred on March 10, 1985. And this death also came very successfully and very timely, since out of 10 members of the Politburo, 4 were absent in Moscow, and, as is believed, Gorbachev’s opponents: Vorotnikov was in Yugoslavia, Kunaev was in Alma- ate, Romanov was on vacation in Lithuania, Shcherbitsky headed the delegation of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR to the USA.
However, at the evening meeting of the Politburo on March 10, 1985, the new Secretary General was not identified, so the meeting was postponed to 14.00 on March 11, so that everything could be thought over and weighed at night.
But it was on this night from March 10 to 11, 1985 that Ligachev, Gorbachev and Chebrikov remained in the Kremlin and made preparations for M.S. Gorbachev to be elected Secretary General. Also, Zagladin, Alexandrov, Lukyanov and Medvedev were summoned to the Kremlin at night to write a speech for the person who would be elected General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee.
If you believe V.A. Pechenev, then an interesting dialogue took place between A.I. Volsky and M.S. Gorbachev: “Arkady Ivanovich (Volsky - D.L.), looking into Gorbachev’s bright, sad eyes, confidentially asked him: “ Mikhail Sergeevich, will you make a report at the Plenum?” “Arkady, don’t worry about it,” Gorbachev answered diplomatically.”
Thus, it is obvious that M.S. Gorbachev prepared the speech of the future Secretary General not “for someone,” but exclusively for himself.
At the same time, E.K. Ligachev called the first secretaries all night regional branches party, that is, members of the Central Committee, and agitated them in favor of Gorbachev. The next day, March 11, 1985, until 14.00, i.e. Before the fateful meeting of the Politburo, direct meetings between E.K. Ligachev and members of the Central Committee had already taken place.
The stagnant stability in the USSR ended with the death of Leonid Brezhnev. This happened on November 10, 1982: at that time the Secretary General was already 75 years old. He was replaced by the all-powerful KGB Chairman Yuri Andropov. But he managed to remain in the role of General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee for a little more than a year: in early February 1984, he died at the age of 69. The next Secretary General was Konstantin Chernenko. He ruled the country even less, since he died on March 10, 1985. Chernenko managed to live 73 years and became the last in a series Soviet figures, buried near the Kremlin wall.
This era went down in history under the name “carriage races” or “five-year plan for luxurious funerals.”
The fact is that during this period, not only three general secretaries in a row died at a fairly advanced age, but also a number of members of the Politburo who claimed leadership Soviet Union and the party. The oldest participant in the “competition” was Arvid Pelshe, who died at the age of 84. His closest pursuer was the “gray eminence” of the Kremlin, Mikhail Suslov, who was 79 years old at the time of his death.
Mikhail Gorbachev was appointed organizer of Chernenko's funeral. At that time he was only 54 years old. Among his colleagues in the Politburo and the CPSU Central Committee, he was considered one of the youngest. In general, the situation in power was in many ways reminiscent of the current Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, at a meeting of which one sometimes becomes afraid for its participants.
In the early eighties, Gorbachev was sympathized with the most powerful people in the country - Yuri Andropov, Mikhail Suslov and Andrei Gromyko. In addition, Gorbachev communicated with Brezhnev.
After the death of Konstantin Chernenko, who was a member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, Gorbachev was one of the main candidates for General Secretary. His main antagonist was considered the first secretary of the Moscow city party committee, Viktor Grishin.
The meeting began at two o'clock in the afternoon the day after Chernenko's death - March 11. The first to speak was Mr. Net, USSR Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko. However, this time he changed his habit of saying “no” and proposed Gorbachev’s candidacy for the post of General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. Since the most authoritative surviving member of the Politburo supported Gorbachev's candidacy, so did his opponents, who realized that everything had been decided without them.
Mikhail Gorbachev made a fuss and immediately held a plenum. Its participants began to gather during the Politburo meeting.
The plenum unanimously supported Gorbachev's candidacy, and he gave a speech in which he told in which direction he planned to develop the country. In particular, Gorbachev mentioned the need to “accelerate the country’s socio-economic development and improve all aspects of society.”
On March 13, the newly appointed Secretary General presided over the funeral of his predecessor. And already in May of the same year Gorbachev said: “Apparently, comrades, we all need to rebuild. Everyone." Thus began perestroika, which became the beginning of the end for the USSR.
Reports of the death of Mikhail Gorbachev appear literally every month. They are invariably refuted by the hero himself, whom ill-wishers try to bury with enviable regularity.
March 11, 2015 marks 30 years since the election of M.S. Gorbachev as General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee.
As you know, the coming to power of a new leader was greeted with enthusiasm, but after 6 years the state he had taken over lay in ruins, and society was struck by apathy, ethnic conflicts, sects and hypnotic experiments of Kashpirovsky, and other manifestations of social decay.
In this regard, you always involuntarily return to the same question: was another possible development of events in March 1985? Was perestroika so objectively predetermined that it would have happened in any case, even if M.S. Gorbachev had not existed?..
For 30 years, propaganda, organized at one time during Gorbachev’s reign, has been trying to convince everyone that in 1985 the USSR was on the verge of economic collapse and social disunity, the people’s lack of faith in their government. Nowadays, Mikhail Sergeevich repeats long-memorized words: “Change was knocking on the windows and doors. It was necessary to decide on them, no matter how risky and even dangerous it was. But change could not begin on its own. They became possible because a new generation of politicians came to leadership in the USSR, capable of modern thinking and ready to take responsibility...”
However, was it worth sacrificing the state and social harmony for the sake of “change” - this is the main question that I would like to ask Mr. Gorbachev.
The perestroika he announced initially did not have clearly defined boundaries; they were always blurred, approximate, and verbose. And this is understandable, because the main goal was the restructuring of socialism into capitalism, and declaring this was politically risky from the very beginning.
Gorbachev's rise to power to this day causes a lot of talk and speculation. And this is no coincidence. It is difficult to find an example in history when, in peacetime, 3 (!) heads of state pass away in a row within 3 years.
The theses that, they say, Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko were already “old” are ridiculous. I would like to remind you that this “age” at the time of death was: Brezhnev - 75 years old, Andropov - 69 years old, Chernenko - 73 years old. Is this a lot? I don’t think so, especially considering that US President Ronald Reagan was the same age as Chernenko (b. 1911) and died only in 2004, and in the US no one considered him a “sick old man”. Continuing the list, we can make more interesting comparisons: L.I. Brezhnev’s wife, Victoria Petrovna Brezhneva (b. in 1907), died only in 1995, and K.U. Chernenko’s wife, Anna Dmitrievna Chernenko (b. 1913) - died only in 2010 (!).
One cannot help but recall the living party and government figures from the times of perestroika, who have long been “far beyond”: M.S. Gorbachev - 84 years old, A.I. Lukyanov - 85 years old, N.I. Ryzhkov - 86 years old, Dolgikh V .AND. – 91 years old, E.K. Ligachev is 95 years old.
So why did the wives of general secretaries and the “heirs” of general secretaries outlive them by 15–20 years, while the leaders of the state and party themselves, having first-class medical care, looked as if they were not 70, but 120 years old?
Of course, here this question should be addressed to the Kremlin doctors and, first of all, to Mr. E.I. Chazov.
V.A. Kaznacheev, Gorbachev’s colleague in leadership positions in Stavropol, provides interesting information: “I have already said that academician Chazov, when coming to the Stavropol region, shared a lot with Gorbachev, in particular, he regularly informed about the lifestyle of the Kremlin inhabitants . From the outside it seemed like friendship. But it only seemed so.
Being aware of the health status of all Kremlin leaders, the academician hinted to Gorbachev that death was taking the leaders one after another as soon as their relations with the United States worsened. Moreover, they get sick and die in some strange, absurd way. So, Brezhnev, a man with extraordinary energy, suddenly fell ill with asthenic syndrome. His slow reaction and difficult speech caused ridicule and served as material for pop artists.
Chernenko is developing phlegmon with incredible speed. Also, Andropov’s illness suddenly worsened. The military leaders of Russia (meaning the USSR - D.L.) and Czechoslovakia Ustinov and Dzura fell ill with the same disease after the maneuvers, which led to their death. If it is possible to argue about the deaths of general secretaries whether they were accidental, then the passing of Ustinov and Dzur is clear evidence that a purposeful action was taken against them.”
Thus, it was difficult not to notice the all too obvious suspicion of the deaths of 3 Secretary Generals in a row. It is no coincidence that even now all the US’s opponents are getting sick “strangely,” “ridiculously,” and in the same way. Suffice it to recall the sudden oncological diseases of the President of Venezuela Hugo Chavis, the President of Brazil Dilma Rousseff and the President of Argentina Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. And, apparently, the American technique was “tested” on Soviet leaders.
However, it seems that Chazov’s words about the health of party and state leaders did not greatly upset M.S. Gorbachev. However, they did not upset his wife, R.M. Gorbachev, who did not miss a single day without inquiring from the security: “what information is from Moscow?”
In December 1984, D.F. Ustinov died. It must be said that he died very successfully, at the most opportune moment, since Ustinov was the person who determined the candidacy of the future Secretary General. This was the case with the nomination of Andropov, and this was the case with the nomination of Chernenko. Now Ustinov is gone.
Just 3 months later, K.U. Chernenko also passed away. Surprisingly, 2 times, declaring his intention to leave the post of General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Chernenko received categorical objections and advice from the Politburo and its individual members to “just get a little treatment.” Why was this so? I think it was because there were experienced people in the Politburo who understood that no one just leaves their post. If Chernenko leaves, he will definitely name a successor, and the members of the Politburo wanted to elect a new secretary general themselves, and, therefore, for this they must wait until the death of the previous one.
And this death occurred on March 10, 1985. And this death also came very successfully and very timely, since out of 10 members of the Politburo, 4 were absent in Moscow, and, as is believed, Gorbachev’s opponents: Vorotnikov was in Yugoslavia, Kunaev was in Alma- ate, Romanov was on vacation in Lithuania, Shcherbitsky headed the delegation of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR to the USA.
However, at the evening meeting of the Politburo on March 10, 1985, the new Secretary General was not identified, so the meeting was postponed to 14.00 on March 11, so that everything could be thought over and weighed at night.
But it was on this night from March 10 to 11, 1985 that Ligachev, Gorbachev and Chebrikov remained in the Kremlin and made preparations for M.S. Gorbachev to be elected Secretary General. Also, Zagladin, Alexandrov, Lukyanov and Medvedev were summoned to the Kremlin at night to write a speech for the person who would be elected General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee.
If you believe V.A. Pechenev, then an interesting dialogue took place between A.I. Volsky and M.S. Gorbachev: “Arkady Ivanovich (Volsky - D.L.), looking into Gorbachev’s bright, sad eyes, confidentially asked him: “ Mikhail Sergeevich, will you make a report at the Plenum?” “Arkady, don’t worry about it,” Gorbachev answered diplomatically.”
Thus, it is obvious that M.S. Gorbachev prepared the speech of the future Secretary General not “for someone,” but exclusively for himself.
At the same time, all night long E.K. Ligachev called the first secretaries of the regional branches of the party, that is, members of the Central Committee, and campaigned for them in favor of Gorbachev. The next day, March 11, 1985, until 14.00, i.e. Before the fateful meeting of the Politburo, direct meetings between E.K. Ligachev and members of the Central Committee had already taken place.
The results of the elections of the Secretary General at the Politburo and then at the Plenum are known...
After the death of Brezhnev, the Plenum was convened only on the 3rd day, after the death of Andropov - on the 4th day, after the death of Chernenko - the Plenum was convened in just 20 hours. The military ensured the transportation of members of the Central Committee by military aircraft.
According to Pechenev V.A. everything that happened was “small” coup d'etat", and in our opinion, a brilliantly worked out special operation...
____________________________________
M.S. Gorbachev. 30th anniversary of Perestroika and modern times. Lecture given at the international university on February 12, 2015 // Gorbachev Foundation website. URL: www.gorby.ru/userfiles/30_letie_perestroyki_i_sovremennost.pdf. Date of access to the site: 03/10/2015
Treasurer V.A. The Last Secretary General. M., 1996. S.s. 180-181.
Pribytkov V.V. Chernenko. Series "ZhZL". M., 2009. S.s. 132-133.
Right there. P. 202.
Ostrovsky A.V. Who installed Gorbachev? M., 2010. S.s. 502-502.
Right there. P. 504.
Right there. S.s. 507, 514.
10.03.2015 13:20
March 11, 2015 marks 30 years since the election of M.S. Gorbachev as General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee.
As you know, the coming to power of a new leader was greeted with enthusiasm, but after 6 years the state he had taken over lay in ruins, and society was struck by apathy, ethnic conflicts, sects and hypnotic experiments of Kashpirovsky, as well as other manifestations of social decay.
In this regard, you always involuntarily return to the same question: was another possible development of events in March 1985? Was perestroika so objectively predetermined - would it have happened in any case, even if M.S. Gorbachev had not existed?
For 30 years, propaganda, organized at one time during Gorbachev’s reign, has been trying to convince everyone that in 1985 the USSR was on the verge of economic collapse and social disunity, the people’s lack of faith in their government. Nowadays, Mikhail Sergeevich repeats long-memorized words: “Change was knocking on the windows and doors. It was necessary to decide on them, no matter how risky and even dangerous it was. But change could not begin on its own. They became possible because a new generation of politicians came to leadership in the USSR, capable of modern thinking and ready to take responsibility...”
However, was it worth sacrificing the state and social harmony for the sake of “change” - this is the main question that I would like to ask Mr. Gorbachev.
The perestroika he announced initially did not have clearly defined boundaries; they were always blurred, approximate, and verbose. And this is understandable, because the main goal was the restructuring of socialism into capitalism, and it was politically risky to announce this from the very beginning.
Gorbachev's rise to power to this day causes a lot of talk and speculation. And this is no coincidence. It is difficult to find an example in history when, in peacetime, 3 (!) heads of state pass away in a row within 3 years.
The theses that, they say, L.I. Brezhnev, Yu.V. Andropov and K.U. Chernenko were already “old” are ridiculous. I would like to remind you that this “age” at the time of death was: for Brezhnev - 75 years, for Andropov - 69 years, and for Chernenko - 73 years. Is this a lot? I don’t think so, especially considering that US President Ronald Reagan was the same age as Chernenko (b. 1911) and died only in 2004, and in the US no one considered him a “sick old man”. Continuing the list, we can make more interesting comparisons: the wife of L.I. Brezhnev - Victoria Petrovna Brezhneva (b. in 1907) - died only in 1995, and the wife of K.U. Chernenko - Anna Dmitrievna Chernenko (b. in 1913) - died only in 2010 (!).
One cannot help but recall the living party and government figures from the times of perestroika, who have long been “far beyond”: M.S. Gorbachev - 84 years old, A.I. Lukyanov - 85 years old, N.I. Ryzhkov - 86 years old, Dolgikh V .AND. - 91 years old, E.K. Ligachev is 95 years old.
So why did the wives of general secretaries and their political “heirs” outlive them by 15 - 20 years, while the leaders of the state and party themselves, having first-class medical care, looked as if they were not 70, but 120 years old?
Of course, this question should be addressed to the Kremlin doctors and, first of all, to Mr. E.I. Chazov.
V.A. Kaznacheev, Gorbachev’s colleague in leadership positions in Stavropol, provides interesting information: “I have already said that academician Chazov, when coming to the Stavropol region, shared a lot with Gorbachev, in particular, he regularly informed about the lifestyle of the Kremlin inhabitants . From the outside it seemed like friendship. But it only seemed so.
Being aware of the health status of all Kremlin leaders, the academician hinted to Gorbachev that death was taking the leaders one after another as soon as their relations with the United States deteriorated. Moreover, they get sick and die in some strange, absurd way. So, Brezhnev, a man with extraordinary energy, suddenly fell ill with asthenic syndrome. His slow reaction and difficult speech caused ridicule and served as material for pop artists.
Chernenko is developing phlegmon with incredible speed. Also, Andropov’s illness suddenly worsened. The military leaders of Russia (meaning the USSR - D.L.) and Czechoslovakia, Ustinov and Dzura, fell ill with the same disease after the maneuvers, which led to their death. If one can argue about the deaths of general secretaries whether they were accidental, then the passing of Ustinov and Dzur is clear evidence that a purposeful action was taken against them.”
Thus, it was difficult not to notice the all too obvious suspicion of the deaths of 3 secretaries general in a row. It is no coincidence that at present all US opponents are getting sick “strangely”, “ridiculously” and in the same way. Suffice it to recall the sudden oncological diseases of the President of Venezuela Hugo Chavis, the President of Brazil Dilma Rousseff and the President of Argentina Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. And, apparently, the American technique was “tested” on Soviet leaders.
However, it seems that Chazov’s words about the health of party and state leaders did not greatly upset M.S. Gorbachev. However, they did not upset his wife, R.M. Gorbachev, who did not miss a single day without inquiring from the security: “what information is from Moscow?” .
In December 1984, D.F. Ustinov died. It must be said that he died very successfully, at the most opportune moment, since Ustinov was the person who determined the candidacy of the future Secretary General. This was the case with the nomination of Andropov, and this was the case with the nomination of Chernenko. Now Ustinov is gone.
Just 3 months later, K.U. Chernenko also passed away. Surprisingly, 2 times, declaring his intention to leave the post of General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Chernenko received categorical objections and advice from the Politburo and its individual members to “just get a little treatment.” Why was this so? I think it was because there were experienced people in the Politburo who understood that no one just leaves their post. If Chernenko leaves, he will definitely name a successor, and the members of the Politburo wanted to elect a new secretary general themselves, and, therefore, for this they must wait until the death of the previous one.
And this death occurred on March 10, 1985. And this death also came very successfully and very timely, since out of 10 members of the Politburo, 4 were absent in Moscow, and, as is believed, Gorbachev’s opponents: Vorotnikov was in Yugoslavia, Kunaev was in Alma- ate, Romanov - vacationed in Lithuania, Shcherbitsky - headed the delegation of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR to the USA.
However, at the evening meeting of the Politburo on March 10, 1985, the new Secretary General was not identified, so the meeting was postponed to 14.00 on March 11, so that everything could be thought over and weighed at night.
But it was on this night from March 10 to 11, 1985 that Ligachev, Gorbachev and Chebrikov remained in the Kremlin and made preparations for M.S. Gorbachev to be elected Secretary General. Also, Zagladin, Alexandrov, Lukyanov and Medvedev were summoned to the Kremlin at night to write a speech for the person who would be elected General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee.
If you believe V.A. Pechenev, then an interesting dialogue took place between A.I. Volsky and M.S. Gorbachev: “Arkady Ivanovich (Volsky - D.L.), looking into Gorbachev’s bright, sad eyes, confidentially asked him: “Mikhail Sergeevich, will you make a report at the Plenum?” “Arkady, don’t worry, Gorbachev answered diplomatically.”
Thus, it is obvious that M.S. Gorbachev did not prepare the speech of the future Secretary General “for someone” but exclusively for yourself.
At the same time, all night long E.K. Ligachev called the first secretaries of the regional branches of the party, that is, members of the Central Committee, and campaigned for them in favor of Gorbachev. The next day, March 11, 1985, until 14.00, i.e. Before the fateful meeting of the Politburo, direct meetings between E.K. Ligachev and members of the Central Committee had already taken place
How and when our country was ruled by M.S. Gorbachev?
Gorbachev's time - formation
On March 11, 1985, M.S. Gorbachev was elected General Secretary ( general secretary) Party Central Committee. His youth (year of birth 1931) at first glance could seem almost strange, but this effect was generated by the obvious old age of his direct predecessors - I.V. when he was elected General Secretary turned 43, N.S. Khrushchev - 58, L. AND. Brezhnev is 57 years old. The ebullient activity of Mikhail Gorbachev looks especially energetic in light of the previous period called stagnation.
And again a new era begins: after the Great October Revolution (1917), April came (1985). Immediately from his first speeches, the newly elected Secretary General unequivocally testified to the state of the state on the verge of collapse. He consciously stated
that the “potential of the socialist system” was not fully used in the industrial economy, agriculture, health care system, and railway organization. transport, housing construction, providing citizens with food. And, at the same time, he asserted that, despite all the difficulties, he has progressed and continues to develop.
This amazing paradox - praise for triumphs and recognition of the collapse of achievements - is not the first time that has been observed. In 1953, Joseph’s successors also found the state on the verge of collapse, despite all the “successes and achievements” that were constantly talked about when the leader was still alive. In 1964, the decline was declared a consequence of the “voluntarism” of the previous general, whose name was no longer even mentioned. Currently, the blame for the catastrophic situation lies with social sphere, economic, cultural - they blame it on Leonid Brezhnev, who led the state for 18 years.