March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw
SPEECH BY COMRADE KHRUSHCHEV AT THE 6th PUWP CC PLENUM 20 MARCH 1956, WARSAW
Comrade Aleksander Zawadzki: Comrades, the [PUWP] Politburo has taken advantage of the occasion afforded by Comrade Khrushchev's visit with us, and has invited Comrade Khrushchev to meet with the Central Committee plenum.
As a result we should treat this as the beginning of the plenum - the actual meeting will begin in the late afternoon.
I suggest, in the name of all present, that we give Comrade Khrushchev a heartfelt greeting, at this, our plenum.
(Applause.)
We ask that Comrade Khrushchev take advantage of this meeting, and speak to all who are gathered, from a perspective of personal experience.
Comrade Nikita S. Khrushchev: My task is very difficult because I don't know which problems interest you, the Polish United Workers' Party.
The problems of the 20th [CPSU] congress?
All the problems of the 20th congress?
I was told that you're familiar with the report presented at the closed session of the congress.
I don't know how you judged the gathering, but I rate it very highly.
I think that all of our decisions correctly assessed the international situation, correctly point the way for the future development of our work.
On domestic problems, on the construction of a communist society, our decisions have great meaning.
It will point to the correct direction of the five-year plan and the six-year plan, thus exposing the realistic possibilities for its construction.
The question now is how to use these decisions correctly.
The main problem facing us before the 20th congress was the problem of peaceful co-existence, the struggle for peace.
This is the main problem which we considered when we were preparing this congress and its resolutions.
We are sure that the attempt succeeded.
Our decisions will bring about a great attack from reactionary groups in the capitalist countries.
Peace ensures the position of our supporters, and not only supporters, but even those who ... who want to fight for peace.
The 20th congress armed these people and showed them the enormous possibilities of the fight for peace.
The problem concerns the reduction of arms - I'm not talking about complete disarmament, which we would all very much like.
It seems that the time has not yet come to face this problem.
This problem will be solved soon and in the future, although I cannot say.
In London, a conference of the UN committee on the disarmament problem opened yesterday.
I don't think there are going to be any radical decisions taken, because this problem needs a lot of work.
But, difficulties for American militaristic circles were created.
The speech by Pinot, of which you are all familiar, already suggests that in the strictest sense, a common voice by countries which joined NATO, on the disarmament problem, does not exist.
This is a great victory.
I think that if you compare the positions of the United States of America, France, and the United Kingdom, all these three countries lack a single common perspective on this problem.
Each has their own point of view, while France is closer to our understanding of the situation.
England is less clear so as not to violate the unity of these three major countries.
I think that England's interests strongly differ from those of the United States of America on this problem.
We've prepared our propositions.
Comrade Gromyko will outline them in the future.
But, being familiar with the propositions of the Western countries, we know that ours won't be accepted, and we, in turn, cannot accept theirs.
Nevertheless, we will think a little more.
We give Bulganin's trip to England great priority.
Bulganin will meet with Eden during his talks and other problems will come up.
I think that we'll have a chance to put forward propositions that will create a difficult situation for our opposition regarding the problem of the struggle for peace.
We think that we have achieved great successes as a result of the decisions taken at the 20th congress.
Now, a lot will rest on our abilities in the future.
How will we be able to lead with our new position, and how will we be able to maneuver, so to speak, in this struggle?
The problem, of course, is being resolved by the correlation of forces.
The situation right now is such that our adversary must take into consideration the forces of the socialist camp.
Only this will force them to continue the talks on disarmament, as well as other contacts with us.
What are our perspectives on this problem?
We think that the perspectives are very good ones.
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 ...
We think that we have very good conditions for the rapid growth of our economy, including the rate of growth of our industry.
In agriculture there is a temporary lull, but we have now made decisions and cleared the way for development.
In this area the achievements will be great ones.
We are sure that in the agricultural sector we will achieve the goals set by the five-year plan, and we will achieve it at least in three years.
In 1956, 1957, 1958 at the latest, and maybe even sooner.
We are paying a lot of attention, and spending a large amount of capital, including a lot of personal, so that the agricultural sector will have great reserves and potential.
I'm sure that we will manage successfully.
Many speeches by capitalist statesman are recorded in the press, where they are acknowledging the strength of socialism and thus changing their opinions.
Time, so to speak, works for us.
These are major concessions, if the opponent is forced to make such acknowledgments.
Therefore, we are ready to put forward concrete proposals about disarmament and thus continue to fight for peace.
We are ready for a partial withdrawal of troops from East Germany.
If our partners correctly understand our propositions, continue to agree with them, and respond in kind to our propositions, I think, maybe, we will think about other propositions, which will put our opposition in even greater difficulty.
But, for this, we need a little more time.
Concerning the propositions of Mr. Eisenhower and "open skies," this proposition deserves some attention.
It deserves attention so that it can be thrown into the garbage.
What does it mean to fly?
What do you think -- nothing else better to do... this is nonsense.
It's only advantage is to avoid concrete propositions about the reduction of arms.
They gave us nonsense and they are trying to confuse us.
I'm not letting you in on a secret.
I said it to Eisenhower as soon as he finished his presentation, when we met at the buffet which he organized for the meeting.
We had a glass of cognac and he asks me: "So?"
And I told him: "In my opinion, your proposition is no good".
"Why?"
"Because it does nothing good."
"All you are proposing is nonsense."
He replied: "Well, maybe the military judge it differently."
"Let's ask Marshall Zhukov."
"What will he say?"
And I said: "Ask Zhukov, let him judge."
"If such things were done during the war, right before the attack... Comrade Rokossowski... then you have to know where... during the war and for sometime since... then we already cannot imagine, because the enemy can always re-group his troops or use camouflage and then totally confuse us."
"But, what do you think, if we want to show you a factory then we can show you some kind of dummy; different lighting and you'll photograph it all, and what will you get?"
"It will be an empty place."
"But, we can do it, and you can do it, so why should we do such nonsense."
"Someone can ask, then why did we write that this proposition deserves attention?"
"Because this capitalist language is such that you cannot just say, to hell with it."
You have to say that this problem demands deep investigation, and will be discussed... follow the rule, and it was written like this...
Nehru asked me, when we talked with him and Bulganin in Delhi: What do you think about Eisenhower's proposition?
We take it for nonsense.
But, you said it and admitted it; admitted it, and said: At the last stage.
But, what does it mean, last stage.
God knows, I myself do not know how to respond to such a thing.
This is way we will not confuse ourselves and will expose their schemes.
If we abruptly refused, it would have been to Eisenhower's advantage.
This is why they proposed such a thing.
Then, later on, they would have said that Russians do not want to talk.
Russians do not want to continue the talks.
They want to conserve large armed forces.
They want to be in charge of everybody, and so on.
To avoid this, we had to give such an answer.
But, we specifically said, let's cut the troops by 640 thousand.
Now we're trying to increase this number, and it's not a bird in the bush but a real bird in the hands, and it will be the conception... for the understanding of our supporters in the struggle for peace.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
We think that we have very good conditions for the rapid growth of our economy, including the rate of growth of our industry.
In agriculture there is a temporary lull, but we have now made decisions and cleared the way for development.
In this area the achievements will be great ones.
We are sure that in the agricultural sector we will achieve the goals set by the five-year plan, and we will achieve it at least in three years.
In 1956, 1957, 1958 at the latest, and maybe even sooner.
We are paying a lot of attention, and spending a large amount of capital, including a lot of personal, so that the agricultural sector will have great reserves and potential.
I'm sure that we will manage successfully.
Many speeches by capitalist statesman are recorded in the press, where they are acknowledging the strength of socialism and thus changing their opinions.
Time, so to speak, works for us.
These are major concessions, if the opponent is forced to make such acknowledgments.
Therefore, we are ready to put forward concrete proposals about disarmament and thus continue to fight for peace.
We are ready for a partial withdrawal of troops from East Germany.
If our partners correctly understand our propositions, continue to agree with them, and respond in kind to our propositions, I think, maybe, we will think about other propositions, which will put our opposition in even greater difficulty.
But, for this, we need a little more time.
Concerning the propositions of Mr. Eisenhower and "open skies," this proposition deserves some attention.
It deserves attention so that it can be thrown into the garbage.
What does it mean to fly?
What do you think -- nothing else better to do... this is nonsense.
It's only advantage is to avoid concrete propositions about the reduction of arms.
They gave us nonsense and they are trying to confuse us.
I'm not letting you in on a secret.
I said it to Eisenhower as soon as he finished his presentation, when we met at the buffet which he organized for the meeting.
We had a glass of cognac and he asks me: "So?"
And I told him: "In my opinion, your proposition is no good".
"Why?"
"Because it does nothing good."
"All you are proposing is nonsense."
He replied: "Well, maybe the military judge it differently."
"Let's ask Marshall Zhukov."
"What will he say?"
And I said: "Ask Zhukov, let him judge."
"If such things were done during the war, right before the attack... Comrade Rokossowski... then you have to know where... during the war and for sometime since... then we already cannot imagine, because the enemy can always re-group his troops or use camouflage and then totally confuse us."
"But, what do you think, if we want to show you a factory then we can show you some kind of dummy; different lighting and you'll photograph it all, and what will you get?"
"It will be an empty place."
"But, we can do it, and you can do it, so why should we do such nonsense."
"Someone can ask, then why did we write that this proposition deserves attention?"
"Because this capitalist language is such that you cannot just say, to hell with it."
You have to say that this problem demands deep investigation, and will be discussed... follow the rule, and it was written like this...
Nehru asked me, when we talked with him and Bulganin in Delhi: What do you think about Eisenhower's proposition?
We take it for nonsense.
But, you said it and admitted it; admitted it, and said: At the last stage.
But, what does it mean, last stage.
God knows, I myself do not know how to respond to such a thing.
This is way we will not confuse ourselves and will expose their schemes.
If we abruptly refused, it would have been to Eisenhower's advantage.
This is why they proposed such a thing.
Then, later on, they would have said that Russians do not want to talk.
Russians do not want to continue the talks.
They want to conserve large armed forces.
They want to be in charge of everybody, and so on.
To avoid this, we had to give such an answer.
But, we specifically said, let's cut the troops by 640 thousand.
Now we're trying to increase this number, and it's not a bird in the bush but a real bird in the hands, and it will be the conception... for the understanding of our supporters in the struggle for peace.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
I think we have very good perspectives on this matter and we will, with pleasure, conduct the discussion with Bulganin in London, with Eden, and other friends.
We are placing great hopes on the arrival of Mollet and Pinot, and the delegation from the [French] Socialist Party, which shows that we have achieved so many contacts.
Of course, comrades, I have to tell you that we correctly understand our position and our responsibility.
We have to smartly lead this policy and move toward disarmament.
But, we should never cross the line, which would endanger the survival of our conquests.
We have to do everything to strengthen defense, to strengthen the army.
Without these things, nobody will talk to us.
They are not hiding the fact that they have the hydrogen bomb, nuclear arms, and jet-propulsion technology.
They know that we have all these things, and therefore, they have to talk to us, fight with us; but not be afraid... this is a game, in which nobody will be a winner.
If Lenin would arise he would have been pleased to see his cause become so strong, that the capitalistic world admits being unable to win the war against the socialist countries.
Comrades, this is the power of Marxist-Leninist teaching.
We did not work for nothing; not for nothing used the strength of this form of government.
Therefore, we must continue working.
Must work.
Work.
Work to reduce the troops and increase defense, Comrade Rokossowski.
It is difficult to talk to Marshals, they're always very hot-tempered.
Right now, we have to work on the demoralization of their camp.
The demoralization of NATO, Baghdad's pact, SEATO.
I think we have a great opportunity to carry it out.
And the trip of Comrade Mikoyan stirred up everybody, his trip to Karachi.
Yesterday morning, he flew out to Pakistan.
We had a big job last year, but I think that we used our possibilities badly.
We can do more.
We have to use the strength of other countries, not only the strength of the Soviet Union but the peoples' democracies have to show themselves more actively.
I think great possibilities exist in contacts between Poland and France, Hungary, Rumania.
We have to make more contacts, and to make such an impression, and win more supporters to our cause, so that our camp will gain stable peace and not a wobbly peace.
But, we really want long existence, and this would be the victory of the socialist camp.
We are certain of it.
But, they say that the only way to get victory is by fighting.
But, we are saying, no, we will not fight.
We will not carry, so to speak, socialist regimes on the bayonets of the Soviet Army.
But, in this competition we will win.
I think that whoever does not believe in this is not a communist.
He has to leave us.
We, the communists, will gain victory.
It's going to be ours, the victory of Marxist-Leninism teaching, the victory of communism.
I think that real communists really understand and believe in this -- there cannot be any other opinion.
But, comrades, to talk about the five-year plan, I don't know how you judge it, but I think we are very satisfied with this one.
It opens great possibilities before us.
It shocked the capitalist world and communists who are watching and studying more carefully the evolution of the Soviet Union and the peoples' democracies.
I think that we correctly planned, and correctly established, the relationship between heavy industry and the public market industry.
But, right now, we should pay more and more attention to the problem of the latter.
We discussed and I want to tell you my opinion about the peoples' democracies.
We think that we did not waste the time after the October Revolution.
And Russia, impoverished and peasant, turned out to be a powerful state, second only to the United States of America.
Add the peoples' democracies, add, though it's still weakly industrialized -- China.
Our force is enormous.
It should be understood that our forces will grow, not only as a result of the development of heavy industry and means of armament, but our forces will be strong given existing armament, the same volume of heavy industry production; if we increase the living standard of our peoples.
Comrades, we must do it now because we have the opportunity.
Therefore, we cannot go as... who was taken... and who does not know anything, who only leads ahead.
Consequently, if we talked about heavy industry all the time, then now... to repeat it.
It's going to be very difficult in our situation.
Of course, everything should be done after hard thinking.
The proportions should be chosen correctly to get such a result -- and I will say it again.
We, for ourselves, for the Soviet Union, we will look at the acceleration of the industry of group A compared to group B.
I would say that the people's democracies should pay even more attention to this problem.
Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, and others.
Rumania.
But, in Rumania and Bulgaria the situation is somewhat different -- these countries are still rural; weakly developed industries and agriculture is rather entrenched in Rumania.
[Gheorghiu-]Dej, when I spent some time there last year, five or six days, said: "You saved the corn, which means you saved Rumania."
"I cannot live without mamalyga [a dish made from corn]."
"I eat it at least three time a week, but you make is sound that if I eat mamalyga I'm backwards."
This is nonsense, of course, it's all a force of habit.
But, to talk about corn, who eats more or less, and if one can judge a person by the amount of corn he eats, then Americans are number one.
They eat it more than others.
They don't have mamalyga, but if you start counting how much corn flakes they use.
We were in India, they have very British habits.
We had breakfast, we would always get corn flakes and a glass of milk.
And we became corn-eaters, although we are...
Therefore, I say the situation is different in Rumania.
I think that this year they'll have even better conditions in agricultural.
They'll not only satisfy their own demand, but will be exporting agricultural products.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
I think we have very good perspectives on this matter and we will, with pleasure, conduct the discussion with Bulganin in London, with Eden, and other friends.
We are placing great hopes on the arrival of Mollet and Pinot, and the delegation from the [French] Socialist Party, which shows that we have achieved so many contacts.
Of course, comrades, I have to tell you that we correctly understand our position and our responsibility.
We have to smartly lead this policy and move toward disarmament.
But, we should never cross the line, which would endanger the survival of our conquests.
We have to do everything to strengthen defense, to strengthen the army.
Without these things, nobody will talk to us.
They are not hiding the fact that they have the hydrogen bomb, nuclear arms, and jet-propulsion technology.
They know that we have all these things, and therefore, they have to talk to us, fight with us; but not be afraid... this is a game, in which nobody will be a winner.
If Lenin would arise he would have been pleased to see his cause become so strong, that the capitalistic world admits being unable to win the war against the socialist countries.
Comrades, this is the power of Marxist-Leninist teaching.
We did not work for nothing; not for nothing used the strength of this form of government.
Therefore, we must continue working.
Must work.
Work.
Work to reduce the troops and increase defense, Comrade Rokossowski.
It is difficult to talk to Marshals, they're always very hot-tempered.
Right now, we have to work on the demoralization of their camp.
The demoralization of NATO, Baghdad's pact, SEATO.
I think we have a great opportunity to carry it out.
And the trip of Comrade Mikoyan stirred up everybody, his trip to Karachi.
Yesterday morning, he flew out to Pakistan.
We had a big job last year, but I think that we used our possibilities badly.
We can do more.
We have to use the strength of other countries, not only the strength of the Soviet Union but the peoples' democracies have to show themselves more actively.
I think great possibilities exist in contacts between Poland and France, Hungary, Rumania.
We have to make more contacts, and to make such an impression, and win more supporters to our cause, so that our camp will gain stable peace and not a wobbly peace.
But, we really want long existence, and this would be the victory of the socialist camp.
We are certain of it.
But, they say that the only way to get victory is by fighting.
But, we are saying, no, we will not fight.
We will not carry, so to speak, socialist regimes on the bayonets of the Soviet Army.
But, in this competition we will win.
I think that whoever does not believe in this is not a communist.
He has to leave us.
We, the communists, will gain victory.
It's going to be ours, the victory of Marxist-Leninism teaching, the victory of communism.
I think that real communists really understand and believe in this -- there cannot be any other opinion.
But, comrades, to talk about the five-year plan, I don't know how you judge it, but I think we are very satisfied with this one.
It opens great possibilities before us.
It shocked the capitalist world and communists who are watching and studying more carefully the evolution of the Soviet Union and the peoples' democracies.
I think that we correctly planned, and correctly established, the relationship between heavy industry and the public market industry.
But, right now, we should pay more and more attention to the problem of the latter.
We discussed and I want to tell you my opinion about the peoples' democracies.
We think that we did not waste the time after the October Revolution.
And Russia, impoverished and peasant, turned out to be a powerful state, second only to the United States of America.
Add the peoples' democracies, add, though it's still weakly industrialized -- China.
Our force is enormous.
It should be understood that our forces will grow, not only as a result of the development of heavy industry and means of armament, but our forces will be strong given existing armament, the same volume of heavy industry production; if we increase the living standard of our peoples.
Comrades, we must do it now because we have the opportunity.
Therefore, we cannot go as... who was taken... and who does not know anything, who only leads ahead.
Consequently, if we talked about heavy industry all the time, then now... to repeat it.
It's going to be very difficult in our situation.
Of course, everything should be done after hard thinking.
The proportions should be chosen correctly to get such a result -- and I will say it again.
We, for ourselves, for the Soviet Union, we will look at the acceleration of the industry of group A compared to group B.
I would say that the people's democracies should pay even more attention to this problem.
Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, and others.
Rumania.
But, in Rumania and Bulgaria the situation is somewhat different -- these countries are still rural; weakly developed industries and agriculture is rather entrenched in Rumania.
[Gheorghiu-]Dej, when I spent some time there last year, five or six days, said: "You saved the corn, which means you saved Rumania."
"I cannot live without mamalyga [a dish made from corn]."
"I eat it at least three time a week, but you make is sound that if I eat mamalyga I'm backwards."
This is nonsense, of course, it's all a force of habit.
But, to talk about corn, who eats more or less, and if one can judge a person by the amount of corn he eats, then Americans are number one.
They eat it more than others.
They don't have mamalyga, but if you start counting how much corn flakes they use.
We were in India, they have very British habits.
We had breakfast, we would always get corn flakes and a glass of milk.
And we became corn-eaters, although we are...
Therefore, I say the situation is different in Rumania.
I think that this year they'll have even better conditions in agricultural.
They'll not only satisfy their own demand, but will be exporting agricultural products.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
It should be done.
Now, comrades, I want to say that yesterday during the [PUWP] Politburo meeting, I expressed my views, and want to express them to members of the Central Committee at the Central Committee plenum.
We are concerned.
We, meaning the leaders of the Soviet Union.
After the death of Comrade Stalin, we met with all the leaders of the peoples' democracies.
And at that time, we noticed that some of the advice we have given was not exactly well planned and properly thought through.
And therefore, we want to correct ourselves.
We did.
For example, we constructed the Karakum Canal [in Turkmenia].
It needs billions and billions of rubles in investments... then people should be found who would go and agree to live there, because the living conditions are very different.
This, like any other measure, requires accounting, investigation, some kind of economics...
Nothing was done.
Why was it so, you can see for yourselves from the decisions made at the 20th congress and the reports presented.
We threw it out.
But, for example, Rumanians... began construction of the canal connecting the Danube and the Black Sea.
Who, just who... what kind of economists, or maybe... leadership, when we have economic... or sometimes strategic.
No, altogether strategic.
Why did the question of construction come up?
Hitler, to get around the control of the Soviet Union on submarines and other ships through the Danube, instead of going through Ismailia, there's not any control -- they needed this canal.
Hitler was crushed.
In Rumania, the people took control, got the canal and built it... komsomol members go there, do big things.
But, when they finish it, what's it going to give them...
Because the efforts were never justified; never will it justify itself.
We called for Comrade... he was shocked, says I'm a supporter of construction, but I could not have dreamt of building it...
We knew that when he began construction, he was given an idea, and we were thinking at the time, how is it Stalin can see it is needed and -- ?
But, we Rumanians don't understand it, so we rushed in and started building it.
Stupid, of course.
Stupid.
This is the exhaustion of national resources.
This is a reduction of our potential, and our military potential.
Therefore, it's not going to be useful to us.
We should have given up the idea of building it.
We, in other countries...
For example, Stalin proposed building a road, because this road might be useful some time in the future.
We don't need to build it... from Amur to Sahalin.
God gave us the sea, the cheapest mode of transportation.
So... if it will be... road, then we'll build... ships, we can transport the cargo there and back.
It will be cheaper.
We rejected this road, even when considerable amounts have been spent.
I think that, possibly, one day, we will build it, but not now...
I would even say that now foreigners are coming, they enjoy it, and praise us, of course.
But,we keep quiet and smile... agreeing.
The construction of the Volga-Don.
This was unwise construction.
We just finished a war, the country is bankrupt and hungry, and at that time we have to throw hundreds of thousand of people and funds on...
What's the purpose of it?
We'll finish it, then what?
Nothing.
Only loss.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
It should be done.
Now, comrades, I want to say that yesterday during the [PUWP] Politburo meeting, I expressed my views, and want to express them to members of the Central Committee at the Central Committee plenum.
We are concerned.
We, meaning the leaders of the Soviet Union.
After the death of Comrade Stalin, we met with all the leaders of the peoples' democracies.
And at that time, we noticed that some of the advice we have given was not exactly well planned and properly thought through.
And therefore, we want to correct ourselves.
We did.
For example, we constructed the Karakum Canal [in Turkmenia].
It needs billions and billions of rubles in investments... then people should be found who would go and agree to live there, because the living conditions are very different.
This, like any other measure, requires accounting, investigation, some kind of economics...
Nothing was done.
Why was it so, you can see for yourselves from the decisions made at the 20th congress and the reports presented.
We threw it out.
But, for example, Rumanians... began construction of the canal connecting the Danube and the Black Sea.
Who, just who... what kind of economists, or maybe... leadership, when we have economic... or sometimes strategic.
No, altogether strategic.
Why did the question of construction come up?
Hitler, to get around the control of the Soviet Union on submarines and other ships through the Danube, instead of going through Ismailia, there's not any control -- they needed this canal.
Hitler was crushed.
In Rumania, the people took control, got the canal and built it... komsomol members go there, do big things.
But, when they finish it, what's it going to give them...
Because the efforts were never justified; never will it justify itself.
We called for Comrade... he was shocked, says I'm a supporter of construction, but I could not have dreamt of building it...
We knew that when he began construction, he was given an idea, and we were thinking at the time, how is it Stalin can see it is needed and -- ?
But, we Rumanians don't understand it, so we rushed in and started building it.
Stupid, of course.
Stupid.
This is the exhaustion of national resources.
This is a reduction of our potential, and our military potential.
Therefore, it's not going to be useful to us.
We should have given up the idea of building it.
We, in other countries...
For example, Stalin proposed building a road, because this road might be useful some time in the future.
We don't need to build it... from Amur to Sahalin.
God gave us the sea, the cheapest mode of transportation.
So... if it will be... road, then we'll build... ships, we can transport the cargo there and back.
It will be cheaper.
We rejected this road, even when considerable amounts have been spent.
I think that, possibly, one day, we will build it, but not now...
I would even say that now foreigners are coming, they enjoy it, and praise us, of course.
But,we keep quiet and smile... agreeing.
The construction of the Volga-Don.
This was unwise construction.
We just finished a war, the country is bankrupt and hungry, and at that time we have to throw hundreds of thousand of people and funds on...
What's the purpose of it?
We'll finish it, then what?
Nothing.
Only loss.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
Our present situation is difficult, we can't close it, because if we close it the whole world would say: What is it? ...
Boasted, named it after Lenin, and now made a fishery out of it.
Therefore, we think that it was unwisely done; unwisely ...
When he started, and there left the traces of his construction, he probably started, then thought, and said: "Better leave it alone."
And we could have been without this canal.
It has some kind of ... strategic, very weak, but we can transport some submarines, if we start the navigation, then we can get far.
This is imprudent.
Its value is still unknown.
If to count all the funds used, they're colossal.
Very colossal funds were used.
We built the university; it is a very beautiful university; very beautiful, but very unwisely built.
Why should a student or professor go all the way up to the 36th floor?
What for?
It means, there should ... riche r...
There should be a sewer system installed, and other things.
Why fly to the sky, what's wrong with the ground?
If only someone took a pencil and started to count.
We, by using the same money we wasted on this university, could have built three or four universities of the same capacity.
Three or four universities could have been built.
But, the most important thing, the operation of it would have cost nothing.
And we built this building and gave it to you.
Now, it's up to you to figure it out.
This is a gift; it's a very expensive gift.
Comrades, why am I saying this?
Look, comrades, these are colossal expenses.
I was in Leningrad.
Two to three floors, students running up and down the stairs, the professors do the same thing without the elevators.
But, I would have built the elevators for the professors.
Let them use it.
But, for the students, let them exercise their lungs and cardiovascular systems.
Was it wisely done?
And now, every year we have to use so many people to take care of this building.
Do you know how many people are employed?
Almost an entire factory to serve the university!
Who needed it?
It was silliness.
Stupidity.
In America, the buildings are tall.
There, Americans do it smartly and wisely.
All of America is one story high.
But, Americans build only in the big cities; in centers, where the land is more expensive than the construction of the high-rise.
It’s economically justified under capitalistic conditions; but we are located in the fields ...
Where, you understand, parks could be formed.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Our present situation is difficult, we can't close it, because if we close it the whole world would say: What is it? ...
Boasted, named it after Lenin, and now made a fishery out of it.
Therefore, we think that it was unwisely done; unwisely ...
When he started, and there left the traces of his construction, he probably started, then thought, and said: "Better leave it alone."
And we could have been without this canal.
It has some kind of ... strategic, very weak, but we can transport some submarines, if we start the navigation, then we can get far.
This is imprudent.
Its value is still unknown.
If to count all the funds used, they're colossal.
Very colossal funds were used.
We built the university; it is a very beautiful university; very beautiful, but very unwisely built.
Why should a student or professor go all the way up to the 36th floor?
What for?
It means, there should ... riche r...
There should be a sewer system installed, and other things.
Why fly to the sky, what's wrong with the ground?
If only someone took a pencil and started to count.
We, by using the same money we wasted on this university, could have built three or four universities of the same capacity.
Three or four universities could have been built.
But, the most important thing, the operation of it would have cost nothing.
And we built this building and gave it to you.
Now, it's up to you to figure it out.
This is a gift; it's a very expensive gift.
Comrades, why am I saying this?
Look, comrades, these are colossal expenses.
I was in Leningrad.
Two to three floors, students running up and down the stairs, the professors do the same thing without the elevators.
But, I would have built the elevators for the professors.
Let them use it.
But, for the students, let them exercise their lungs and cardiovascular systems.
Was it wisely done?
And now, every year we have to use so many people to take care of this building.
Do you know how many people are employed?
Almost an entire factory to serve the university!
Who needed it?
It was silliness.
Stupidity.
In America, the buildings are tall.
There, Americans do it smartly and wisely.
All of America is one story high.
But, Americans build only in the big cities; in centers, where the land is more expensive than the construction of the high-rise.
It’s economically justified under capitalistic conditions; but we are located in the fields ...
Where, you understand, parks could be formed.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
We took...
Now, we are planning to build a monument of Lenin.
We thought to make it a tall building.
Our architects had a disagreement.
I don't know what they're proposing.
But, I think, what do we need such a high building for.
Better to construct a palace, with meeting rooms, with clubs, then to build the high part, like the pedestal, and place there the monument of Lenin.
One of the designers of the project agreed with what I was saying; Krasin, who died, was talking.
I knew Krasin.
This was a really smart architect.
If... they.
It should be shown, so this figure would be seen from large distances.
It will be better to build it and use it without elevators, and it would be cheaper in the long run.
When our people will become richer and smarter, they will refuse to use high buildings and build a building of two, three, four floors in height.
And use the money from the operating cost, and use it for something more useful.
We do not accuse, neither the comrades for these actions, nor their leaders.
You should not, in the case of wrong doings, point to the leader, at Bierut.
No.
Bierut was a wonderful Bolshevik.
Wonderful.
We regret the loss of such a person.
But, we think that this matter should be corrected, the relationship between heavy and light industries.
We're going to discuss the heavy industry problem.
We were going to meet in April, but I don't think we'll have the opportunity to do it.
On the 17th, we have to be in London.
But, we will try to choose a time, and talk about this problem and make decisions.
I don't know if I should talk about it, but I'll say it.
I think the plenum will understand me correctly.
It's the problem of the rise in peoples' standard of living.
This is a very important problem.
They say that for six years peoples' welfare had grown 26%.
They say it's written.
When we write what others want to hear, it's very bad.
We, Bolsheviks, must write for ourselves and for the people.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
We took...
Now, we are planning to build a monument of Lenin.
We thought to make it a tall building.
Our architects had a disagreement.
I don't know what they're proposing.
But, I think, what do we need such a high building for.
Better to construct a palace, with meeting rooms, with clubs, then to build the high part, like the pedestal, and place there the monument of Lenin.
One of the designers of the project agreed with what I was saying; Krasin, who died, was talking.
I knew Krasin.
This was a really smart architect.
If... they.
It should be shown, so this figure would be seen from large distances.
It will be better to build it and use it without elevators, and it would be cheaper in the long run.
When our people will become richer and smarter, they will refuse to use high buildings and build a building of two, three, four floors in height.
And use the money from the operating cost, and use it for something more useful.
We do not accuse, neither the comrades for these actions, nor their leaders.
You should not, in the case of wrong doings, point to the leader, at Bierut.
No.
Bierut was a wonderful Bolshevik.
Wonderful.
We regret the loss of such a person.
But, we think that this matter should be corrected, the relationship between heavy and light industries.
We're going to discuss the heavy industry problem.
We were going to meet in April, but I don't think we'll have the opportunity to do it.
On the 17th, we have to be in London.
But, we will try to choose a time, and talk about this problem and make decisions.
I don't know if I should talk about it, but I'll say it.
I think the plenum will understand me correctly.
It's the problem of the rise in peoples' standard of living.
This is a very important problem.
They say that for six years peoples' welfare had grown 26%.
They say it's written.
When we write what others want to hear, it's very bad.
We, Bolsheviks, must write for ourselves and for the people.
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 we read, the people should read.
If we write with the same language, but read it differently, it's very bad for the leadership.
It's absolutely impossible.
We'll lose our ties, and we will lose our, and the peoples', roots.
I honestly don't believe that a 26% increase occurred.
Don't believe it.
The exact number, I don't know, but we must know it.
We have to fight for every half-percent.
This is the problem.
Therefore, we think that one cannot build socialism on the enthusiasm of the workers.
It's impossible to misuse -- and this is misusing -- the trust the working class to the party.
It's impossible.
We must take care of the working class.
We must increase, from year to year, the living standard of the working class.
Only then will they look upon us as the avant-garde in the struggle for communism.
I think this has been violated a little bit, not only in Poland, but also in Hungary, and in other countries.
And this should change for the better as soon as possible.
Not because it's some kind of threat.
No.
The workers understand our silly mistakes and forgive us.
They forgive, but that doesn't mean that the mistake should be repeated; that the misuse of trust should happen again.
And therefore, we should do it.
Not because the working class might turn away from us, but so that we would be real Leninists, real who...
This should be done, comrades, this should be thought through.
Is it needed, in our situation, to insure the growth of heavy industry, light industry, and the defense industry?
Yes, it's needed.
If we don't do it, then we can't do it.
Plan and consider wisely.
Also, comrades, I think that Poland and the other peoples' democracies should use the situation which exists right now.
So to speak, the role of the leading military country, compared to Poland and others, is presently taken by the Soviet Union.
Our hydrogen bomb, our armament, our factories everything, the utter defeat of Hitler's army, the crushing defeat of Japan, use it all.
Use it, I mean,to increase the living standard of the population.
Now, we're opening the gates, so to speak, and exchanging delegations; delegations of the socialists and union activists from capitalist countries.
What are they going to talk about?
They are, of course, going to look for such things as the kind of armaments we have.
But, especially at housing conditions, medical services, salaries -- this is the main problem, and we can't avoid it.
It should be distinguished from other problems, because our worker should not live in worse conditions then those workers in capitalist countries.
Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to attract the worker to our side.
(Applause.)
TO BE CONTINUED ...
What we read, the people should read.
If we write with the same language, but read it differently, it's very bad for the leadership.
It's absolutely impossible.
We'll lose our ties, and we will lose our, and the peoples', roots.
I honestly don't believe that a 26% increase occurred.
Don't believe it.
The exact number, I don't know, but we must know it.
We have to fight for every half-percent.
This is the problem.
Therefore, we think that one cannot build socialism on the enthusiasm of the workers.
It's impossible to misuse -- and this is misusing -- the trust the working class to the party.
It's impossible.
We must take care of the working class.
We must increase, from year to year, the living standard of the working class.
Only then will they look upon us as the avant-garde in the struggle for communism.
I think this has been violated a little bit, not only in Poland, but also in Hungary, and in other countries.
And this should change for the better as soon as possible.
Not because it's some kind of threat.
No.
The workers understand our silly mistakes and forgive us.
They forgive, but that doesn't mean that the mistake should be repeated; that the misuse of trust should happen again.
And therefore, we should do it.
Not because the working class might turn away from us, but so that we would be real Leninists, real who...
This should be done, comrades, this should be thought through.
Is it needed, in our situation, to insure the growth of heavy industry, light industry, and the defense industry?
Yes, it's needed.
If we don't do it, then we can't do it.
Plan and consider wisely.
Also, comrades, I think that Poland and the other peoples' democracies should use the situation which exists right now.
So to speak, the role of the leading military country, compared to Poland and others, is presently taken by the Soviet Union.
Our hydrogen bomb, our armament, our factories everything, the utter defeat of Hitler's army, the crushing defeat of Japan, use it all.
Use it, I mean,to increase the living standard of the population.
Now, we're opening the gates, so to speak, and exchanging delegations; delegations of the socialists and union activists from capitalist countries.
What are they going to talk about?
They are, of course, going to look for such things as the kind of armaments we have.
But, especially at housing conditions, medical services, salaries -- this is the main problem, and we can't avoid it.
It should be distinguished from other problems, because our worker should not live in worse conditions then those workers in capitalist countries.
Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to attract the worker to our side.
(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 ...
This is the problem.
This is a very important problem, and we have to pay a lot of attention to it, and decide it correctly.
Do we have the opportunities?
Yes, we do.
Of course, we can't do it in one year, but let's start.
From year to year, and then our actions will deserve the trust of the working class.
If a worker tells us that the situation is bad, we'll give him an answer -- 6%!
But, he does his own accounting, his own analysis, his own Gosplan.
He knows everything, and his finances, and his budget, what you're earning, and what you can buy with this money.
This isn't very complicated accounting!
I think that it could be done.
Now, I think, comrades, forgive me for direct criticisms, that our Polish friends do not spend enough attention on agriculture.
Poland is a country, so to speak, where you just now attached the industrial regions... the Germans.
The country arose, and then you, yourselves, built it.
The country changed its image, changed the relations between the rural population and urban industry -- all this is good.
But, comrades, this does not give us the right to think that we're already an industrialized country, and therefore we shouldn't pay as much attention to the question of peasants.
This is silly.
Because in the past Poland exported bread.
Now, it's importing it.
Is this right?
I think not.
Although, the Polish comrades tell me that I'm wrong.
And ...me, so to speak, educate me.
But, I myself understand this, that the revolution happened, that the division of the land happened, that, if there were internal. ... separate groups of the population, then now it's leveled out.
And, as a result of it, in reality, now increase the consumption norms of agricultural products, and quality, and the quantity -- this is correct.
Because, would the peasants support you if during your tenure the standard of living was worse than before?
So, we have to use our resources better.
To increase the yield of crops and, as a result of a more correct policy, to increase the market of our economy.
And, by doing this, to better use the land.
Therefore, comrades, I think we, in agriculture, we have colossal resources.
We, with Comrade Bierut, when I came here on your invitation, went to the village of Jaskowice.
They sent me letters...copies sent.
I was sick and couldn't go.
Both Comrade Bierut and I were sick, but only I shouldered the sickness and he did not.
Therefore, I could not go to this village and so I sent my assistant, Comrade Shevchenko, and he talked with these peasants.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
This is the problem.
This is a very important problem, and we have to pay a lot of attention to it, and decide it correctly.
Do we have the opportunities?
Yes, we do.
Of course, we can't do it in one year, but let's start.
From year to year, and then our actions will deserve the trust of the working class.
If a worker tells us that the situation is bad, we'll give him an answer -- 6%!
But, he does his own accounting, his own analysis, his own Gosplan.
He knows everything, and his finances, and his budget, what you're earning, and what you can buy with this money.
This isn't very complicated accounting!
I think that it could be done.
Now, I think, comrades, forgive me for direct criticisms, that our Polish friends do not spend enough attention on agriculture.
Poland is a country, so to speak, where you just now attached the industrial regions... the Germans.
The country arose, and then you, yourselves, built it.
The country changed its image, changed the relations between the rural population and urban industry -- all this is good.
But, comrades, this does not give us the right to think that we're already an industrialized country, and therefore we shouldn't pay as much attention to the question of peasants.
This is silly.
Because in the past Poland exported bread.
Now, it's importing it.
Is this right?
I think not.
Although, the Polish comrades tell me that I'm wrong.
And ...me, so to speak, educate me.
But, I myself understand this, that the revolution happened, that the division of the land happened, that, if there were internal. ... separate groups of the population, then now it's leveled out.
And, as a result of it, in reality, now increase the consumption norms of agricultural products, and quality, and the quantity -- this is correct.
Because, would the peasants support you if during your tenure the standard of living was worse than before?
So, we have to use our resources better.
To increase the yield of crops and, as a result of a more correct policy, to increase the market of our economy.
And, by doing this, to better use the land.
Therefore, comrades, I think we, in agriculture, we have colossal resources.
We, with Comrade Bierut, when I came here on your invitation, went to the village of Jaskowice.
They sent me letters...copies sent.
I was sick and couldn't go.
Both Comrade Bierut and I were sick, but only I shouldered the sickness and he did not.
Therefore, I could not go to this village and so I sent my assistant, Comrade Shevchenko, and he talked with these peasants.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
I'm not ashamed, we, with Bierut, pressured them.
They only wanted to plant one hectare of corn, but I insisted on ten.
This year, I didn't go.
But, they tell me that they planted thirteen hectares.
This means they not only stopped to hear what we were talking about, but they even added, without my participation.
They told me that they're short of forage for their cows.
I say, if the landowner is bad, this worries him.
But, the good owner always has reserves.
And, as a result, the peasants of this village don't care that Spring is late, they have plenty of forage.
Why am I saying this?
Because, the question of grain is the question of the fodder crops.
This is the question of the quantity of milk, butter, eggs.
Otherwise, you'd have to buy these things.
And if you'll buy, that means we won't help raise the standard of living, because you'll have to take something away from yourself.
Nobody will give you anything for free.
You would have to sell coal, or metals, or machinery.
I won't talk anymore about this problem, because I talked about it yesterday during the [PUWP] Politburo meeting.
Now, comrades, I would like to talk about a very crucial question -- the question of the cult of personality.
The report of the closed session [of the 20th CPSU congress] you have read.
But... with such openness we presented these questions.
We didn't hide anything; said everything.
Why did we introduce this question to the party congress?
We had a discussion.
We exchanged opinions, if such a topic should be touched.
People, for decades, thought like this.
And suddenly, we'll show them that it's not that clean, how we always looked at and understood this subject, that it's dirty, this subject.
We discussed it a lot, argued about it, and finally decided to present this question.
This is our capital, and we have to use it.
Our biggest capital is that which aides in reinforcing the ranks of our party.
And capital which aides in reinforcing our authority on the population is our main capital.
After the death of Stalin, we freed thousands of people from jails.
We reinstated thousands of people to party membership.
We reinstated our friends.
I talked to one of them, who spent sixteen years with...
This is my friend, we worked together in the Donbass.
I was in charge of orgadelom of Stalin's regional committee, he was in charge of the... regional committee.
A member of the party since 1917, joined as a young man, and spent sixteen years in jail, a completely honest man.
Comrades, this is a member... till the 27th congress and a delegate to the 27th congress.
They came, they wanted, you see, not only the pants from the Red Cross, but... and he would have been satisfied.
But, he wants to receive moral satisfaction.
How can we say it to him?
And we would have been simply... if we simply... our head, and said that nothing had happened.
So, thousands of people came, and people who were in the party for decades...
II
The most important thing is to correctly educate...
Who will decide, how can one explain the absence of the... congress for thirteen years.
How can one explain?
But, we have so many people who asked us this question during Stalin's tenure.
They were arrested.
This is already an anti-Soviet person.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
I'm not ashamed, we, with Bierut, pressured them.
They only wanted to plant one hectare of corn, but I insisted on ten.
This year, I didn't go.
But, they tell me that they planted thirteen hectares.
This means they not only stopped to hear what we were talking about, but they even added, without my participation.
They told me that they're short of forage for their cows.
I say, if the landowner is bad, this worries him.
But, the good owner always has reserves.
And, as a result, the peasants of this village don't care that Spring is late, they have plenty of forage.
Why am I saying this?
Because, the question of grain is the question of the fodder crops.
This is the question of the quantity of milk, butter, eggs.
Otherwise, you'd have to buy these things.
And if you'll buy, that means we won't help raise the standard of living, because you'll have to take something away from yourself.
Nobody will give you anything for free.
You would have to sell coal, or metals, or machinery.
I won't talk anymore about this problem, because I talked about it yesterday during the [PUWP] Politburo meeting.
Now, comrades, I would like to talk about a very crucial question -- the question of the cult of personality.
The report of the closed session [of the 20th CPSU congress] you have read.
But... with such openness we presented these questions.
We didn't hide anything; said everything.
Why did we introduce this question to the party congress?
We had a discussion.
We exchanged opinions, if such a topic should be touched.
People, for decades, thought like this.
And suddenly, we'll show them that it's not that clean, how we always looked at and understood this subject, that it's dirty, this subject.
We discussed it a lot, argued about it, and finally decided to present this question.
This is our capital, and we have to use it.
Our biggest capital is that which aides in reinforcing the ranks of our party.
And capital which aides in reinforcing our authority on the population is our main capital.
After the death of Stalin, we freed thousands of people from jails.
We reinstated thousands of people to party membership.
We reinstated our friends.
I talked to one of them, who spent sixteen years with...
This is my friend, we worked together in the Donbass.
I was in charge of orgadelom of Stalin's regional committee, he was in charge of the... regional committee.
A member of the party since 1917, joined as a young man, and spent sixteen years in jail, a completely honest man.
Comrades, this is a member... till the 27th congress and a delegate to the 27th congress.
They came, they wanted, you see, not only the pants from the Red Cross, but... and he would have been satisfied.
But, he wants to receive moral satisfaction.
How can we say it to him?
And we would have been simply... if we simply... our head, and said that nothing had happened.
So, thousands of people came, and people who were in the party for decades...
II
The most important thing is to correctly educate...
Who will decide, how can one explain the absence of the... congress for thirteen years.
How can one explain?
But, we have so many people who asked us this question during Stalin's tenure.
They were arrested.
This is already an anti-Soviet person.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
The party should be informed at a certain time, right before the party congress, but this is arbitrariness.
The party cannot live like this.
Well, we have decided to report these questions to the congress, and said... and saying...
To state the question, and where were you, you were with Stalin.
We said we've seen, and we're saying, you judge.
Let the congress judge, if it deserves trust or not.
But, the party must know everything.
As the master, the congress must know about it and decide.
Therefore, we came and stated it.
I would say... that after we had made this report, and now we're reading this report to members of the party, then we decided to read it to Komsomol members.
There are eighteen million warm-hearted young people that were brought up by us in a certain direction.
If they don't know everything-- won't understand us...
We decided... then we went ahead.
We decided to have it read during workers' meetings.
Not only to party members, but to non-party members as well, so that non-party members feel that we trust them... will know.
When we were told... the entire world talks, the entire diplomatic corps is making noise that Khrushchev did...exactly.
The connections aren't bad.
Here he gave such a report, he talked for three hours, really talked for three hours, that such questions were presented, that such questions were really presented, and that after that, they won... so to speak.
To each other... there's such a situation among the diplomats, that Khrushchev flew to Warsaw, Malenkov to London, Mikoyan to Karachi, during a bad state in the [Soviet] Politburo they're not going to fly all over the world... checking themselves.
Because, really, let them make some noise; make some noise and then they'll be left with nothing.
But, we will only win from this, because now we have a colossal growth of party solidarity around the Central Committee, and firmness among party ranks, and it's only natural that the party receive satisfaction, that we, so to speak, the Central Committee... under the party...
He made the report to the party, because... the reasons... and we're saying how to cure why this could have happen.
Comrades, this is really a tragedy.
A tragedy.
This is... Stalin's, of course.
Stalin's.
Now, Lenin.
Now we publish, possibly, some collections of his works; will publish Lenin.
We will publish Lenin's Testament, before his death, where Lenin, I don't know if you're familiar with it, it's been sometime, I think we were giving it to you...
We published this Testament and gave it to all the congress delegates, to see what Lenin, how he saw them.
See, he said that Stalin's a treacherous man.
Stalin's capable of misusing power, that Stalin could not be left... that if he'll be left... he can't work... with comrades, and... he should be moved, so to speak, and another person should be nominated, who has all the positive characteristics, which Stalin has.
But, he wouldn't be rude, and he wouldn't be able to misuse power.
Everything started from this.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
The party should be informed at a certain time, right before the party congress, but this is arbitrariness.
The party cannot live like this.
Well, we have decided to report these questions to the congress, and said... and saying...
To state the question, and where were you, you were with Stalin.
We said we've seen, and we're saying, you judge.
Let the congress judge, if it deserves trust or not.
But, the party must know everything.
As the master, the congress must know about it and decide.
Therefore, we came and stated it.
I would say... that after we had made this report, and now we're reading this report to members of the party, then we decided to read it to Komsomol members.
There are eighteen million warm-hearted young people that were brought up by us in a certain direction.
If they don't know everything-- won't understand us...
We decided... then we went ahead.
We decided to have it read during workers' meetings.
Not only to party members, but to non-party members as well, so that non-party members feel that we trust them... will know.
When we were told... the entire world talks, the entire diplomatic corps is making noise that Khrushchev did...exactly.
The connections aren't bad.
Here he gave such a report, he talked for three hours, really talked for three hours, that such questions were presented, that such questions were really presented, and that after that, they won... so to speak.
To each other... there's such a situation among the diplomats, that Khrushchev flew to Warsaw, Malenkov to London, Mikoyan to Karachi, during a bad state in the [Soviet] Politburo they're not going to fly all over the world... checking themselves.
Because, really, let them make some noise; make some noise and then they'll be left with nothing.
But, we will only win from this, because now we have a colossal growth of party solidarity around the Central Committee, and firmness among party ranks, and it's only natural that the party receive satisfaction, that we, so to speak, the Central Committee... under the party...
He made the report to the party, because... the reasons... and we're saying how to cure why this could have happen.
Comrades, this is really a tragedy.
A tragedy.
This is... Stalin's, of course.
Stalin's.
Now, Lenin.
Now we publish, possibly, some collections of his works; will publish Lenin.
We will publish Lenin's Testament, before his death, where Lenin, I don't know if you're familiar with it, it's been sometime, I think we were giving it to you...
We published this Testament and gave it to all the congress delegates, to see what Lenin, how he saw them.
See, he said that Stalin's a treacherous man.
Stalin's capable of misusing power, that Stalin could not be left... that if he'll be left... he can't work... with comrades, and... he should be moved, so to speak, and another person should be nominated, who has all the positive characteristics, which Stalin has.
But, he wouldn't be rude, and he wouldn't be able to misuse power.
Everything started from this.
TO BE CONTINUED ...