An event that refers to a period of stagnation. "Stagnation". L.I. Brezhnev. Crisis of the Soviet system
The history of any country, as a rule, is divided by scientists into certain periods of development. For example, when talking about Russia in the 17th-18th centuries, they often highlight the era of Peter the Great, Palace coups, and Catherine’s reforms. In turn, the 20th century is divided into the period of Stalinism, thaw, stagnation, and perestroika. Each of us has a different attitude towards them. For example, some characterize the period of stagnation in the USSR exclusively negatively, while others consider it perhaps the best Soviet era. Let's try to understand this in more detail.
Definition of the concept
What do historians mean when they talk about a period of stagnation? Mainly an era in the development of the country, which was distinguished by a relatively high standard of living of Soviet citizens, stability in all spheres of public life, as well as the absence of serious political and social upheavals.
The term “stagnation” came into use after Mikhail Gorbachev delivered a report at the 27th Congress of the Communist Party. The Secretary General used it to explain the slowdown in the country's economic progress. On the contrary, according to him, stagnation began to clearly appear in Soviet society.
The era of prosperity
Like any historical period, the time frame for stagnation is rather arbitrary. Most often it refers to the time when the country was led by Leonid Brezhnev. However, it is also wrong to think that immediately after his death perestroika began in the USSR. Approximately, historians define the years of the period of stagnation as follows: from 1964 to 1986. Thus, it covers the reign of L. Brezhnev, Y. Andropov and K. Chernenko.
The word “stagnation” evokes negative associations for most of us. Nevertheless, many researchers do not equate this era with a complete lack of forward movement in the country. Moreover, they indicate that during the twenty years of stagnation, the Soviet Union actually achieved its greatest prosperity in various spheres of state life, which is not a bad thing to know.
"Golden Age" of the USSR
This is how the years when the country was led by Leonid Brezhnev are sometimes characterized. The period of stagnation, and few people remember this, began with the introduction of cost accounting - a system of economic relations that is inherent in a capitalist economy. Even under the conditions of a planned socialist economy, the results of the 8th Five-Year Plan were impressive.
However, economic achievements were not the only ones. The Soviet Union has achieved great success in space exploration, sports, and culture. The living standards of Soviet people have risen, their social security has increased, and their confidence in the future has strengthened.
Industry
However, as many scientists note, the stability in the economy of those years was associated, on the one hand, with a sharp increase in world oil prices, and on the other, with the discovery of black gold deposits in Siberia. Thus, the country's leadership could postpone further reforms without losing profits. Although economic growth slowed down during the period of stagnation, oil revenues for the time being mitigated the consequences of this negative process.
During these years, many large enterprises were built in the USSR, including an automobile plant in Tolyatti. In 1974, thousands of Komsomol members went to the taiga to build the BAM railway, which, according to the Soviet leadership, was supposed to play a key role in the development of the Far East. The construction turned out to be another long-term construction project, and one that has not yet paid off.
Agricultural sector
In the 70s, the situation in agriculture worsened. After the agrarian reform, many collective farmers began to move to cities, and students who did not have the necessary skills came en masse to harvest the crops. The agricultural sector of the Soviet economy gradually declined, and by the mid-80s the threat of a food crisis was imminent in the country. Shortages of goods and long lines outside stores have become a common feature of everyday life during the period of stagnation.
Social paradox
And yet, in comparison with previous periods in the history of the Soviet Union, the years of stagnation were more favorable. Goods and products were relatively cheap, most citizens had the opportunity to travel to the sea in the summer or relax for free in trade union boarding houses and sanatoriums. In 1967, the country switched to a five-day working week, and many people became able to purchase household appliances and cars.
In this case, of course, we are not talking about comparing the well-being of Soviet citizens with the standard of living in Western countries. In this regard, the USSR was definitely a loser.
Foreign policy
During the period of stagnation, the country's leadership pursued a dual policy. On the one hand, important agreements were signed aimed at relieving international tension. On the other hand, the USSR sent troops to Czechoslovakia (1968) and Afghanistan (1979). These displays of military power caused great damage to the country's image on the world stage.
In the early 1970s, the Soviet Union overtook the United States in nuclear potential. The military buildup had disastrous consequences for the country's economy. Enormous funds from the state budget were directed not to the development of industry and agriculture, but to the needs of army designers. Such militarization undermined the already degrading economy of the country.
Fight against dissent
Although under L. I. Brezhnev the atmosphere of total fear disappeared, this in no way means that during the years when he stood at the helm of power, discontent could be freely expressed in the Soviet Union. On the contrary, the KGB, especially after the events in Czechoslovakia, intensified the fight against dissidents. True, the main method of intimidation was now not camps, but psychiatric hospitals. There was no talk of freedom of speech; the party completely controlled art, making it the mouthpiece of official propaganda.
Results
Despite some positive aspects, in general the period of stagnation became a prelude to perestroika. The need for change in the mid-80s was no longer recognized only by dissidents, but also by the party leadership. The main reasons that prompted M. Gorbachev to make a report on economic stagnation were:
- ineffectiveness of command methods of managing the national economy;
- collapse of the financial system;
- the USSR's lag in technology;
- commodity and food shortages;
- falling living standards;
- decline in world oil prices;
- lack of economic reforms.
However, for many Soviet citizens, the years of L.I. Brezhnev’s rule became synonymous with stability and prosperity.
Domestic and foreign policy of the USSR in 1965-1984.
This period went down in history as the “Era of Stagnation.” The term “stagnation” was first coined in a political report by M.S. Gorbachev at the 27th Congress of the CPSU Central Committee, when he noted in his speech that certain stagnation phenomena began to appear in the development of the Soviet Union and the lives of citizens. Since then, the term has become widely used by politicians, economists and historians.
By “stagnation” we understand both positive and negative phenomena. On the one hand, it was during these twenty years, according to historians, that the USSR reached its highest development - a huge number of large and small cities were built, the military industry was actively developing, the Soviet Union began to explore space and became a leader in this area; The country has also achieved significant success in sports, the cultural sphere and a variety of sectors, including the social sphere - the level of well-being of citizens has increased significantly. Stability is the main term that describes that period.
However, the concept of “stagnation” has another meaning. The country's economy virtually ceased its development during this period. The so-called “oil boom” occurred, which allowed the country’s leadership to make a profit from the sale of oil. At the same time, the economy itself did not develop and required reforms, but due to the general welfare, less attention was paid to this than required. Because of this, many people call the period of stagnation “the calm before the storm.”
The second half of the 60s - the mid-80s were a period of increasing negative phenomena in all spheres of society. They appeared:
· in economic stagnation,
· growth of opposition sentiments of the population,
The measures taken by the country's leadership to “improve” socialism could not stop the impending crisis of the administrative-command system.
Characteristics of the era of stagnation
1. Conservation of the political regime.
· During Brezhnev's stay in power, the administrative and managerial apparatus changed little. Tired of constant reshuffles and reorganizations, party members happily accepted Brezhnev’s main slogan - “to ensure stability” - which led not only to the absence of serious changes in the structure of the ruling apparatus, but actually froze it.
· During the entire period, no changes were made in the party, and all positions actually became lifelong. As a result, the average age of members of the public administration structure was 60-70 years. This situation also led to increased party control - the party now controlled the activities of many, even extremely small, government institutions.
2. The increasing role of the military sphere.
· The country was in a state of cold war with the United States, so one of the main tasks was to increase its military power. During this period, weapons began to be produced in large quantities, including nuclear and missile weapons, and new combat systems were actively developed.
· Industry, as during the Great Patriotic War, largely worked for the military sphere. The role of the KGB increased again not only in domestic but also in foreign policy.
3. Decline of the agricultural industry and cessation of economic development.
· Despite the fact that, on the whole, the country was successfully moving forward, prosperity was growing, the economy plunged into “stagnation” and sharply reduced the pace of its development. The USSR received its main funds from the sale of oil, most of the enterprises gradually moved to large cities, and agriculture was slowly rotting.
· After the agrarian reform, many peasants actually lost their jobs, as the famous “potato trips” were introduced among students. Collective and state farms increasingly brought only losses, since the work was carried out by students rather than professionals; crop losses increased in some areas to 30%.
Change of political course. With the resignation of N.S. Khrushchev, the process ended.
liberalization of socio-political life, the transformations he began ended. New leadership has come to power. L. I. Berezhnev became the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee (from 1966 - General Secretary), who was in party work for many years. It was he who was one of the initiators and organizers of the removal of N.S. Khrushchev. A cautious, conservative man, he most of all strived for the stability of society. A. N. Kosygin, who in different years led the USSR State Planning Committee, the ministries of finance, light and textile industry, was appointed head of the government.
Some of the new leaders, including A. N. Kosygin and Secretary of the Party Central Committee Yu. V. Andropov, considered it necessary to further develop the country, relying on the decisions of the 20th Party Congress. They believed it was necessary to continue the reform course in the economy and further liberalization of social and political life in order to strengthen the existing system. At the same time, they opposed radical changes in society. A more conservative path of development was defended by L. I. Brezhnev, M. A. Suslov, A. K. Shelepin and some other workers of the party and state apparatus. They associated the achievement of social stability with a revision of the political course of recent years, with the abandonment of the policy of de-Stalinization and reforms.
The confrontation of opinions on the choice of paths for the further development of society culminated in a turn from the reformism of the Khrushchev “Thaw” period to a moderate-conservative course in politics and ideology. The ideological and theoretical basis for the activities of the new leadership was the concept of “developed socialism” developed in the late 60s. In official documents, “developed socialism” was interpreted as a mandatory stage in the advancement of Soviet society towards communism, during which it was necessary to achieve an organic unification of all spheres of public life. The concept did not question the theoretical provisions about the communist perspective contained in party documents of previous years, in particular in the CPSU Program. At the same time, this concept focused attention on the need to solve the current problems of one of the stages of building communism - the stage of “developed socialism”. The shortcomings and crisis phenomena that existed in society were considered as the result of contradictions inevitable in the process of its development. The elimination of shortcomings was to be facilitated by the policy of “improving” socialism. Active promoters of the concept of “developed socialism” were L. I. Brezhnev, who replaced him as head of the CPSU, Yu. V. Andropov, and the latter’s successor, K. U. Chernenko.
Two development trends. In the socio-political life of the 60-70s, complex and contradictory processes took place. Under the guise of the fight against N. S. Khrushchev’s voluntarism, the reforms he had begun were curtailed. At the end of 1964, the unification of industrial and rural party organizations took place. Later, the territorial system of economic management was abolished. The distortions made in the agricultural sector, in particular in relation to personal plots, were eliminated. The departure from the course of de-Stalinization has begun. The press stopped criticizing the personality cult of J.V. Stalin and exposing the lawlessness of the Stalinist regime. Censorship was tightened again. As before, access to sources of scientific information - domestic and foreign - for researchers was limited. This measure entailed dire consequences for the development of science. Neither during this period nor later was complete de facto equality of the republics achieved.. Moreover, new problems arose in interethnic relations that required immediate resolution. Representatives of the republics demanded an expansion of the network of schools teaching in their native language. The movement for environmental protection, for the preservation of historical monuments and national traditions has strengthened. But the country's leadership did not pay enough attention to the growing conflicts in the national sphere. The growth of national self-awareness of peoples, speeches in defense of national interests were considered as a manifestation of Local nationalism. In the development of socio-political life, two trends were increasingly clearly visible: democratic and anti-democratic. They manifested themselves, in particular, in the sphere of management of industrial and government affairs. At the turn of the 60s and 70s, the powers of local councils expanded significantly. They coordinated and controlled the activities of enterprises, institutions, and collective farms in the field of housing construction, public education, and healthcare. Deputies of local and Supreme Soviets received the right to make proposals to hear reports from any government bodies or officials controlled by the Soviets at sessions. In the 70s and early 80s, the number of public associations in enterprises and institutions grew rapidly. Organizations of people's control and technical creativity and permanent production meetings (PDPS) were created. Widespread voluntary people's squads for the protection of public order. The activities of mass associations, led by party organizations, created the illusion of participation in the management of social production by broad sections of the population. The activities of state and public organizations were managed by the Communist Party.
In 1977, a new Constitution of the USSR was adopted, which legally enshrined the construction of “developed socialism”. The Constitution expanded the social rights of citizens: the right to work, free education, medical care, recreation, etc. The Constitution of the USSR for the first time officially established the special role of the CPSU in society.
The main principle of state power was the sovereignty of the people. The political basis of the state, the Soviets, approved by previous Constitutions, was consolidated. From now on they began to be called Councils of People's Deputies. All Councils of People's Deputies - the Supreme Council of the USSR, the Supreme Councils of the union and autonomous republics, regional, regional and other Councils constituted a unified system of government bodies (Diagram 1).
At the head of the system was the bicameral Supreme Soviet of the USSR, consisting of the Council of the Union and the Council of Nationalities. His responsibilities were: adoption and amendment of the all-Union Constitution, inclusion of new republics in the Union, approval of state budgets, plans for social and economic development. During breaks between sessions of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, its functions were performed by the Presidium. Day-to-day management activities were carried out using the public administration system, which was headed by the Council of Ministers of the USSR (Diagram 2). The core of the political system of a society of developed socialism was called the Communist Party. Article six of the Basic Law assigned to the CPSU the role of the leading and guiding force of society, which determines the general prospects for its development, the line of domestic and foreign policy. The basis of the economic system was confirmed - socialist ownership of the means of production in its two forms: state and cooperative. Separate sections of the Constitution were devoted to issues of social development and foreign policy. The principles of relations between the USSR and other powers of the world were formulated: sovereign equality, mutual renunciation of the use of force, respect for the territorial integrity of states, peaceful settlement of controversial issues.
Since the end of 1964, the country's leadership has been trying to carry out economic reforms. The March Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee (1965) outlined measures for agriculture:
· establish a firm procurement plan for 6 years (1965-1970) and increase purchase prices,
· introduce a 50% premium for above-plan products,
· increase investment in the village,
· cut taxes.
The implementation of these measures led to a temporary acceleration of agricultural production.
The essence of economic reform in industry (September 1965) was as follows m:
· transition to sectoral management,
· transfer of enterprises to self-financing,
· reduction in the number of planned indicators (instead of 30-9),
· creation of incentive funds at enterprises.
A.N. played an active role in the preparation and implementation of the reform. Kosygin(Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR).
The economic reform of 1965 proved to be successful during the 8th Five-Year Plan(1966 – 1970):
· industrial production increased by 50%.
· 1,900 large enterprises were built (the Volzhsky Automobile Plant in Tolyatti produced the first Zhiguli cars in 1970).
· agricultural production increased by 20%.
By the early 1970s, the reform ceased to work. Market mechanisms for managing production were paralyzed by the command-administrative system. Agriculture again took a back seat. Economic reform, not supported by reform of the political system, was doomed.
Since the beginning of the 70s. the rate of decline in production has increased:
· The economy continued to develop on an extensive basis (involving additional material and human resources in production).
· Newly built plants and factories lacked workers due to low birth rates. Labor productivity has fallen.
· The economy has become resistant to innovation. Only enterprises working for military orders were distinguished by high technology.
· The country's economy was militarized. Military spending grew 2 times faster than national income.
· Civilian industry suffered losses. By the beginning of the 80s, only 10% - 15% of enterprises were automated. During the 9th Five-Year Plan (1971–1975), economic growth stopped.
The appearance of well-being of the national economy was ensured through the sale of natural resources - gas and oil. “Petrodollars” were spent on the development of the eastern regions of the country and the creation of gigantic territorial production complexes. Construction projects of the century were carried out (VAZ, KAMAZ). From 1974-1984 The Baikal-Amur Mainline (BAM) was built - 3 thousand km.
Agriculture remained the weakest industry in the 70s and 80s. The old management system interfered with the independence of collective and state farm leaders. Purchase prices for agricultural products were low, and for agricultural machinery – high. The state was forced to import grain (1979 - 1084 - 40 million tons per year).
IN In the 1970s, the campaign against the “second virgin lands” began to spread widely.- Non-Black Earth Region (29 regions and republics of Russia). The main emphasis was on agro-industrial integration, i.e. unification of agriculture with the industries that serve it - industry, transport, trade. Mass liquidation of “unpromising villages” (200 thousand) began. In 1982, a food program was developed designed to solve the food problem in the USSR by 1990.
Crisis phenomena gradually accumulated in the social sphere. The rise in the population's living standards stopped, there was a shortage and a hidden rise in prices. This became an economic prerequisite for the formation of the “shadow economy”.
A similar situation in the countryside led to the fact that citizens began to move en masse to cities, crop yields fell, and by the end of the period of stagnation, a food crisis began to brew. It was especially difficult during this period for Ukraine, Kazakhstan and other regions whose main activities were agriculture and the mining industry.
Dissident movement. The domestic policy of the Brezhnev administration was conservative in nature (“neo-Stalinism”).
· from the 2nd half of the 60s, criticism of the cult of Stalin was prohibited,
· the process of rehabilitation of the repressed stopped,
· persecution of dissidents began.
In the 1970s, dissent merged into the dissident movement, whose characteristic features were anti-communism and anti-Sovietism. (academician A.D. Sakharov, writer A.I. Solzhenitsyn, musician M.A. Rostropovich).
Activity first dissidents(persons whose views were contrary to the official ideology) was aimed at improving the existing system, and later at abandoning it. Their most prominent representatives were: historian Roy Medvedev, writer A. I. Solzhenitsyn, physicist A. D. Sakharov. The main forms of activity of dissidents were demonstrations under human rights slogans, appeals to the country's leaders and courts in defense of the rights of certain persons.
In 1966, a group of liberal-minded intelligentsia - artists, writers, musicians - addressed an open letter to L. I. Brezhnev. The letter spoke about the emerging danger of the rehabilitation of J.V. Stalin and the inadmissibility of the revival of neo-Stalinism.
In 1968, members of the human rights movement organized protest demonstrations in connection with the invasion of troops of the USSR and other ATS countries into Czechoslovakia.
In the 70s, the confrontation between the opposition movement and the authorities intensified. The final departure of the party and state leadership from the reform course, restrictions in the dissemination of information, and the government’s desire to prevent the widespread development of contacts between the intelligentsia and the outside world contributed to the activation of the opposition. Dissidents organized the publication abroad of literary works banned in the country (Tamizdat). The so-called uncensored press (“Samizdat”) arose. Typewritten journals were published (“Veche”, “Memory”), and the information bulletin of the human rights movement “Chronicle of Current Events”.
In the mid-70s, dissidents organized a group in Moscow to promote the implementation of the Helsinki agreements. The actions of the dissidents were regarded by the country's leadership as “harmful” and “hostile.” Representatives of the dissident movement were persecuted, they were imprisoned (General Grigorenko), and expelled abroad (writer A.I. Solzhenitsyn).
Economic reforms of the mid-60s. Reorganizations and reforms in the economy of the late 50s and early 60s did not lead to positive changes. The pace of economic development fell. For the new leadership of the country, the need to continue economic reforms was obvious. The transformations affected primarily agriculture. In March 1965, firm purchasing plans for agricultural products were introduced for several years in advance. Procurement prices for grain crops increased. Premiums to current purchase prices for livestock increased. Collective farms were transferred to direct bank lending. Guaranteed wages for collective farmers were introduced. Restrictions on the development of their personal farms were lifted. In the fall of 1965, economic reform in industry began to be implemented. It was preceded by a long discussion, in which business workers and prominent economists, including V. S. Nemchinov, L. M. Birman and others, participated. During the discussion, thoughts were expressed about the need to introduce full self-financing and self-sufficiency of enterprises. These ideas were regarded as untimely, however, some principles of a market economy (profit, self-financing) were incorporated into the reform. The adopted reform established the volume of products sold as one of the main indicators of enterprise performance. The Councils of the National Economy were abolished, and sectoral management was restored.
Programs for the creation of territorial production complexes were implemented. With their help it was also supposed to strengthen the economic ties of the republics. Territorial production complexes were formed in Siberia (Krasnoyarsk-Achinsky), in Kazakhstan (Chimkenteko-Dzhambulsky), in Tajikistan and other areas. The Baikal-Amur Railway (BAM) was being laid. The course towards the integration of the economies of the union republics and the directive management of republican farms from the center caused imbalances in their structure. One of the consequences of this was public discontent and the growth of opposition sentiments in the union republics. In Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, due to economic contradictions, the desire for the republics to secede from the USSR intensified. Separatist sentiments became especially active in them in the 1980s.
By the beginning of the 80s, a powerful industrial potential had been created in the country. At the same time, priority attention to sectors of the military-industrial and fuel-energy complexes aggravated the deformations in the industrial structure. Directive management and insufficient consideration of regional production characteristics led to a decline in economic indicators of industrial development.
The period from Leonid Brezhnev's rise to power (mid-1960s) to the beginning of perestroika (second half of the 1980s) is usually characterized in journalism as the “era of stagnation.”
The term “stagnation” originates from the political report of the Central Committee to the 27th Congress of the CPSU (1986), made by Mikhail Gorbachev, which stated that “stagnation began to appear in the life of society” in both the economic and social spheres.
With the change of leadership in 1964, significant changes occurred in the USSR economy. The government attempted to carry out large-scale economic reforms. On September 30, 1965, a decree “On improving industrial management” was issued, and on October 4, 1965, a decree “On improving planning and strengthening economic incentives for industrial production” was issued. The main initiator of the ongoing reforms was the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, Alexey Kosygin.
The essence of the reforms boiled down to a set of measures aimed at strengthening economic leverage, increasing the independence of enterprises and organizations, and updating the methods of centralized planning.
The Kosygin reform of 1965 also focused on agriculture. The model Charter of collective farms of November 1969 gave collective farms significant independence, and elements of self-financing were introduced. Collective farmers retained the right to maintain personal subsidiary plots, personal plots, and livestock and poultry. During this period, large-scale programs for reclamation and construction of irrigation canals, stabilization of the exploitation of virgin lands, and a special plan for the revival of non-chernozem lands in the center of Russia were proclaimed.
Radical economic reforms did not affect the social and political system of society and did not call into question the mechanism of party leadership.
In the first post-reform years (1966-1970), the average annual growth rate of national income increased by an average of 1.1% compared to the previous five-year period, and the growth of gross agricultural output in the same years increased by 1.7%. During this period, the gross social product grew by more than 350%. The country produced 4 times more products than during the previous four five-year plans. Industrial output increased by 485%, and agricultural output by 171%.
By 1968, Kosygin’s economic reform had stalled, and soon came to naught due to the lack of political reforms. In 1970-1971, discussions began on a new economic reform. The proposed concept could have begun to be implemented in 1972-1973, but in 1973 there was a jump in oil prices on the world market, and all economic reforms were postponed.
Another attempt to revive the Soviet economy was carried out in 1979. Then the CPSU Central Committee adopted a resolution “On improving planning and strengthening the impact of the economic mechanism on increasing production efficiency and quality of work.” However, it did not have a significant impact on what was happening in the economy. During the 1970s, the structure of the economy changed significantly; it became absolutely dependent on oil revenues, on the one hand, and supplies of food, consumer goods and engineering from developed countries, on the other.
In industry in the 1970s, the emphasis shifted to the development and development of territorial production complexes (TPC). The energy sector of the USSR developed at an accelerated pace. New capacities of existing nuclear power plants were put into operation, and several new nuclear power plants were built. During the tenth five-year plan, electricity production at nuclear power plants increased 3.6 times.
The unified energy system united cascades of hydroelectric power stations on the Dnieper, Volga, Kama, Angara and Yenisei. In the energy sector, as well as in the fuel and raw materials complex, a bet was made on an extensive development path. The share of fuel and raw materials exports from the USSR rose in 1960-1985 from 16.2 to 54.4%.
A difficult situation has developed in agriculture, which has become increasingly subsidized. The efficiency of agriculture was steadily falling, and the government began to increase imports. In 1979-1984, about 40 million tons of food were imported into the country annually.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the development of the national economy of the USSR began to reveal a tendency towards a noticeable decrease in the growth rate of national income. If in the 8th Five-Year Plan its average annual growth was 7.8% and in the 9th - 5.7%, then in the 10th it decreased to 4.3%, and in the 11th it was about 3.6%.
Nevertheless, the reforms of 1960-1970 had a positive impact on the development of the national economy of the USSR. In 1980, the Soviet Union ranked first in Europe and second in the world in terms of industrial and agricultural production. If in 1960 the volume of industrial production of the USSR compared to the USA was 55%, then in 1980 it was already more than 80%.
In social terms, during the 18 Brezhnev years, real incomes of the population increased by more than 1.5 times. The population of Russia increased by 12 million people. Under Brezhnev, 1.6 billion square meters were put into operation. meters of living space, thanks to which 162 million people were provided with free housing. At the same time, rent on average did not exceed 3% of family income. Affordability of housing, health care, and higher education were unprecedented.
According to a survey by the Public Opinion Foundation conducted in 2006, 61% of respondents consider the years of Leonid Brezhnev’s rule to be a prosperous time for the country, and only 17% - unfavorable. Among those aged 36 to 54, 75% of respondents gave a positive assessment of that era, among those older - 74% (negative - 14% and 18%, respectively). Young respondents (under 35 years old), naturally, were much more likely to find it difficult to assess Brezhnev’s times, but they were much more likely to recognize them as prosperous rather than dysfunctional (35% and 20%, respectively).
The material was prepared based on information from open sources.
Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev came to criticize the cult of personality and the Cuban missile crisis, which almost plunged the world into the Third World War, whose years of rule were remembered for the naturally reverse process.
Stagnation, the strengthening of Stalin's importance in the eyes of the public, softening in relations with the West, but at the same time attempts to influence world politics - these are the characteristics that this era is remembered for. The years of Brezhnev's rule in the USSR were some of the key ones that contributed to the subsequent economic and political crisis of the nineties. What was this politician like?
First steps to power
Leonid Ilyich was born into an ordinary working-class family in 1906. He first studied at a land management technical school, and then studied to become a metallurgist. As director of the Technical College of Metallurgy, which is located in Dneprodzerzhinsk, he became a member of the CPSU party in 1931. When the Great Patriotic War broke out, Brezhnev worked as deputy head of the political department on the Southern Front. By the end of the war, Leonid Ilyich became a major general. Already in 1950 he worked as first secretary in Moldova, and in subsequent years he replaced the chief in the Political Directorate of the Army of the Soviet Union. Then he becomes chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council. It is known that an absolutely trusting relationship developed between Khrushchev and Brezhnev, which allowed the latter to advance to the levers of governing the country after Nikita Sergeevich’s illness.
Brezhnev's reforms
The years of Leonid Brezhnev's reign (1964-1982) can be characterized as a time of conservative measures. Agricultural expansion was not the main task for the ruler. Although Kosygin's reform was carried out during this period, its results were disastrous. Expenditures on housing and healthcare construction only decreased, while expenses on the military complex grew by leaps and bounds. Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev, whose years of rule were remembered for the growth of the bureaucratic apparatus and bureaucratic arbitrariness, was more focused on foreign policy, apparently not finding ways to resolve internal stagnation in society.
Foreign policy
It was precisely on the political influence of the Soviet Union in the world that Brezhnev worked most of all, whose years of rule were full of foreign policy events. On the one hand, Leonid Ilyich is taking important steps in de-escalating the conflict between the USSR and the USA. The countries are finally finding a dialogue and agreeing on cooperation. In 1972, the President of America visited Moscow for the first time, where a treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons was signed, and in 1980, the capital hosted guests from all countries for the Olympic Games.
However, Brezhnev, whose years of rule are known for his active participation in various military conflicts, was not an absolute peacemaker. For Leonid Ilyich, it was important to designate the USSR’s place among world powers capable of influencing the resolution of foreign policy issues. Thus, the Soviet Union sends troops into Afghanistan and participates in conflicts in Vietnam and the Middle East. In addition, the attitude of the socialist countries that had been friendly to the USSR until that time is changing, and Brezhnev is also interfering in their internal affairs. The years of Leonid Ilyich's reign were remembered for the suppression of Czechoslovak protests, deterioration of relations with Poland and the conflict with China on Damansky Island.
Awards
Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev was especially distinguished by his love of awards and titles. Sometimes it reached such absurdity that as a result many anecdotes and inventions appeared. However, it is difficult to argue with the facts.
Leonid Ilyich received his first award back in Stalin’s time. After the war he was awarded the Order of Lenin. One can only imagine how proud Brezhnev was of this title. The years of Khrushchev's rule brought him several more awards: the second Order of Lenin and the Order of the Great Patriotic War, first degree. All this was not enough for the vain Leonid Ilyich.
Already during his reign, Brezhnev was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union four times out of a possible three. He also received the title of Marshal of the USSR and the Order of Victory, which was awarded only to great commanders who participated in active hostilities, where Brezhnev never ended up.
Results of the board
The main defining word of the Brezhnev era was “stagnation.” During the leadership of Leonid Ilyich, the economy finally showed its weakness and lack of growth. Attempts to carry out reforms did not lead to the expected results.
As a conservative, Brezhnev was not satisfied with the policy of softening ideological pressure, so during his time control over culture only intensified. One striking example of this is the expulsion of A.I. Solzhenitsyn from the USSR in 1974.
Although there were relative improvements in foreign policy, the aggressive position of the USSR and the attempt to influence the internal conflicts of other countries worsened the attitude of the world community towards the Soviet Union.
In general, Brezhnev left behind a number of difficult economic and political issues that his successors had to resolve.