March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
Now, the tragedy, comrades, is that if you ask: How do we judge Stalin?
Who is Stalin?
What is Stalin: enemy of the party, enemy of the working class?
No?
The tragedy is that he was not only a cruel man.
And all the cruelty and unfairness, and the misuse of power...
Everything was done, I'm sure, in the interest of the party.
In the interests of the working class.
In the interests of Marxist-Leninist teaching.
About this, comrades, we have no doubts.
The tragedy is that he sincerely told us, when he was feeling weak, that... kittens.
You're blind kittens.
You're not able to see the enemy.
I'll die and the State will die, because of you...
The enemy, the enemy is very crafty.
You don't have this craftiness; he considered them to be willy.
And I'm saying this frankly, he was totally convinced, sure of this.
You, comrades, really have to simply be a fair person.
We're now criticizing Stalin, but we don't criticize those successes which we achieved under Stalin's leadership.
The questions...questions of socialism... the questions of the victory... Comrades, great work has been done under the leadership of the party.
It was done under the leadership of Stalin.
It was done in the interests of the working class.
It was done, so to speak, in the interests of our party; and we were taught it too.
Here's the tragedy, because we, with Stalin, struggled together.
With Stalin, together we carried on the work, so to say, on the reconstruction of our society.
With Stalin, together we achieved the successes, and this we accept.
And this, so to speak, our, with Stalin, conquest,which we will, so to speak, protect and defend.
But, Stalin had, Stalin was a man with special characteristics, especially under conditions which made him consider the opinion of others, he didn't consider them.
The sittings were... the sittings of the Central Committee plenum, congresses,were summoned, and then when Stalin began to make himself stronger, when he already didn't feel himself to be responsible to the Central Committee, then he stopped summoning the Politburo.
The Politburo already didn't confer.
When he was bored, then he would say no sitting.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
But, before, there was a schedule and a strict schedule -- on such a day, at such a time, for so long, the Politburo will take part in the conference, such an order, this person may attend, that may not, that's what's stated in the party according to the regulations.
After some time, and all this was lost.
But, why he already, then, I don't know it.
Who knows?
Now, to explain the death of people...
For example, you read.
I'm simply repeating, for example, the death of...
It's the oldest party member, the member from the Donbass.
They said that he's [Rudzutak] Pisudski's commander in Ukraine, yes.
Yes, comrades, and Stalin believed them.
And he was shot, this person.
We... know, I...substituted in Ukraine, we, he was let go of his responsibilities as Central Committee secretary in 1938.
I took over the responsibilities from him.
He was then made the chief of the CCC.
It seems there was such a Central Control Committee...
It was... reinstated...
From 1903 or 1905 a Bolshevik, worker... served throughout the Civil War, then in the Far East, was destroyed as an enemy of the people.
We now rehabilitated him, he was not any kind of enemy ...
This was a wonderful Latvian, party member since 1903 or 1905, I don't remember now, it's mentioned in the report...
Comrades, at the time of Lenin... occupied... certain position and trusted chief of the Central Control Commission...
He was made an agent provocateur, then an enemy, and he was shot.
This is nonsense.
And now we opened his files, and we see that there's not any foundation for it.
This is an honest, and not only honest, faithful, man.
This is a Bolshevik.
This is a revolutionary.
Why do we see it now, and why didn't we see it before?
I'll tell you.
Before, we didn't see it.
I myself read the materials...
Imagine to yourselves, arresting...
For example... whenarrested... some time passed.
You see, we... thought, he's a Bolshevik.
But, when the so-called prosecutor summoned him, and began to interrogate.
What did you do...
But, he says, listen, to whom are you talking to?
You're talking to me like a party member, but I'm not a party member.
I've never been in the party.
I'm above the party.
I joined the party just because I had to.
You see,Comrades, why it's like this after the murder of Kirov.
And this murder is very mysterious, because why was Kirov killed and the man who protected Kirov, who was brought for cross-examination, killed during a car accident, a very crude way, which is used by all intelligence services.
After this, law was made on the basis that everyone was or could be an enemy.
We, before the congress, called the investigative judge who cross-examined...
The prosecutor presented him the investigation and said he has to be convicted.
We exchanged opinions.
I said let's call him.
This is the only witness left alive, who can tell us something.
He cross-examined...
He interrogated Chubar.
He examined Postashev.
And therefore he can say which information he used, and that they're enemies of the people.
We called him...
First of all, himself, a nobody.
So why was it necessary to allow this nobody to decide party questions; because, it's a question of a member of the Politburo.
Chubar, was being investigated...
Postashev and also... was interrogated.
And we asked him, what kind of information do you have to judge your people, whom you cross-examined, that they're enemies of the people.
And you wrote this in the protocol...
He says, I didn't have any.
So why did you write this.
We were told that, he says, when they were arrested, for example Chubar, and told they were enemies of the people, party.
And so, my business as a prosecutor, make him admit to it, and to write it in his own handwriting.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
But, before, there was a schedule and a strict schedule -- on such a day, at such a time, for so long, the Politburo will take part in the conference, such an order, this person may attend, that may not, that's what's stated in the party according to the regulations.
After some time, and all this was lost.
But, why he already, then, I don't know it.
Who knows?
Now, to explain the death of people...
For example, you read.
I'm simply repeating, for example, the death of...
It's the oldest party member, the member from the Donbass.
They said that he's [Rudzutak] Pisudski's commander in Ukraine, yes.
Yes, comrades, and Stalin believed them.
And he was shot, this person.
We... know, I...substituted in Ukraine, we, he was let go of his responsibilities as Central Committee secretary in 1938.
I took over the responsibilities from him.
He was then made the chief of the CCC.
It seems there was such a Central Control Committee...
It was... reinstated...
From 1903 or 1905 a Bolshevik, worker... served throughout the Civil War, then in the Far East, was destroyed as an enemy of the people.
We now rehabilitated him, he was not any kind of enemy ...
This was a wonderful Latvian, party member since 1903 or 1905, I don't remember now, it's mentioned in the report...
Comrades, at the time of Lenin... occupied... certain position and trusted chief of the Central Control Commission...
He was made an agent provocateur, then an enemy, and he was shot.
This is nonsense.
And now we opened his files, and we see that there's not any foundation for it.
This is an honest, and not only honest, faithful, man.
This is a Bolshevik.
This is a revolutionary.
Why do we see it now, and why didn't we see it before?
I'll tell you.
Before, we didn't see it.
I myself read the materials...
Imagine to yourselves, arresting...
For example... whenarrested... some time passed.
You see, we... thought, he's a Bolshevik.
But, when the so-called prosecutor summoned him, and began to interrogate.
What did you do...
But, he says, listen, to whom are you talking to?
You're talking to me like a party member, but I'm not a party member.
I've never been in the party.
I'm above the party.
I joined the party just because I had to.
You see,Comrades, why it's like this after the murder of Kirov.
And this murder is very mysterious, because why was Kirov killed and the man who protected Kirov, who was brought for cross-examination, killed during a car accident, a very crude way, which is used by all intelligence services.
After this, law was made on the basis that everyone was or could be an enemy.
We, before the congress, called the investigative judge who cross-examined...
The prosecutor presented him the investigation and said he has to be convicted.
We exchanged opinions.
I said let's call him.
This is the only witness left alive, who can tell us something.
He cross-examined...
He interrogated Chubar.
He examined Postashev.
And therefore he can say which information he used, and that they're enemies of the people.
We called him...
First of all, himself, a nobody.
So why was it necessary to allow this nobody to decide party questions; because, it's a question of a member of the Politburo.
Chubar, was being investigated...
Postashev and also... was interrogated.
And we asked him, what kind of information do you have to judge your people, whom you cross-examined, that they're enemies of the people.
And you wrote this in the protocol...
He says, I didn't have any.
So why did you write this.
We were told that, he says, when they were arrested, for example Chubar, and told they were enemies of the people, party.
And so, my business as a prosecutor, make him admit to it, and to write it in his own handwriting.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
But, and how did you achieve this.
Well, he says, we beat him until he couldn't confess.
Therefore, you see, an innocent person.
Now, we're all very upset about it.
I don't know, maybe the judge will convict him.
Maybe he'll be shot, if it gets to that point.
Strictly, legally -- it's correct.
But, comrades, if you take a look from a different angle, that he didn't bring these people to their graves.
But, imagine a simple person, with a limited range of knowledge, who arrests an important person.
They get him to examine right away, and tell him this is an enemy of the people.
You should try to make sure that he confesses.
And he tries.
He doesn't have the brains.
Therefore, he's trying to do with his muscles.
If you take a look at these two people, then you'll see the gorilla and the chimpanzee.
Because Chubar's the big man, and the other is small.
As are Yezhov and Beria.
He writes to Stalin like so, that I'm sending, for example, the testimonies for example of Chubar.
Every page of the deposition is signed by Chubar, in his own hand, and on every page he himself composed what he was doing that was detrimental to our party.
If I had sent you this, Comrades.
After reading this, you'd probably be indignant, and probably say, this is really an enemy of the people.
(Voice from the audience [in Russian] No, No?)
Comrades, comrades, you're saying no.
I'm not upset with you.
Yes, Comrades.
But, you're saying this in 1956, after my presentation.
Now.
And the fool can be smart.
But, you have to make the decision when the question is being discussed.
Here, before you, sits your wonderful fellow-countryman, and our friend, Rokossowski.
He spent two years in jail.
(Question from the audience:... )
There is.
Yes, there is.
Here, in my report, I was talking about Berezhkov.
Berezhkov, I don't know if he sat for two years or not, but not for a long time.
But, now he's a complete invalid.
He was interrogated by Rodos.
This big man was interrogated by Rodos.
They had very smart techniques.
The doctor's case.
I was sick, before my trip to Warsaw.
The professor, Vinogradov, came, who was one of the saboteurs and sat in jail.
And then he was freed.
I ask: "So, what do you think, Vladimir Nikitovich, can I fly to Warsaw?"
He says: "You can."
"Breathe carefully, through the nose."
"In the open air, don't make speeches."
"Hat, do not take off the hat."
A doctor says that to a person who's not yet completely well.
He was in jail.
After jail he examined us.
But, I read his testimony myself, that he was a German spy.
It so happened that this doctor, Vinogradov, attended to me, and was at my place practically a day before his arrest.
After my presentation to the 19th congress, I fell ill.
And I was lying in bed, for three day.
And he was taking care of me, and I was already reading the protocols on his statements.
The other doctors were saying this...
What could I do?
What could I do, when a doctor who works with him says: I say such-and-such, I did such-and-such things, I poisoned this one, I strangled that one.
I had the help of such-and-such.
What could I say to myself.
I'll go and say to Stalin that this isn't true.
But, he'll say: "What are you doing, these people are admitting it."
I wouldn't be allowed.
The investigator should have been called, then the doctors, and questioned.
But these conditions weren't available.
These conditions -- this is the cult of personality.
This is power, concentrated in one hand.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
But, and how did you achieve this.
Well, he says, we beat him until he couldn't confess.
Therefore, you see, an innocent person.
Now, we're all very upset about it.
I don't know, maybe the judge will convict him.
Maybe he'll be shot, if it gets to that point.
Strictly, legally -- it's correct.
But, comrades, if you take a look from a different angle, that he didn't bring these people to their graves.
But, imagine a simple person, with a limited range of knowledge, who arrests an important person.
They get him to examine right away, and tell him this is an enemy of the people.
You should try to make sure that he confesses.
And he tries.
He doesn't have the brains.
Therefore, he's trying to do with his muscles.
If you take a look at these two people, then you'll see the gorilla and the chimpanzee.
Because Chubar's the big man, and the other is small.
As are Yezhov and Beria.
He writes to Stalin like so, that I'm sending, for example, the testimonies for example of Chubar.
Every page of the deposition is signed by Chubar, in his own hand, and on every page he himself composed what he was doing that was detrimental to our party.
If I had sent you this, Comrades.
After reading this, you'd probably be indignant, and probably say, this is really an enemy of the people.
(Voice from the audience [in Russian] No, No?)
Comrades, comrades, you're saying no.
I'm not upset with you.
Yes, Comrades.
But, you're saying this in 1956, after my presentation.
Now.
And the fool can be smart.
But, you have to make the decision when the question is being discussed.
Here, before you, sits your wonderful fellow-countryman, and our friend, Rokossowski.
He spent two years in jail.
(Question from the audience:... )
There is.
Yes, there is.
Here, in my report, I was talking about Berezhkov.
Berezhkov, I don't know if he sat for two years or not, but not for a long time.
But, now he's a complete invalid.
He was interrogated by Rodos.
This big man was interrogated by Rodos.
They had very smart techniques.
The doctor's case.
I was sick, before my trip to Warsaw.
The professor, Vinogradov, came, who was one of the saboteurs and sat in jail.
And then he was freed.
I ask: "So, what do you think, Vladimir Nikitovich, can I fly to Warsaw?"
He says: "You can."
"Breathe carefully, through the nose."
"In the open air, don't make speeches."
"Hat, do not take off the hat."
A doctor says that to a person who's not yet completely well.
He was in jail.
After jail he examined us.
But, I read his testimony myself, that he was a German spy.
It so happened that this doctor, Vinogradov, attended to me, and was at my place practically a day before his arrest.
After my presentation to the 19th congress, I fell ill.
And I was lying in bed, for three day.
And he was taking care of me, and I was already reading the protocols on his statements.
The other doctors were saying this...
What could I do?
What could I do, when a doctor who works with him says: I say such-and-such, I did such-and-such things, I poisoned this one, I strangled that one.
I had the help of such-and-such.
What could I say to myself.
I'll go and say to Stalin that this isn't true.
But, he'll say: "What are you doing, these people are admitting it."
I wouldn't be allowed.
The investigator should have been called, then the doctors, and questioned.
But these conditions weren't available.
These conditions -- this is the cult of personality.
This is power, concentrated in one hand.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
What does it mean, alienation of a group from the leadership.
This is the tragedy, that's why we stand against the cult of personality.
I, for example, even then, didn't believe that Vinogradov was an enemy.
And it wasn't a coincidence that, right after Stalin's death, we freed the doctors.
The case against them was false.
We don't believe, even though we read the protocols, we don't believe in it.
We don't believe -- and we freed them.
And not only freed them, but we rehabilitated them.
They came back to their previous posts and again to their work in the government clinic.
What was it?
Was Stalin such a bad person?
Again, to come back to this.
Was he more stupid then we are?
No.
He's smarter than we are.
To speak as Marxists -- he is stronger than we are.
This, Comrades, you know.
He should be given his due.
And we give him his due.
But, Stalin was sick.
Stalin misused power.
Stalin allowed such things to happen, which were absolutely unacceptable.
Well, you have read everything in the report.
This is, so to say, fresh news.
The situation in the agricultural field is difficult.
Once I said to Stalin: "Comrade Stalin, we have a crisis in agriculture."
He says: "What do you mean, crisis?"
I reply: "A crisis: no milk... meat, no milk."
"What's happening?"
"This is not correct," he says, and immediately became defensive because of this word.
"Stalin's age," "Stalin's leadership," and here is a crisis...
Only enemies say this word.
Malenkov was asked: "Do we procure more meat now or less?"
"More."
I said: "I'm saying more too."
"More milk?"
"More."
"Well, the population has increase too."
Wages have risen.
The purchasing ability has increased too.
Then, if that's so, talk like this.
We couldn't tell him these things.
Well, what kind of socialism is it when a person can't drink an extra cup of milk.
I, at the time of capitalism, drank as much milk as I wanted, being a miner during capitalism.
And now, I have to, I should be thankful, that now, I can buy a cup of milk for my child.
But, such is the situation.
This means that this is our fault; we're discrediting socialism.
The workers and employees, and all the people -- a socialist system, capitalist system, he doesn't choose by himself.
But, he chooses a system which will provide a better lifestyle for him.
This system for him, the socialist system, this is a social system where the tools of production are located in the hands of society.
Therefore, the society itself, in its own interests, will use these tools of production.
So, you have to provide uninterrupted growth in the standard of living of the population.
Stalin said that a committee should be formed to study this matter.
I was nominated as the chairman of that committee.
I knew what it meant.
I'm not going to do anything to cause problems.
I'll get nothing.
I can't do anything.
I know this.
I say: "Comrade Stalin, why me, maybe Malenkov is better?"
Why did I nominate Malenkov, for that I had grounds.
Malenkov was entrusted with leadership for agriculture.
I said, why.
I'm the secretary of the Moscow committee.
I have so many things of my own to be done.
Let Malenkov do it.
"Let it be."
So, what can I do, you can't argue with Stalin.
He says, Mikoyan should be in the committee, and others, let them work.
Well, I know that if I had the opportunity to solve this question, I'd give a suggestion.
But, I wouldn't be allowed to solve this matter.
And they would make me an enemy.
Because, whatever I'd have suggested, Stalin would say that it's all harmful.
Only enemies can suggest this.
We spent a lot of time sitting and arguing.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
What does it mean, alienation of a group from the leadership.
This is the tragedy, that's why we stand against the cult of personality.
I, for example, even then, didn't believe that Vinogradov was an enemy.
And it wasn't a coincidence that, right after Stalin's death, we freed the doctors.
The case against them was false.
We don't believe, even though we read the protocols, we don't believe in it.
We don't believe -- and we freed them.
And not only freed them, but we rehabilitated them.
They came back to their previous posts and again to their work in the government clinic.
What was it?
Was Stalin such a bad person?
Again, to come back to this.
Was he more stupid then we are?
No.
He's smarter than we are.
To speak as Marxists -- he is stronger than we are.
This, Comrades, you know.
He should be given his due.
And we give him his due.
But, Stalin was sick.
Stalin misused power.
Stalin allowed such things to happen, which were absolutely unacceptable.
Well, you have read everything in the report.
This is, so to say, fresh news.
The situation in the agricultural field is difficult.
Once I said to Stalin: "Comrade Stalin, we have a crisis in agriculture."
He says: "What do you mean, crisis?"
I reply: "A crisis: no milk... meat, no milk."
"What's happening?"
"This is not correct," he says, and immediately became defensive because of this word.
"Stalin's age," "Stalin's leadership," and here is a crisis...
Only enemies say this word.
Malenkov was asked: "Do we procure more meat now or less?"
"More."
I said: "I'm saying more too."
"More milk?"
"More."
"Well, the population has increase too."
Wages have risen.
The purchasing ability has increased too.
Then, if that's so, talk like this.
We couldn't tell him these things.
Well, what kind of socialism is it when a person can't drink an extra cup of milk.
I, at the time of capitalism, drank as much milk as I wanted, being a miner during capitalism.
And now, I have to, I should be thankful, that now, I can buy a cup of milk for my child.
But, such is the situation.
This means that this is our fault; we're discrediting socialism.
The workers and employees, and all the people -- a socialist system, capitalist system, he doesn't choose by himself.
But, he chooses a system which will provide a better lifestyle for him.
This system for him, the socialist system, this is a social system where the tools of production are located in the hands of society.
Therefore, the society itself, in its own interests, will use these tools of production.
So, you have to provide uninterrupted growth in the standard of living of the population.
Stalin said that a committee should be formed to study this matter.
I was nominated as the chairman of that committee.
I knew what it meant.
I'm not going to do anything to cause problems.
I'll get nothing.
I can't do anything.
I know this.
I say: "Comrade Stalin, why me, maybe Malenkov is better?"
Why did I nominate Malenkov, for that I had grounds.
Malenkov was entrusted with leadership for agriculture.
I said, why.
I'm the secretary of the Moscow committee.
I have so many things of my own to be done.
Let Malenkov do it.
"Let it be."
So, what can I do, you can't argue with Stalin.
He says, Mikoyan should be in the committee, and others, let them work.
Well, I know that if I had the opportunity to solve this question, I'd give a suggestion.
But, I wouldn't be allowed to solve this matter.
And they would make me an enemy.
Because, whatever I'd have suggested, Stalin would say that it's all harmful.
Only enemies can suggest this.
We spent a lot of time sitting and arguing.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
But, do you know, comrades, how many ass-lickers are there?
There was this Koslov, an agriculture manager, we kicked him out from the Central Committee, but this big lowlife remained in the party.
I beg your pardon for such harsh words, but he should have been expelled from the party.
All the time he presented documents to the Central Committee on how everything is moving, agriculture is developing, that we have nothing, but agriculture is growing.
We sat, corrected the material a little bit.
I'll tell you exactly how it was.
Corrected the materials, and went to Comrade Stalin: The materials are ready.
Spent a lot of time, not because we couldn't figure it out, but because we didn't know how to suggest it, how to put it.
Therefore, we had to disguise it so that no one would be the wiser, and there was some benefit from it.
Stalin read it.
So, he says, many billions should be given.
Something like six or seven billion.
This is child's play, only enemies look at this question from this angle.
They don't understand how the peasant lives... Stalin says.
With one hen, he says, the peasants sells and pays duties with all of one hen.
How can he say that,when Stalin didn't see a live peasant for probably thirty years.
Stalin's more aloof than his dacha --he can't see anything from his dacha, because it's surrounded by woods, and with guards.
And with field-glasses you wouldn't see a living person, except the guard.
How can he think like that?
But, a man who knows the village, who sees the peasants, he can't agree with him.
Instead of accepting our suggestion, Stalin says -- no.
I suggested my own ideas.
Together, with this proposition, we looked at this question and raised the duties on peasants some 40 billion rubles.
My God, here I left.
I told Mikoyan, the only salvation is if the peasants rebel.
Because there's no other way out.
Because they sell all the produce to pay duties, their duties.
Already, they don't have this money.
From where can they get it?
And, well, we researched.
And we researched.
But, what's there to research.
And then I saw that the situation was like this.
I knew, and I said: "Comrade Stalin, this is a very big problem you gave us."
"It's difficult to decide by such a committee."
"We need more people."
He said: "What do you want?"
I said: "Malenkov, Beria, Bulganin, Kaganovich" -- named all the members of the Politburo, so that everybody will be involved.
"What are you doing."
"What for?"
I said: "It's a big question."
"Big question?"
"Well, include Malenkov and Beria."
"Very well."
At least now it's easier.
I had to involve Beria, that lowlife, because if he proposed what Mikoyan proposed, then he would have to sign the document.
You see what kind of complicated conditions existed.
And then we all got together.
"Well, I said, comrades, how are we going to solve this?"
Well, Beria probably understood.
He said this is all nonsense.
Where can we get the money from?
From where?
Let’s look for money.
The matter ended with the death of Stalin.
So the document was burned.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
But, do you know, comrades, how many ass-lickers are there?
There was this Koslov, an agriculture manager, we kicked him out from the Central Committee, but this big lowlife remained in the party.
I beg your pardon for such harsh words, but he should have been expelled from the party.
All the time he presented documents to the Central Committee on how everything is moving, agriculture is developing, that we have nothing, but agriculture is growing.
We sat, corrected the material a little bit.
I'll tell you exactly how it was.
Corrected the materials, and went to Comrade Stalin: The materials are ready.
Spent a lot of time, not because we couldn't figure it out, but because we didn't know how to suggest it, how to put it.
Therefore, we had to disguise it so that no one would be the wiser, and there was some benefit from it.
Stalin read it.
So, he says, many billions should be given.
Something like six or seven billion.
This is child's play, only enemies look at this question from this angle.
They don't understand how the peasant lives... Stalin says.
With one hen, he says, the peasants sells and pays duties with all of one hen.
How can he say that,when Stalin didn't see a live peasant for probably thirty years.
Stalin's more aloof than his dacha --he can't see anything from his dacha, because it's surrounded by woods, and with guards.
And with field-glasses you wouldn't see a living person, except the guard.
How can he think like that?
But, a man who knows the village, who sees the peasants, he can't agree with him.
Instead of accepting our suggestion, Stalin says -- no.
I suggested my own ideas.
Together, with this proposition, we looked at this question and raised the duties on peasants some 40 billion rubles.
My God, here I left.
I told Mikoyan, the only salvation is if the peasants rebel.
Because there's no other way out.
Because they sell all the produce to pay duties, their duties.
Already, they don't have this money.
From where can they get it?
And, well, we researched.
And we researched.
But, what's there to research.
And then I saw that the situation was like this.
I knew, and I said: "Comrade Stalin, this is a very big problem you gave us."
"It's difficult to decide by such a committee."
"We need more people."
He said: "What do you want?"
I said: "Malenkov, Beria, Bulganin, Kaganovich" -- named all the members of the Politburo, so that everybody will be involved.
"What are you doing."
"What for?"
I said: "It's a big question."
"Big question?"
"Well, include Malenkov and Beria."
"Very well."
At least now it's easier.
I had to involve Beria, that lowlife, because if he proposed what Mikoyan proposed, then he would have to sign the document.
You see what kind of complicated conditions existed.
And then we all got together.
"Well, I said, comrades, how are we going to solve this?"
Well, Beria probably understood.
He said this is all nonsense.
Where can we get the money from?
From where?
Let’s look for money.
The matter ended with the death of Stalin.
So the document was burned.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
But, just before the death, a document existed.
But, if he had not died, I myself don't know how all this would have ended.
I think that it would have ended with the arrests of extra people.
Because, Stalin told us -- there are enemies.
These kind of difficult conditions.
If you look at it this way, Stalin died, we made way for an increase in agriculture.
It means we understand.
It means we can find the necessary solution.
Why didn't we find it at the time, because of one person who was stopping it.
And we couldn't do anything.
Absolutely couldn't do anything.
That's why, now, we have fuel.
And that's why we're shouting: "Down with the cult of personality!"
Just like the Komsomol.
Why, because if we get rid of the cult, then we will always collectively find the correct solution.
Stalin was telling us that the capitalist world will fool us, that we're like blind kittens.
But, if Stalin came back now, we would show him what we've done after him, and how we've cleaned up the atmosphere.
I think that Stalin couldn't have done it, and in ten years.
And if he had lived a little bit longer, then he probably would have started another war.
This means we can sort out international problems and questions.
If, we can sort it out collectively.
Comrades, the gods didn't build everything.
Simple people, they only have to obtain experiences and qualifications.
One does this, another does that -- collectively decided.
Not bad.
I think we reported this, and without bragging.
I think that this is our glory, now that we've received this inheritance, which was allowed to rot.
In the international situation, the Soviet Union was isolated.
And now, Bukmanovich tells me: "Listen, what have you done."
"You have isolated the United States of America, and you’re not isolated."
"Look at what Pinot's saying."
"He says: I don't agree with thepolicy of the Soviet Union?"
"This is not being said by a representative of Poland, but of France."
This, Comrades, is a great victory.
Our victory.
On the question of internal policy, I think we're on the right road, and on a fast one, and we will overcome all these shortcomings, which we still have, because they can't be overcome immediately.
But, we're still solving them.
Now.
Comrades, what's to say about it -- 33 million hectares of virgin soil upturned for 2 years.
Listen, the Czars, for decades, thought about mastering these lands, and couldn't solve the problem.
But we solved it in two years.
They called us daydreamers.
Us...
But, now, capitalist writers say -- It's a fact.
God willing, you understand, we'll have an average crop of 30 million.
This is bread!
This is bread!
This is bread!
Comrades, Stalin, on these questions, violated all kinds of party norms.
And he gave incorrect lessons.
Listen!
When Stalin died, 109 people were killed.
109 people died because everyone moved like a mob, and strangled them.
This is just such a psychosis.
Some people, when they were in the hall near the casket, started crying -- What are we going to do now?
Comrades, common people is one thing, but how many party members and komsomol members thought when Stalin died, what will happen after him?
Is it proper?
Is it appropriate to imagine a hero, and relate everything and everyone to him?
Comrades, do we then need the party?
What is it?
It means not believing in human judgment, not believing in the force of democracy, no believing in collective leadership.
Comrades, then let's choose a king.
The monarchists say their system is better, because all your elections depend on your voters, and they get used to it, but our monarch, he was given the power to rule by God.
We think that this is very wrong.
And now, we're trying to break this myth of power and infallibility.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
But, just before the death, a document existed.
But, if he had not died, I myself don't know how all this would have ended.
I think that it would have ended with the arrests of extra people.
Because, Stalin told us -- there are enemies.
These kind of difficult conditions.
If you look at it this way, Stalin died, we made way for an increase in agriculture.
It means we understand.
It means we can find the necessary solution.
Why didn't we find it at the time, because of one person who was stopping it.
And we couldn't do anything.
Absolutely couldn't do anything.
That's why, now, we have fuel.
And that's why we're shouting: "Down with the cult of personality!"
Just like the Komsomol.
Why, because if we get rid of the cult, then we will always collectively find the correct solution.
Stalin was telling us that the capitalist world will fool us, that we're like blind kittens.
But, if Stalin came back now, we would show him what we've done after him, and how we've cleaned up the atmosphere.
I think that Stalin couldn't have done it, and in ten years.
And if he had lived a little bit longer, then he probably would have started another war.
This means we can sort out international problems and questions.
If, we can sort it out collectively.
Comrades, the gods didn't build everything.
Simple people, they only have to obtain experiences and qualifications.
One does this, another does that -- collectively decided.
Not bad.
I think we reported this, and without bragging.
I think that this is our glory, now that we've received this inheritance, which was allowed to rot.
In the international situation, the Soviet Union was isolated.
And now, Bukmanovich tells me: "Listen, what have you done."
"You have isolated the United States of America, and you’re not isolated."
"Look at what Pinot's saying."
"He says: I don't agree with thepolicy of the Soviet Union?"
"This is not being said by a representative of Poland, but of France."
This, Comrades, is a great victory.
Our victory.
On the question of internal policy, I think we're on the right road, and on a fast one, and we will overcome all these shortcomings, which we still have, because they can't be overcome immediately.
But, we're still solving them.
Now.
Comrades, what's to say about it -- 33 million hectares of virgin soil upturned for 2 years.
Listen, the Czars, for decades, thought about mastering these lands, and couldn't solve the problem.
But we solved it in two years.
They called us daydreamers.
Us...
But, now, capitalist writers say -- It's a fact.
God willing, you understand, we'll have an average crop of 30 million.
This is bread!
This is bread!
This is bread!
Comrades, Stalin, on these questions, violated all kinds of party norms.
And he gave incorrect lessons.
Listen!
When Stalin died, 109 people were killed.
109 people died because everyone moved like a mob, and strangled them.
This is just such a psychosis.
Some people, when they were in the hall near the casket, started crying -- What are we going to do now?
Comrades, common people is one thing, but how many party members and komsomol members thought when Stalin died, what will happen after him?
Is it proper?
Is it appropriate to imagine a hero, and relate everything and everyone to him?
Comrades, do we then need the party?
What is it?
It means not believing in human judgment, not believing in the force of democracy, no believing in collective leadership.
Comrades, then let's choose a king.
The monarchists say their system is better, because all your elections depend on your voters, and they get used to it, but our monarch, he was given the power to rule by God.
We think that this is very wrong.
And now, we're trying to break this myth of power and infallibility.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
Some say, what would you have done during the war, if you didn't have Stalin?
Defeated the Germans.
Defeated them - and defeat them sooner, with less victims.
I'm very sure of it.
And maybe we could have avoided the war.
Maybe, if politics were more smartly directed, maybe, we could have avoided the war.
Nobody knows.
That is how we look at these things.
Listen, such absurdity.
When Lenin died, no busts.
Stalin died, there wasn't a single town or city where his bust was not placed.
We, when he died, we couldn't imagine what to name after him, to immortalize him the day he died, because everything that we didn't name would have been worse than what he had named during his lifetime.
Is this correct?
Is this a correct lesson?
There was no modesty, although he talked a lot about modesty.
There were many, many shortcomings, which, unfortunately, we could not...
We ourselves suffered from it.
I vacationed with him one year.
I told my friends and they understood it.
But, they said that if you're still alive after this vacation, say "Thank God."
Why?
Because I had to dine with him every day.
It means I had to be drunk everyday.
I beg your pardon, I'm saying it very frankly, yes?
(Voices from the audience [in Russian]: "You’re talking about the truth. Say it. Say it.")
You can't do this, can't.
We had foreigners arriving and coming over sometimes.
We were ashamed when we came for dinner, because there was a table full of alcohol.
There's a limit to everything...
It was like this, comrades.
It was.
But, if don't drink and eat with him, you're his enemy.
You're his enemy.
This kind of absurdity, why did it happen?
If he was not protected by the cult of personality, he would have been kicked out, and told: Listen, dear, drinking so heavily isn't allowed.
You have to work.
We're responsible for the work done.
He himself once told us: "Once, Lenin calls me up and tells me: You, dear, drink too heavily."
"You're buying champagne by the case, getting people drunk."
"And he wanted to have an investigation."
He told us this...
We couldn't tell him that it would have been for the best if Lenin had done it...
What benefit would it be to the revolution?
None...
Czechs, Poles, Germans, or other nations.
Is this correct?
I have a lot of friends, among them, Poles.
And I was turned into a Pole.
Stalin asked me: "What's your last name?"
I said: "Khrushchev."
"Your last name ends like a Polishone -- ski."
I said: "Who knows."
"I lived for long time as Khrushchev, and now its---- ski."
Comrades, I was standing near Yezhov, and Stalin said: "Yezhov said it."
Yezhov replied: "I didn't."
"How is it you didn't say it."
"When you were drunk, you said it to Malenkov."
Malenkov passes by.
Stalin says: "Did Yezhov tell you that Khrushchev's Polish?"
He says: "No."
You see, they'll say, why is Khrushchev protesting.
First of all, I'm a Russian.
I can't protest.
Second, what kind of crime is it if I had been Polish?
What kind of crime?
It's an error.
We just rehabilitated, rehabilitated post factum.
They say you're making the argument, why not before?
Of course, comrades, "why" could mean a lot...
I have a little grandson, and when I tell him something, he always answers back with dozens of "whys."
But, now, we can follow it.
Why did it happened?
Why weren't you told "why" to this question, which you're asking today?
The conditions were-- they couldn't be ignored.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Some say, what would you have done during the war, if you didn't have Stalin?
Defeated the Germans.
Defeated them - and defeat them sooner, with less victims.
I'm very sure of it.
And maybe we could have avoided the war.
Maybe, if politics were more smartly directed, maybe, we could have avoided the war.
Nobody knows.
That is how we look at these things.
Listen, such absurdity.
When Lenin died, no busts.
Stalin died, there wasn't a single town or city where his bust was not placed.
We, when he died, we couldn't imagine what to name after him, to immortalize him the day he died, because everything that we didn't name would have been worse than what he had named during his lifetime.
Is this correct?
Is this a correct lesson?
There was no modesty, although he talked a lot about modesty.
There were many, many shortcomings, which, unfortunately, we could not...
We ourselves suffered from it.
I vacationed with him one year.
I told my friends and they understood it.
But, they said that if you're still alive after this vacation, say "Thank God."
Why?
Because I had to dine with him every day.
It means I had to be drunk everyday.
I beg your pardon, I'm saying it very frankly, yes?
(Voices from the audience [in Russian]: "You’re talking about the truth. Say it. Say it.")
You can't do this, can't.
We had foreigners arriving and coming over sometimes.
We were ashamed when we came for dinner, because there was a table full of alcohol.
There's a limit to everything...
It was like this, comrades.
It was.
But, if don't drink and eat with him, you're his enemy.
You're his enemy.
This kind of absurdity, why did it happen?
If he was not protected by the cult of personality, he would have been kicked out, and told: Listen, dear, drinking so heavily isn't allowed.
You have to work.
We're responsible for the work done.
He himself once told us: "Once, Lenin calls me up and tells me: You, dear, drink too heavily."
"You're buying champagne by the case, getting people drunk."
"And he wanted to have an investigation."
He told us this...
We couldn't tell him that it would have been for the best if Lenin had done it...
What benefit would it be to the revolution?
None...
Czechs, Poles, Germans, or other nations.
Is this correct?
I have a lot of friends, among them, Poles.
And I was turned into a Pole.
Stalin asked me: "What's your last name?"
I said: "Khrushchev."
"Your last name ends like a Polishone -- ski."
I said: "Who knows."
"I lived for long time as Khrushchev, and now its---- ski."
Comrades, I was standing near Yezhov, and Stalin said: "Yezhov said it."
Yezhov replied: "I didn't."
"How is it you didn't say it."
"When you were drunk, you said it to Malenkov."
Malenkov passes by.
Stalin says: "Did Yezhov tell you that Khrushchev's Polish?"
He says: "No."
You see, they'll say, why is Khrushchev protesting.
First of all, I'm a Russian.
I can't protest.
Second, what kind of crime is it if I had been Polish?
What kind of crime?
It's an error.
We just rehabilitated, rehabilitated post factum.
They say you're making the argument, why not before?
Of course, comrades, "why" could mean a lot...
I have a little grandson, and when I tell him something, he always answers back with dozens of "whys."
But, now, we can follow it.
Why did it happened?
Why weren't you told "why" to this question, which you're asking today?
The conditions were-- they couldn't be ignored.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
If we're going to ignore them, then we'll incorrectly judge and incorrectly decide the questions.
Therefore, we thought it was necessary when Comrade Bierut raised this question.
He insisted; concerned about rehabilitating killed party members and, as a result, the Communist Party of Poland was disbanded.
Stalin's fault.
I'm saying this frankly.
Not because I want to blame the dead, but because we have a lot of information, and we talked about it at the congress.
Look, comrades, when Stalin died, Beria took his post.
And he was the most influential man among us.
Beria and Malenkov.
He took the post of internal affairs minister, comrades.
Beria.
But, what kind of counter-revolution did we have in 1953?
None.
We have a good, friendly, lively society in the Soviet Union.
What did he needed it for?
So that he could stand above the party.
What does it mean to stand above the party?
It means to bring about his own cult of personality.
What Stalin was, Beria would be.
He'd have destroyed the party.
The party would be like a formality, because he'd be in command.
So, then, we rebelled and arrested Beria for raising his hand against the party.
We told him this.
We didn't arrest him like Stalin arrested Kossior.
Instead, we arrested him during the meeting.
All members of the Presidium were present.
We told him: "We accuse you of such and such actions."
"You encroach on the rights of the party."
This, he says, I did because of this and that.
We then said, arrest him.
When the prosecutor interrogated him, Beria said: "On what grounds do you arrest me?"
He replied: "You're asking me on what grounds?"
"The entire Presidium and Council of Ministers were there when you were arrested."
"Not only them, but the entire government apparatus!"
Comrades, the cult of personality is here.
We want to return order, which was created during Lenin's time, and we won't step back from it.
We, and in the party, now understand this matter very well.
The congress unanimously accepted the resolution approving this course.
At this time, everywhere, meetings are taking place.
Not a single voice of criticism, or doubt, about the correctness of the decisions of the 20th congress, and of the line which is now taken, and raised by the Central Committee.
I think we'll receive the same approval from the workers and employees, from the intelligentsia.
At this time our enemies are pleased.
But, I think, in the near future they'll be very upset.
Because, as a result of this work, comrade, I'm very sure and bet my life on it, we'll get unbelievable solidarity from the ranks of our party, and solidarity from the people for our party.
Of this, I'm very sure.
Equally as sure is every member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
If we're going to ignore them, then we'll incorrectly judge and incorrectly decide the questions.
Therefore, we thought it was necessary when Comrade Bierut raised this question.
He insisted; concerned about rehabilitating killed party members and, as a result, the Communist Party of Poland was disbanded.
Stalin's fault.
I'm saying this frankly.
Not because I want to blame the dead, but because we have a lot of information, and we talked about it at the congress.
Look, comrades, when Stalin died, Beria took his post.
And he was the most influential man among us.
Beria and Malenkov.
He took the post of internal affairs minister, comrades.
Beria.
But, what kind of counter-revolution did we have in 1953?
None.
We have a good, friendly, lively society in the Soviet Union.
What did he needed it for?
So that he could stand above the party.
What does it mean to stand above the party?
It means to bring about his own cult of personality.
What Stalin was, Beria would be.
He'd have destroyed the party.
The party would be like a formality, because he'd be in command.
So, then, we rebelled and arrested Beria for raising his hand against the party.
We told him this.
We didn't arrest him like Stalin arrested Kossior.
Instead, we arrested him during the meeting.
All members of the Presidium were present.
We told him: "We accuse you of such and such actions."
"You encroach on the rights of the party."
This, he says, I did because of this and that.
We then said, arrest him.
When the prosecutor interrogated him, Beria said: "On what grounds do you arrest me?"
He replied: "You're asking me on what grounds?"
"The entire Presidium and Council of Ministers were there when you were arrested."
"Not only them, but the entire government apparatus!"
Comrades, the cult of personality is here.
We want to return order, which was created during Lenin's time, and we won't step back from it.
We, and in the party, now understand this matter very well.
The congress unanimously accepted the resolution approving this course.
At this time, everywhere, meetings are taking place.
Not a single voice of criticism, or doubt, about the correctness of the decisions of the 20th congress, and of the line which is now taken, and raised by the Central Committee.
I think we'll receive the same approval from the workers and employees, from the intelligentsia.
At this time our enemies are pleased.
But, I think, in the near future they'll be very upset.
Because, as a result of this work, comrade, I'm very sure and bet my life on it, we'll get unbelievable solidarity from the ranks of our party, and solidarity from the people for our party.
Of this, I'm very sure.
Equally as sure is every member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
III.
The representatives of communist parties from capitalist countries were there; Comrade Thorez, Comrade Togliatti, and others.
We talked with them.
They, too... share and understand, of course, the difficulties.
Comrades... and you have the same difficulties, there were difficulties in France and in Italy.
Comrades, these difficulties should be overcome.
Take the correct direction and exit from all these difficulties even more stronger.
Therefore, comrades...
Taking the path...
It's not our way.
Not ours.
We're going in the path marked by Lenin.
And it's the communist way.
We've come across this obstacle on that path, and we must eliminate it.
Well, comrades, I think that we can now stop, because there's a lot of illustrations that could be used.
But, I think that if you want to read, to think -- we'll gladly answer these questions.
We're not afraid of any questions.
Not any, because, comrades, if... he wants to ask a question; it's better if he asks us a question than suffer with doubts.
Therefore, we will try to answer them.
And if he does not agree with our answer, I'd rather have... I'd rather have such opposition, with which I'll fight.
I won't refuse it.
We aren't that kind of person...
Not so submissive.
No, we're Bolsheviks.
Leaders.
We'll talk, and prove these decisions.
And we'll fight with those who won't support these decisions.
It's a correct decision from my perspective.
I think, it's a correct one because we can't allow it so that...
Who prefers that we're now... done with the cult of personality ...
Now, everyone is equal.
All?...
This, of course, is absurd.
People aren't equal; different development, different knowledge.
Therefore... people will always be different, so to speak...
One or the other will be stronger.
Therefore, those people who are stronger, always those who... seize the workers' brigades, or they don't, and even the brigades... of youth.
Which of these... is more respected.
Of course, here, in the party ... ... same thing.
There will always be people, those who'll be leaders or even those who won't be leaders, who must have authority.
And we have to preserve their authority, because there's no authority, here, comrades... people.
So, I think, it could be understood differently, this... understanding.
This, as... power by one person, who puts pressure on others.
This is intolerable.
We have to solve these questions.
There's a Politburo.
There's a Central Committee; it has to decide.
I think that others will think, so to speak...
Special efforts made to prove that I think this question is clear; there could be separate nuances.
We have to explain the absolutely correct understanding and rightness of some decisions.
With these words, allow me to finish my presentation.
(Applause.)
TO BE CONTINUED ...
III.
The representatives of communist parties from capitalist countries were there; Comrade Thorez, Comrade Togliatti, and others.
We talked with them.
They, too... share and understand, of course, the difficulties.
Comrades... and you have the same difficulties, there were difficulties in France and in Italy.
Comrades, these difficulties should be overcome.
Take the correct direction and exit from all these difficulties even more stronger.
Therefore, comrades...
Taking the path...
It's not our way.
Not ours.
We're going in the path marked by Lenin.
And it's the communist way.
We've come across this obstacle on that path, and we must eliminate it.
Well, comrades, I think that we can now stop, because there's a lot of illustrations that could be used.
But, I think that if you want to read, to think -- we'll gladly answer these questions.
We're not afraid of any questions.
Not any, because, comrades, if... he wants to ask a question; it's better if he asks us a question than suffer with doubts.
Therefore, we will try to answer them.
And if he does not agree with our answer, I'd rather have... I'd rather have such opposition, with which I'll fight.
I won't refuse it.
We aren't that kind of person...
Not so submissive.
No, we're Bolsheviks.
Leaders.
We'll talk, and prove these decisions.
And we'll fight with those who won't support these decisions.
It's a correct decision from my perspective.
I think, it's a correct one because we can't allow it so that...
Who prefers that we're now... done with the cult of personality ...
Now, everyone is equal.
All?...
This, of course, is absurd.
People aren't equal; different development, different knowledge.
Therefore... people will always be different, so to speak...
One or the other will be stronger.
Therefore, those people who are stronger, always those who... seize the workers' brigades, or they don't, and even the brigades... of youth.
Which of these... is more respected.
Of course, here, in the party ... ... same thing.
There will always be people, those who'll be leaders or even those who won't be leaders, who must have authority.
And we have to preserve their authority, because there's no authority, here, comrades... people.
So, I think, it could be understood differently, this... understanding.
This, as... power by one person, who puts pressure on others.
This is intolerable.
We have to solve these questions.
There's a Politburo.
There's a Central Committee; it has to decide.
I think that others will think, so to speak...
Special efforts made to prove that I think this question is clear; there could be separate nuances.
We have to explain the absolutely correct understanding and rightness of some decisions.
With these words, allow me to finish my presentation.
(Applause.)
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
IV
Chairman [Comrade Zawadzki in Polish]:
In accordance with our mutual agreement, those among the comrades with a question, please ask them, and those among the comrades who want to express themselves -- also feel free to express yourself.
Comrade Kazimierz Witaszewski [in Polish]:
I want to engage, namely with the following problem.
Comrade Khrushchev spoke of Comrade Stalin as the strongest, the best type of Marxist-Leninist.
On the other hand, we read Comrade Khrushchev's speech.
And what Comrade Khrushchev said here, it's all about what Stalin did on his own, in spite of the collective, without coming to an understanding with a person.
I can't understand, how to explain this, that a Marxist, the party leader, who, on the one hand talks about what kind of person a party member ought to be -- a communist, modest, ought to listen to the voice of the masses -- and, on the other hand, this same party leader does not recognize the collective, the Central Committee, the Politburo, works on his own, shoots at people, old Bolsheviks, without cause.
Here, for me, a question emerges, how is it possible to reconcile one with the other, that Stalin was a good Marxist?
Comrade Khrushchev [in Russian]:
... Because Stalin was like this, we're now glorifying Lenin.
Why?
Because Lenin was Lenin.
Indeed, he was a Marxist who did everything in that direction.
We, as they say, study and examine.
But, Stalin, he thought of himself as being a Lenin, Marx.
And, I'm telling you, he didn't only count himself as such, but thought of himself as a devoted man.
And the evil he was doing was for the affirmation of Marxism, for the affirmation of Leninism.
Whether he was doing it correctly is another matter.
Here's my point of view: I think, of course, incorrectly.
And, therefore, we, here, at the congress, said that you can't do this.
It must be discussed, so it won't be repeated.
Here, I repeat my point of view once more, and the point of view of the congress, and the CPSU CC leadership on this question.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
IV
Chairman [Comrade Zawadzki in Polish]:
In accordance with our mutual agreement, those among the comrades with a question, please ask them, and those among the comrades who want to express themselves -- also feel free to express yourself.
Comrade Kazimierz Witaszewski [in Polish]:
I want to engage, namely with the following problem.
Comrade Khrushchev spoke of Comrade Stalin as the strongest, the best type of Marxist-Leninist.
On the other hand, we read Comrade Khrushchev's speech.
And what Comrade Khrushchev said here, it's all about what Stalin did on his own, in spite of the collective, without coming to an understanding with a person.
I can't understand, how to explain this, that a Marxist, the party leader, who, on the one hand talks about what kind of person a party member ought to be -- a communist, modest, ought to listen to the voice of the masses -- and, on the other hand, this same party leader does not recognize the collective, the Central Committee, the Politburo, works on his own, shoots at people, old Bolsheviks, without cause.
Here, for me, a question emerges, how is it possible to reconcile one with the other, that Stalin was a good Marxist?
Comrade Khrushchev [in Russian]:
... Because Stalin was like this, we're now glorifying Lenin.
Why?
Because Lenin was Lenin.
Indeed, he was a Marxist who did everything in that direction.
We, as they say, study and examine.
But, Stalin, he thought of himself as being a Lenin, Marx.
And, I'm telling you, he didn't only count himself as such, but thought of himself as a devoted man.
And the evil he was doing was for the affirmation of Marxism, for the affirmation of Leninism.
Whether he was doing it correctly is another matter.
Here's my point of view: I think, of course, incorrectly.
And, therefore, we, here, at the congress, said that you can't do this.
It must be discussed, so it won't be repeated.
Here, I repeat my point of view once more, and the point of view of the congress, and the CPSU CC leadership on this question.
TO BE CONTINUED ...