How the leaders of South and North Korea are bringing the Korean people closer together. Coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR Coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR

Big politics in any country is not without elements of show, playing for the public, and even meetings at top level doubly resemble a performance, especially since the protocol departments and security services really describe almost every step and every minute of their “ward”, and at press conferences, the presidents, maybe not always, but often the questions are shown in advance, so that “there are no surprises” . Therefore, it is difficult to argue with those who snort disdainfully when commenting on South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s recent trip to North Korea, saying: “It’s all a show!”

Moreover, it is quite obvious that by staging this show of friendship, where the main actors were Moon Jae-in and Chairman of the State Council of the DPRK Kim Jong-un, the parties pursued their own pragmatic goals. But at the same time, it is worth recognizing that, regardless of motives, Moon and Kim really showed their people the people of another Korea, forcing South Koreans to think about people from the Land of Juche: “And people live there! Not some horned devils who think only about a nuclear bomb , and people - with their joys, problems and worries,” and the northerners, looking at Moon Jae-in, whose charm and captivating smile is difficult to resist, probably thought: “No, what kind of dumb American puppet is this?! He is the president, and he is not ashamed to shake hands with everyone and bow to us at the waist. And if the southerners elected such a person as president, then they themselves are probably not bad people either!”

Political duo

Looking at what happened this year, one gets the strong impression that, despite the difference in age (Moon is 30 years older than Kim), the leaders of the South and North, if they have not (yet) become bosom friends, are certainly working in tandem, and there is an understanding that we must go towards one goal. Perhaps in the end there will be disagreements about what is better - “capitalism with a human face or socialism with market elements” - but at least now Kim and Moon are “hit” on one point: they are bringing the Koreans of the two countries closer together, They themselves set an example of this.

Of course, because of three, even very friendly, inter-Korean summits, it cannot be said that “the walls of misunderstanding and alienation have completely collapsed.” Southerners, especially young people, simply do not know, and often do not want to know, how their “blood brothers” from the North live, although the Juche Country begins literally 40 kilometers north of Seoul. Subconsciously, many South Koreans simply shy away when they hear northerners standing nearby - it’s immediately clear from the accent which Korea a person is from. And they don’t try to engage in conversation. Unless they look at you with apprehension, thinking to themselves: “That’s what you are like!” And they will move on quickly. Northerners will simply, most likely, really shy away from a southerner who speaks to them - they are not supposed to communicate with them.

One defector from the DPRK, who for various reasons eventually came to South Korea, spoke about the reaction that arose when her classmates at the university found out that she was from North Korea: “They looked at me with surprise, as if they were asking: where are your horns and tail like the devil?!" This is a verbatim quote. Here I am citing, first of all, the reaction of the southerners, because they still have fewer restrictions and a greater chance of accidentally running into a North Korean. It is by no means so easy for residents of the DPRK to travel abroad, and those who do go undergo appropriate instruction.

What did the southerners see now that Moon Jae-in’s trip to the DPRK was regularly broadcast on live all channels of the country: Kim Jong-un has shown himself to be a hospitable host, who can admit to the South Korean leader that “his mansions are not the same as those you have visited on trips abroad,” who speaks very respectfully about President Moon Jae-in and does not cling to those little things that the northerners used to sin by forcing South Korean ships calling at the ports of the DPRK to lower the flags of the Republic of Korea, and I’m ready to admit that I might make a mistake and, as it turns out, I also asked the South Koreans to explain how they make a “heart” with their hands in the photo...

His wife is not only a beauty who knows how to dress stylishly, but also behaves as befits a first lady, and also remembers that she is much younger, showing all the honors and signs of respect to her “colleague” - the first lady of South Korea, Kim Jong Suk. And the North Koreans lined up along the route of the motorcade, who, yes, most likely also “at the prompting”, but created a storm of jubilation for Moon Jae-in, both when he was traveling in the motorcade with Kim Jong-un, and when he gave a speech to them...

The speech that made history

Journalists are now, one after another, trying to highlight the brightest moment of Moon Jae-in’s visit to North Korea: three times hugs with Kim Jong-un, hands raised together on the top of the sacred Paektusan Mountain, Kim and Moon laughing infectiously about something known only to them... But to me It seems that the most striking moment was when Kim, in front of 150 thousand compatriots gathered at the stadium, said: “I would like to warmly welcome and give the opportunity to address directly to you the deeply respected President Moon Jae-in who came to visit us.” After which Moon said: “We have lived together for five thousand years, but we have lived separately for only seventy years, we are one nation.”

This was not only the first time in history that the president of the South addressed personally the people of the North, but these were also the words that the people of the DPRK will never forget, feeling, looking at Moon, in their hearts: “We are one nation.” Maybe the propaganda machines of both Koreas talk about this all the time, but now the president of the South said this personally to the northerners, and at the request of the leader of the DPRK.

"Diplomacy of Charm" by President Moon

Moon Jae-in is generally unique in terms of his accessibility from the point of view of South Korean politics. In the South they are already accustomed to him stopping his motorcade to simply greet passers-by, introducing himself: “Hello, I’m Moon Jae-in,” that he forbade his assistants to pour him coffee or hand him a jacket, saying: “I’ll do it myself, I won’t break it,” that he can also have a beer in an ordinary restaurant in the evening, sitting next to random visitors, and he can also “make jokes” by quietly appearing in the frame from behind the shoulder of an ordinary woman who began to take a “selfie”.

This was also unusual for South Korea, but Moon had somehow already accustomed his compatriots to this style, giving reason to accuse him of excessive populism. And now this accessibility was seen in the North, when he shook hands with all the waitresses and hotel staff, when he again “went among the people” to fraternize with the North Koreans, so much so that Kim had to laugh and pull him away by the elbow, hinting, “It’s time, Mr. President , we have official program". He and his wife bowed 90 degrees to ordinary North Koreans, which also seemed to be “not a royal thing”...

Well, the speech at the stadium has already been said. She was interrupted by applause several times, and Kim Jong-un finally said again: “Dear compatriots, I ask you to once again warmly welcome our dear guest!”, provoking a new flurry of applause. Even if we make allowances for the staged nature of all the applause, his speech and address to the northerners, his words “I saw and was surprised at how Pyongyang developed,” will be remembered in the DPRK.

"For unification!"

Moon Jae-in's speech to the North Koreans was broadcast live in South Korea. At that moment, I accidentally found myself in a small restaurant in Seoul, where there was a TV on the wall. A group of South Koreans sitting nearby, seeing Moon making a speech to the northerners, immediately “found a reason” for a toast: “To unification! Now something has begun to be believed…” they said, clinking glasses of rice vodka. the same thing was said about a hundred kilometers to the north, on the “other” side of the demilitarized zone, in North Korea.

As most experts admit, the inter-Korean summit was not just a show, but also brought real results. Take, for example, the written commitments “under no circumstances to resort to measures that may provoke tension,” as well as all the specific steps to withdraw troops, ships, a ban on shooting and flying in the border area, and so on.

Moon and Kim extended their hand to Trump, writing in a joint declaration the DPRK’s readiness to eliminate North Korea’s main nuclear complex, thereby creating a solid reason for Kim and Trump to “meet and talk.” If the first US-North Korean summit was essentially organized and ultimately saved when it was in danger of collapse, Moon Jae-in, then now he has repeated it...

Obama is worthy, but Kim and Moon are not?

But the effect of “military confidence-building measures” and promises regarding “steps aimed at abandoning nuclear weapons” require a separate discussion. The main merit of Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un is that they really, by their example, bring together two parts of a divided nation. And they do this consistently, not allowing them to “go away from the effect” - they have already held three summits this year.

Remember what inter-Korean relations were like a year ago, when South Korean troops, together with US forces, conducted exercises that unnerved the DPRK, to which Pyongyang responded with “fireworks” from long-range missiles, and compare with what is happening now...

However, the leaders of the South and North are still not giving the peoples of the South and North a break from rapprochement. Kim Jong-un will soon come to visit South Korea. Even if this is a show, it is beautiful and brings people together... And this is much better than war. So the inter-Korean summit should be an asset to both Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un, and the entire Korean nation.

And the last thing: Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, having served as president for less than a year, and, let's face it, they gave him the award rather as an advance, which he did not work off. The official justification is “for the enormous efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” If Obama turned out to be worthy of the Nobel Prize then, then what can be said about the two Korean “guys” Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un? Who actually strengthened the “cooperation between peoples” more: the President of the United States or Kim and Moon? Although yes, I myself admitted at the very beginning that politics is always a show. Moon, and even paired with Kim, are Nobel laureates, this is not script, right?..

By tradition, from June to September, annual marathons of hatred towards Russia are held by its sworn admirers from the category of former limitrophes. On September 22, Belarusian zmagars timed actions dedicated to the anniversary of the so-called joint parade of the Red Army and the Wehrmacht in Brest. As you know, events of this order are carried over with the usual limitrophe and liberal reasoning in the style of “Stalin is an ally of Hitler”, “Stalin is Russian”, “Russians are allies of Hitler and Hitler today”.

In response, sometimes reasonable historical calculations are presented, but the constant provocations are designed precisely to make the torn Russians snap: “Yes, we are Stalin-Stalin-Stalin, choke, we can repeat it!” The whole world was for Hitler, except ours! And you yourself are Hitler-Hitler-Hitler and also homosexuals!”

And all the limitrophes need is for the Russians to repeat “We are Stalin!” and didn’t think: where and by what moral right a hundred years ago did these geographical news arise, which became the sacred cows of world Russophobia? (Most likely, Belarus will soon be included among the sacred cows that need to be protected from the evil Russians, Stalin’s heirs - which, however, arose as a result of the same events).

Unfortunately, this question is much more complex to answer in monosyllables, and fundamentally more tragic than even the Second World War. And there is no doubt that there are enough forces in the world who prefer that the Russians do not answer it even to themselves, but instead mutter for decades: “Stalin is the name of Russia! Everything that is not Stalin is Hitler! And we will hide behind Stalin, and the global Hitler is not afraid of us!”

Unfortunately, these forces achieve their goals. A huge number of people in Russia, including those involved in politics, began to look at the world exclusively through the prism of a terrible (and today completely insane) opposition: “Are you for Stalin or for Hitler?” Those living in the red-black world literally go crazy about the topic of collaboration: after all, if someone or something is not Stalin, then it is certainly Hitler!

It is not difficult to take advantage of two-dimensional thinkers - both simple swindlers and political swindlers know this, today they have managed to bait the Russians not only for the notorious “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”, but also for the fact of the existence of the ROA. Illiterate Ukrainian and Belarusian fools gloat: “Ours fought in the Ukrainian and Belarusian fronts, and the Russians fought for Hitler!” The Russian fools, embittered by such impudence, give Annibalov an oath to fight the “Vlasovism” and will soon begin to reveal it in the mirror.

Of course, in order to put provocateurs in their place, answers to the most difficult questions it's smarter to squeeze. But you should know as much as possible. Including even what they don’t talk about with their ill-wishers, but know about themselves.

There was no “joint parade in Brest”. There was the passage of German troops withdrawing from the former Polish Brest, and the passage of Soviet troops entering the Soviet Belarusian Brest.

It was probably more profitable for Germany to present this technical procedure with elements of diplomacy as a parade - thus, the Soviet Union was presented as a German ally and further distanced itself from the Western powers. A common hooligan behavior: in public, cheekily pretend to be a friend of someone you want to make a victim of, so that people will disdain to interfere in hooligan affairs and no one will come to the rescue. The Soviet side was not at all comfortable with this. And it is reasonable that the corps commander and full general from the tank forces, Guderian, was sent to the meeting with only a brigade commander, thereby emphasizing that this meeting was technical.

The USSR was also not an ally of the demonic Hitler. Conscientious poems about “Molotov-Ribbentrop” like “All of Europe is divided today, tomorrow we will divide Asia” could only have been born in the Soviet head, where it was loaded that “The Baltics are our Europe”, and “The Red Army is the strongest of all” since the “unforgettable 1919” -go".

In fact, not to mention the United States, which had a pluralistic and pragmatic attitude towards the new edition of the Reich, all of Europe communicated and collaborated with Hitler. Including the notorious Poland, which was either planning a joint raid on the USSR with Germany, or occupying the Cieszyn region of Czechoslovakia with a joint parade with the Germans. The Soviet Union in 1939 simply had nowhere to go.

And Stalin’s fault is not at all that, after many years of curses to the Nazis, he concluded a non-aggression pact with Germany (as everyone understood - temporary) and paid off with supplies of raw materials (ask for the raw materials supplied to the Germans from Sweden!). Nor is it the fact that the USSR took for itself part of the territories that were torn away from Russia after the revolution.

IN highest degree It is natural that such a fate befell the Estonian and Latvian separatists, who entered into profitable agreements with the RSFSR, directed against the Russian White resistance. In the event of the restoration (in any format) of national Russia, the Baltic and Finnish separatists, the Polish and Romanian great powers would experience unpleasant moments: the master has returned!

Stalin's fault lies elsewhere.

Firstly, he could not offer the returned lands anything other than Soviet order. And the bloody expression of will against these orders was not long in coming.

Secondly, as a result of the activities of Stalin and his one-boaters, Russia from a winner in the First World War, a candidate for the “Big Three” or at least the “Big Four” of 1917, turned into a rogue country, into a lonely ball that Western players prepared play geopolitical billiards.

Instead of a great European power that was gradually balancing out the rest of the continent, developing exponentially at the pace it had picked up at the beginning of the century, the “Kremlin dreamers” got a country that was a social cripple, where in the peaceful year of 1940 there were tails behind bread that were longer than in the wartime year of 1916. Where engineers and business managers, detectives and army commanders were afraid of responsibility, like criminals already “walking under the tower”, and thousands of lives were controlled by people with education and the mental ceiling of an evil non-commissioned officer.

Today, galvanized, including by the endless provocative flickering “Stalin - Hitler, Hitler - Stalin,” idiotic neo-Bolshevik dualism is gradually taking over Russian society. He forces people who claim some venerable social status, repeating statements and the very train of thought that fifteen years ago would have seemed wild to the most stubborn Soviet nostalgic patriots.

It makes, for example, voluptuously approve of the murder of “class enemies” and at the same time, with terrible curses, be indignant at the very fact of the existence of collaborators, in whom the entire Russian emigration is en masse. I wouldn’t be surprised if soon not only Denikin, but also Nabokov turns out to be a “Vlasovite.”

Of course, cooperation with Nazi Germany was condemned by the world community, and this is one of the few sound public judgments of the world community. But is it right for people who today strongly approve of Bolshevik practices from 1917 to 1941 to talk passionately about collaboration? Do they have the moral right or common sense to do this? Don't they look, to put it mildly, like pharisees?

Russian emigrants capable of holding weapons, whom World War II found on the European continent, found themselves in the flames of a pan-European civil war. Somewhere they had some choice, like in France, for whom to fight. Somewhere, as in Yugoslavia, there was no choice: when everyone killed each other with the same brutality, the Russians naturally chose those who were against the Comintern.

Let those who are indignant that Russians in Europe, from all classes, put on German uniforms, think about what the white militias discovered in the basements of the Cheka in 1918-1919, and remember what was printed in plain text in the Soviet press twenty years later. Perhaps those who talk about how to properly kill landowners will then understand why Germany’s war against the USSR was initially greeted with terrible enthusiasm not only by Academician Bunin, but also by the order bearer Prishvin.

And for those who like to figure out enemy networks like Yezhov and talk about discredited connections and the need to destroy enemies and traitors to the last man, we can remind you of the pragmatic Soviet-Italian relations of the 1920s and the completely sincere friendship of the Soviet Union with the primordially and completely anti-fascist GDR. Or about the Order of Victory, which the “Soviet government” awarded to King Mihai of Romania. Or about Mayakovsky, who observed Paris from the windows of Jacques Doriot, who in some Soviet references is called a comrade-in-arms of Maurice Thorez, and in others - Hitler’s minion.

Or about the parallel advance to the borders of Norway of the Red Army and the Finnish Army, which was forced to enroll as its allies, under the command of the sworn enemy of Russia, General Siilasvuo. Hjalmar Strömberg (renamed Siilasvuo in 1936), a Finnish Swede who defeated the Red Army in 1939 and fought against it on the Karelian Front for three years, rose to the rank of major in the German army during the First World War, fighting against Russia in the ranks of the German Finnish rangers. For ideological reasons, the Russian Swede Strömberg fought against the Russian Swede Mannerheim. In 1944, Siilasvuo, as an involuntary ally of the USSR, had to clear Finland of yesterday's German allies under the command of the Austrian Rendulic. The second Thirty Years' War has just broken out...

But such reshuffling of Realpolitik, still comprehensible to the merciless Stalin, is already incomprehensible to many neo-Bolsheviks, who are not yet buying into the nonsense about the “Vlasov St. George Ribbon”, but are already consistently reducing everything non-Soviet in Russian history to “Vlasovism”.

There is something in the whole historical squiggle called the “Soviet period” that makes the Bolshevik ideological followers literally obsessed with the topic of betrayal. In every neo-Bolshevik discussion not only of history, but also of the present day, the hunt for witches, sorcerers and black cats rages. The neo-Bolsheviks are constantly finding out who else turned out to be a traitor, what they received for it, and who communicated with this traitor.

One reason for this is obvious. From the very beginning, Soviet power not only fought traitors, but also created them.

On the one hand, from the first days of its existence, it pushed people away from itself, forcing them to rebel, run away, or quietly hate. And this is even if we do not take into account the reality of the “triumphant march of Soviet power” (which consisted of a wave of extrajudicial murders that swept “to the very outskirts,” the apotheosis of which was the massacre in Kyiv in February 1918).

Soviet power began with the collapse of the front, which had held out even under the lousy Provisional Government, and the economic life of Russia was destroyed in a few months by the notorious socialist decrees, which hit the fourth economy of the world with the force of a dozen Gaidar reforms. It’s even strange that the neo-Bolsheviks, who to this day emptyly dream of killing “liberals,” hate those who took up arms against the reformers of a hundred years ago—they are probably jealous.

After a few years of Soviet power, the most grain-producing regions of Russia reached the point of cannibalism. A decade later, the collectivization-industrialization of the “roaring 30s” showed “what kind of land the peasants were like” and finally turned the entire country, which had barely eaten after the civil war, into slums. And so on. After this, it is difficult not to understand that the collective farmers-reservists of 1941 at first abandoned their military equipment and surrendered in thousands (to their death) not only because of the objective impossibility of holding the line against a better-fighting enemy.

On the other hand, even official version Soviet history, the “Lenin Party” fought all the way with traitors - with Astarot Zinoviev, Asmodeus Kamenev, Velial Bukharin, Arch-Satan Trotsky, with a legion of saboteurs that permeated the entire state. She purged the armed forces from the execution of the chief of the Baltic Fleet Shchastny (1918) and the murder of Army Commander Mironov (1921) to the execution of Stern, Smushkevich and Rychagov in 1941, and still overlooked Vlasov and made his closest assistants in the ROA generals and colonels. She destroyed traitors down to the Voznesensky brothers and their associates and Beria’s comrades. And yet, along with the country, it was torn apart by traitors.

But there is probably another reason.

In 1914, in the eyes of free-thinking Russia, the Bolsheviks turned into outcasts, calling for the defeat of their country in the hope of achieving their own party goals, which were declared universal. Even before the February revolution, Bolshevik agitators quietly explained to their class-conscious comrades: “Bayonet to the ground! The Germans are our brothers!” The Germans did not think so.

The main reason for February was that Russian society had too good an opinion of itself. Literally everyone, from the tsar and the liberal leaders who hated him to the notorious workers and peasants, were confident that “our people are generally good” and would somehow come together for a better life.

Although in 1917 in post-coup Russia everyone called themselves socialists and longed for “freedom,” there was no need for any socialist revolution and no one except the utopian Bolsheviks had any idea what it should consist of. Russia, still undoubtedly poor and illiterate, was already moving in the direction of a developed and socially oriented state and has already changed dramatically in 15–20 years. Russia in 1916 was China in 2000.

The clear reason for the February coup was the diligently spreading confidence in the capital's society that there was a crisis of governance. If there had been such a crisis in 1990, the Soviet Union would still exist today.

The hidden reason was much more important and thorough. Austria-Hungary would not have survived a new Russian offensive in the spring, and Russia was expected in Prague. The prospects for Germany, taking into account the fact that the American army was supposed to land in France from week to week, in the presence of Russian troops moving towards Poland and East Prussia, seemed hopeless. Russia, which had taken Trebizond by landing in the spring of 1916, was preparing for an attack on Constantinople, which the allies found difficult to get through from the Dardanelles (in the Gallipoli battles with the Ottomans, they lost more people than Russia did on the hills of Manchuria).

The commander of the Black Sea Fleet, Vice Admiral Kolchak, was preparing a winter landing on the Bosphorus. And then, quite timely - not even for the Turks and Germans - on October 20, 1916, the flagship battleship Empress Maria exploded.

The war was over the post-war geopolitical configuration, over the Austrian and Turkish inheritance. If everything had gone as planned, Germany in any case would have divided the remnants of the Austrian Empire with Russia.

And the anger of Germany, which had laid down its arms, would have been directed not at the Russians, but at the French and Anglo-Saxons. Russia, after the forced mistakes of the beginning of the war, which saved France, tried not to be knocked against the German gates, while the Germans and the Anglo-French were grinding each other in the fields of Champagne and Flanders - this, of course, was a cynical calculation, no more immoral than Western calculations.

After the victory, the allies had to find out which of them was the odd one out, whom Bolivar would not take to El Dorado. With a high degree of probability, the “weak link in the chain of imperialism” was not Russia, but the British Empire.

According to a combination of parameters, Russia fell into the big three of the strongest powers, along with the USA and Germany. The naive Japanese press openly wrote about the obvious - the probable post-war axis "Berlin - St. Petersburg - Tokyo" (why would it be more incredible than the American bloc with Germany and Japan?).

At the beginning of 1917, the interests of both Austria-Hungary, which was clinging to life, and Germany, which mistakenly hoped to bargain without Russia, came together better world. And Britain, which understood that the next war would be for the British succession. And the USA, to which Russia was more attractive and “free”, and too weak to make big politics. And France, who feared that after a terrible victory he would appear next to his allies not even as David, who defeated the giant, but as a broken dwarf.

February was suspiciously similar to both the murder of Paul I (at least in the way many members of the imperial family kept aloof, and the unfortunate General Alekseev played the role of Bennigsen), and the murder of Alexander II, which has not yet been properly investigated. “The demon leads us into the field, apparently, and circles us around.”

However, the stupidest February betrayal, being a heavy blow (in every possible way aggravated by the work of the same Bolshevik agitators), was not yet a disaster. The Russian army truly needed to “stand the day and hold out the night.” Russia fell out of the top three winners (with America and Britain), but remained in the top four. There was every reason to expect that after victory she would be the eldest among the restive rebels - weakened France, ripening Japan, jealous Italy.

Russia was seething, but it seemed like it needed a year or two to get over it. This was not a collapse into real turmoil, but only a great depression with elements of Spanishism (with Ukrainian autonomy in the role of Catalonia). No one except the Bolsheviks demanded “the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war.” In 1918, even Moliere’s Don Juan of Russian politics, Savinkov, will try to fight for Russia in his own way, along with yesterday’s “gold chasers.”

The question of the extent of German or other foreign assistance to the Bolsheviks, of the participation of those same Finnish huntsmen-changers in the October coup still remains open. The main thing is the immediate outcome of the events from February 1917 to February 1918. The coming to power of the Bolshevik Party turned out to be a blow to the still struggling Russia. Six months later, the Russian Empire changed from a state to a territory that collapsed at the beginning of the 17th century. But without a chance left for the Minins and Pozharskys.

Today we no longer know where to turn when we hear, on the one hand, the liberal-limitrophe curses of Red Russia, and on the other, the completely insane muttering of the “new reds,” who are increasingly cursing not so much the liberals and limitrophes, but white Russia. All that remains is to come to a firm conclusion and stand on it.

Russia is not bad and Russian victories of the Soviet era are not bad. They turned out to be fragile, because they were built on a national foundation, split by the revolutionary blow. By the blow of the traitors.

The post-war history of Russia, with its undoubted achievements and regrettable failures, cannot be judged without understanding that it all stems from three successive national catastrophes that flowed from each other: the revolution, the second revolution - the collectivization of the 30s, and the world war, waged in Stalin's style. And these catastrophes were the result of the line for the defeat of Russia, taken in 1914 by the “Lenin Party”.

And one of the things necessary to heal revolutionary wounds will be to overcome both the Soviet obsession with the theme of treason and the internal enemy, and the Soviet admiration for real national betrayal.

The coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR, model 1949, on the pedestal of the monument to Vera Mukhina “Worker and Collective Farm Woman”. The sculptural group was created in 1937, the sculpture was reinstalled in 2009 on a new pavilion-pedestal specially built for it. On the pedestal are the coats of arms of 10 union republics, but there should be 11. Armenia was unlucky.

The coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR was described in Article 34 of the Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR, approved by the All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets on March 10, 1919 and adopted in the final edition by the Central Executive Committee on March 14, 1919: The coat of arms of the U.S.S.R. consists of an image on a red shield, in the rays of the sun, golden sickle and hammer, surrounded by a crown of ears of corn and with the inscription in Russian and Ukrainian: a) U.S.S.R. b) Workers of all countries unite.

The “Stalinist” Constitution of 1936 slightly changed the coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR. The abbreviation “URSR” appeared on the coat of arms, and the design changed somewhat: there were more sun rays.

By the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR dated November 21, 1949 and the law adopted by the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR on July 5, 1950, a red five-pointed star was added to the upper part of the coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR; instead of the motto, the name of the republic was placed at the bottom of the coat of arms in Ukrainian, and the motto in Ukrainian and in Russian, transferred to the side turns of the red ribbon.

The coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR, model 1949, on pavilion No. 1 “Central” at VDNKh. Until 1963 - “Chief”. Built in 1954. The inscriptions on the right turn “Workers of all countries, unite!” and on the left - “Proletarians of all countries, unite!” - No.

The coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR, model 1949, on pavilion No. 58 “Agriculture”, until 1964 - “Ukrainian SSR”. Built in 1954.

The coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR, model 1949, at the Kyiv metro station.

The lobby of the Dobryninskaya metro station.

VDNH. Pavilion No. 68 “Armenia”, - until 1959 - “Siberia”, in 1960-1963 - “Agriculture of the RSFSR”, in 1964-1966 - “Fuel Industry”. The coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR with one of two vases made in 1954 by the Leningrad trust "Russian Gem" from Caucasian anhydride and framed by cast copper belts on the theme of the 300th anniversary of the reunification of Ukraine with Russia.

Coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR
Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).
Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).
Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).
Details
Carrier	Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).
Approved
First mention	Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).
Crest	Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).
Crown	Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).
Helmet	Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).
Shield	Scarlet German Baroque "cartouche" with gold sickle and hammer
Shield holders	Ears of wheat
Base	Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).
Motto
Number in GGR	Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).
Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).
Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).
Author of the coat of arms	Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).
Coat of arms idea	Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).
Supervisor project	Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).
Heraldic revision	Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).
Artist	Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).
Computer design	Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).
Consultant	Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).
Rationale symbolism	Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).
Lua error in Module:Wikidata on line 170: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).

Coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR was approved on March 14, 1919, with some changes it was used until 1992. On the ribbon encircling the ears of wheat, in the center there is an inscription in Ukrainian Ukrainian PCP, and on the sides - Proletarians of all countries, unite!

Story

In the Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR, approved by the All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets on March 10, 1919 and adopted in the final version by the Central Executive Committee on March 14, 1919, the coat of arms was described in Article 34:

Coat of arms of the U.S.S.R. consists of an image on a red shield, in the rays of the sun, of a golden sickle and hammer, surrounded by a crown of ears of grain and with the inscription in Russian and Ukrainian:

1. U.S.S.R.
2. Workers of all countries, unite.

It is unknown whether a drawing matching the description was made.

According to the Constitution of 1929 (Article 80), the coat of arms did not undergo significant changes. The abbreviation "U.S.R.R." was added to the top of the red shield. (Ukrainian Socialist Radyanska Republic).

The “Stalinist” Constitution slightly changed the coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR. The abbreviation “URSR” appeared on the coat of arms, and the design changed somewhat: there were more sun rays.

In the summer of 1947, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine (Bolsheviks) discussed the issue of bringing the coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR to the unified standard in the USSR: they decided to add a star to the upper part and change the location of the inscriptions. By the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR dated November 21, 1949 and the law adopted by the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR on July 5, 1950, a red five-pointed star was added to the upper part of the coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR; instead of the motto, the name of the republic was placed at the bottom of the coat of arms in Ukrainian, and the motto in Ukrainian and in Russian, transferred to the side turns of the red ribbon.

The coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR was used until the resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine “On the State Emblem of Ukraine” No. 2137-XII of February 19, 1992, which approved the “Trident” as the coat of arms of Ukraine.

Description

The state emblem of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic consists of a golden sickle and hammer depicted on a red shield, illuminated by the rays of the sun and framed by ears of wheat, with the inscription on a red ribbon: at the bottom of the wreath “Ukrainian RSR”, on the right turn “Workers of all countries, unite!” and on the left - “Proletarians of all countries, unite!” At the top of the coat of arms there is a five-pointed star (Article 124 of the Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR of 1937).

The state emblem of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic is an image of a hammer and sickle located on a shield in the rays of the sun and framed by ears of corn, with the inscription on the ribbon: at the bottom of the wreath - “Ukrainian RSR”, on the right turn - “Workers of all countries, unite!” and on the left - “Proletarians of all lands, unite!” Above the shield between the ears is a five-pointed star (Article 166 of the Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR of 1978; the description of the coat of arms was excluded from this article on February 14, 1992).

Gallery

Emblem of the Ukrainian SSR (1929-1937).png

Coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR (1929-1937)

Emblem of the Ukrainian SSR (1937-1949).png

Coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR (1937-1949)

Coat of arms of Ukrainian SSR.svg

Coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR (1950-1992)

Harkov city hall - USSR coat of arms.jpg

Coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR on the building of the Kharkov City Council

COA Ukrainian SSR 1967 Rus.jpg

Coat of arms of the Ukrainian SSR with official description

See also

Write a review about the article "Coat of Arms of the Ukrainian SSR"

Notes

Literature

• State emblems and ensigns of the USSR and the allied Radian Socialist Republics: Set of posters / Author-director V.I. Stadnik, ed. N. G. Nesin, art. ed. Yu. G. Izhakevich, tech. ed. S. M. Skuratova, cor. N. M. Sidorova. - K.: Politvidav Ukraine, 1982. (Ukrainian)

Coats of arms of the republics of the Soviet Union
70px	Azerbaijan SSR | Armenian SSR | Byelorussian SSR | Georgian SSR | Kazakh SSR | (1940-1956) | ZSFSR (1922-1936)

An excerpt characterizing the Coat of Arms of the Ukrainian SSR

They looked at each other in silence, trying to hide the naughty tears that flowed in narrow paths down their cheeks... Unable to take their eyes off each other, because they knew that if he failed to help her, this glance could be their last.. .
The bald jailer looked at the grief-stricken guest and, not intending to turn away, watched with interest the sad scene of someone else's sadness unfolding in front of him...
The vision disappeared and another one appeared, no better than the previous one - a terrible, screaming, armed with pikes, knives and guns, a brutal crowd mercilessly destroyed the magnificent palace...

Versailles...

Then Axel appeared again. Only this time he was standing at the window in some very beautiful, richly furnished room. And next to him stood the same “friend of his childhood” Margarita, whom we saw with him at the very beginning. Only this time all her arrogant coldness had evaporated somewhere, and her beautiful face was literally breathing with sympathy and pain. Axel was deathly pale and, pressing his forehead against the window glass, watched in horror something happening on the street... He heard the crowd rustling outside the window, and in a terrifying trance he loudly repeated the same words:
- My soul, I never saved you... Forgive me, my poor... Help her, give her the strength to bear this, Lord!..
– Axel, please!.. You have to pull yourself together for her sake. Well, please be reasonable! – his old friend persuaded him with sympathy.
- Prudence? What kind of prudence are you talking about, Margarita, when the whole world has gone crazy?!.. - Axel shouted. - What is it for? For what?.. What did she do to them?!.
Margarita unfolded a small piece of paper and, apparently not knowing how to calm him down, said:
- Calm down, dear Axel, listen better:
- “I love you, my friend... Don’t worry about me. The only thing I miss is your letters. Perhaps we are not destined to meet again... Farewell, the most beloved and most loving of people...”
This was the queen’s last letter, which Axel had read thousands of times, but for some reason it sounded even more painful from someone else’s lips...
- What is this? What's going on there? – I couldn’t stand it.
- This beautiful queen is dying... She is now being executed. – Stella answered sadly.
- Why don’t we see? – I asked again.
“Oh, you don’t want to look at this, trust me.” – The little girl shook her head. - It’s such a pity, she’s so unhappy... How unfair it is.
“I would still like to see...” I asked.
“Well, look...” Stella nodded sadly.
In a huge square, chock-full of “excited” people, a scaffold rose ominously in the middle... A deathly pale, very thin and exhausted woman dressed in white proudly climbed up the small, crooked steps. Her short-cropped blond hair was almost completely hidden by a modest white cap, and her tired, reddened eyes from tears or lack of sleep reflected deep, hopeless sadness...

Swaying slightly, since it was difficult for her to maintain her balance because of her hands tied tightly behind her back, the woman somehow climbed onto the platform, still trying with all her might to stay straight and proud. She stood and looked into the crowd, without lowering her eyes and not showing how truly terrified she was... And there was no one around whose friendly gaze could warm the last minutes of her life... No one who warmth could have helped her withstand this terrifying moment when her life was about to leave her in such a cruel way...
The previously raging, excited crowd suddenly suddenly fell silent, as if it had run into an insurmountable obstacle... The women standing in the front rows cried silently. The thin figure on the scaffold approached the block and, stumbling slightly, fell painfully to her knees. For a few short seconds, she raised her exhausted, but already pacified by the proximity of death, face to the sky... took a deep breath... and, proudly looking at the executioner, laid her tired head on the block. The crying became louder, the women covered the children's eyes. The executioner approached the guillotine....

The coat of arms of Ukraine was approved on February 19, 1992. The coat of arms is a symbol of a golden (yellow) trident in the center of a shield of the English heraldic form of blue. The shield has a thin gold (yellow) frame. The colors of the coat of arms completely coincide with the colors of the country's national flag.

Symbolism

• Golden (yellow) color denotes prosperity, wealth, and is also the color of ripe wheat.
• The color blue represents beauty and a peaceful sky.
• The trident is a symbol of statehood, freedom, independence. There is no consensus on this symbol.

Trident

Falcon of Rurik

The first theory about the origin of this symbol dates back to the reign of the Rurikovichs. In Western Slavic languages, the words “rarog” and “rerik” mean falcon. The falcon denoted valor, swiftness, courage, indomitability.

A similar image of a falcon is on the reverse of a coin from the time of Vladimir Svyatoslavich.

The second theory takes us back to the time of the Khazarian invasion, as well as the symbol of Khazarian power - the two-toothed one. Some historians claim that it was from the Khazar two-tooth that the symbol of the trident appeared. Also, images of a two-toothed tooth are found on seals from 972 (seal of Svyatoslav Igorevich).

It was during the collapse of the Russian Empire that the Trident as a symbol reappeared in heraldry. It was the image of the Trident that became the main one on the flag and coat of arms of the Ukrainian People's Republic.

Czech anchor

The Christian theory of origin says that it was the Czech clergy who baptized the Ukrainians, and since there was nothing at hand except an anchor, they baptized them with it. This theory is no longer Christian, but political, since it does not stand up to criticism. Firstly, the Trident is not at all similar to the image of an anchor, and secondly, Svyatoslav was not a Christian and his symbol could not be a generalizing factor for the Christianization of Rus'.

Not legally approved. It is an image of a small coat of arms supported by a Zaporozhye Cossack armed with a musket and saber and a lion (symbol of Galicia). At the base there are ears of wheat, a ribbon with the colors of the Ukrainian flag, and a bunch of viburnum.

In some sources, the shield holders are located on other sides.

• A. Ivakhnenko,
• V. Mitchenko,
• M. Dmitrienko,
• Yu. Savchuk.

Historical coats of arms and symbols of Ukraine, principalities and lands of Southern Rus'.

Description: " In an azure field, the Holy Archangel Michael in a silver robe and weapons, with a flaming sword and a silver shield. The shield is topped with the Imperial crown and surrounded by golden oak leaves connected by St. Andrew's ribbon".