March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
A question from the audience in Russian:
Comrade Khrushchev, I have the following question: Could Stalin be called a Marxist or not, and can you help us familiarize ourselves with the document?
Comrade Khrushchev [in Russian]:
You see, here's how it was, I'll read... [from the secret speech].
Comrade Roman Nowak [in Polish]:
Comrade Khrushchev says, and it's apparent from these materials, that Comrade Lenin characterized Comrade Stalin before the 13th [CPSU] congress.
Certainly power and so on.
It's enough that before this congress, Stalin did not yet have such power in the party, like it appeared later in the process.
Why, in spite of this, that Lenin warned the party against Stalin, the congress still accepted Stalin as General Secretary?
Voice from the hall [in Polish]:
I have one example... [in Russian]
You know that the Communist Party of Poland was dissolved in 1938.
Was this a coincidence or is there something deeper to it?
Why in 1938, right before the second imperialist war?
Question from the hall [in Polish]:
When reading Comrade Khrushchev's speech to the closed session, and familiarizing oneself with this material; to put it differently -- harm committed by Stalin to the party, to the party cadres.
And later, in the end, there's the fact, as if some interpretation, and yet Stalin performed, after all, a great role in the struggle for collectivization, industrialization.
And today, Comrade Khrushchev says the same thing.
It would concern the following thing.
Was it really like this, that at the time only Stalin played a prominent role?
After all, at the time the party played a great role.
Because, after all, at the time Stalin in fact included himself with this collective, and we'll underline this, that as long as Stalin included himself with this collective, later these weren't relations that were so unbearable.
And therefore it's about this, that we explained it in this manner, that over there, there's service to Stalin we also put down to, as if in reality, over there it wasn't the party that performed that role, but it was performed by Stalin.
Was that party really so powerless?
That's how the question presents itself.
And I want to say, yesterday I read this material at the meeting of the executive.
The comrades from the executive say that it somewhat jars this justification.
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 ...
Comrade Maria Kaminska [in Russian]
I have two questions.
The first question is this.
I read the report by Comrade Khrushchev at the close session.
The situation during the war was mentioned.
Reference was made, if I'm not mistaken, that after the beginning of the war Stalin suffered something like depression.
He didn't believe in the possibility of victory, and withdrew from the leadership, from work.
More or less everybody read that.
It was then said that members of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolshevik) turned to Stalin and practically forced him to take the controls into his hands, and start working.
My question is the following: If Comrade Stalin, for some reason, really withdrew from the leadership, was it not possible to take advantage of it, to create certain conditions, let us say, to leave it that way... ?
The second question concerns the international workers' movement.
Do the leading members of the CPSU not think that now is the time to create some kind of opportunity for an international exchange of experiences in the workers' movement, to exchange opinions in the workers' movement.
I think that it is necessary right at this moment.
Recently, we had an occurrence such as the article by Comrade Ulbricht, with certain statements about Comrade Stalin, and we know that the truth of certain positions in this article is not substantial.
One of the members of our Politburo, in response to a question, if there's an existing opinion which commits us, answered, I think answered correctly, that Comrade Ulbricht has such an opinion, but this matter could be approached differently.
I think that the answer by our comrade was correct.
But, it seems to me that the situation isn't normal, if one of the leading comrades in the same party has one point of view, and the other, let's say, gives another definition.
We remember the times when plenums were called, and when comrades argued, and said lots of wrong things, but a common point of view crystallized from all this.
It seems to me that in the current, objective... international workers' movement... this is necessary.
That's why I asked this question.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Comrade Maria Kaminska [in Russian]
I have two questions.
The first question is this.
I read the report by Comrade Khrushchev at the close session.
The situation during the war was mentioned.
Reference was made, if I'm not mistaken, that after the beginning of the war Stalin suffered something like depression.
He didn't believe in the possibility of victory, and withdrew from the leadership, from work.
More or less everybody read that.
It was then said that members of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolshevik) turned to Stalin and practically forced him to take the controls into his hands, and start working.
My question is the following: If Comrade Stalin, for some reason, really withdrew from the leadership, was it not possible to take advantage of it, to create certain conditions, let us say, to leave it that way... ?
The second question concerns the international workers' movement.
Do the leading members of the CPSU not think that now is the time to create some kind of opportunity for an international exchange of experiences in the workers' movement, to exchange opinions in the workers' movement.
I think that it is necessary right at this moment.
Recently, we had an occurrence such as the article by Comrade Ulbricht, with certain statements about Comrade Stalin, and we know that the truth of certain positions in this article is not substantial.
One of the members of our Politburo, in response to a question, if there's an existing opinion which commits us, answered, I think answered correctly, that Comrade Ulbricht has such an opinion, but this matter could be approached differently.
I think that the answer by our comrade was correct.
But, it seems to me that the situation isn't normal, if one of the leading comrades in the same party has one point of view, and the other, let's say, gives another definition.
We remember the times when plenums were called, and when comrades argued, and said lots of wrong things, but a common point of view crystallized from all this.
It seems to me that in the current, objective... international workers' movement... this is necessary.
That's why I asked this question.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
Comrade Apelagia Lewinska [in Polish]
Explaining the events, as they are espoused at this moment -- through the psychology of one person, Comrade Stalin -- for us this explanation is not enough.
It's not enough because this entire epoch is tied with a particular system of party leadership and government.
A leadership, which is called -- we now call it -- steered, controlled.
During the period, still before the war... in the CPP we considered this situation, created by the uniquely reinforced figure of Stalin.
We were not satisfied by this and, at the time, we explained to ourselves that this is a necessity of the historic epoch, demanding one leader of this kind and...
And this is how we explained it at the time.
In one of Stalin's speeches it was said that at the moment when war approaches it's possible to militarize the party.
There's even this designation, in fact, literally-- militarization.
Limiting the principles of internal party democracy.
It's about this, today, how do comrades, the CPSU leadership, see this side of the situation, arising precisely from the method, from the system.
Was this system not connected with the necessity of bringing together the nation, and precisely the militaristic, in some sense, method of control... during the anti-fascist war.
It would appear to us that today we are not in a position to clarify the matter of one person, the matter of the psychology of one person.
After all, it's not like this.
In the development of a situation there are objective agents and...
And, after all, the masses also, in some sense, produced this cult of the individual.
It's about this, if from this perspective, what kind of perspectives are there for study...
I'm aware that to the end ... it's not possible to determine, that the meaning of the historic epoch can't be changed, but surely comrades are thinking about this and maybe they'd want to tell us, how they look at it from this perspective, precisely from the perspective of the method of the system of leadership.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Comrade Apelagia Lewinska [in Polish]
Explaining the events, as they are espoused at this moment -- through the psychology of one person, Comrade Stalin -- for us this explanation is not enough.
It's not enough because this entire epoch is tied with a particular system of party leadership and government.
A leadership, which is called -- we now call it -- steered, controlled.
During the period, still before the war... in the CPP we considered this situation, created by the uniquely reinforced figure of Stalin.
We were not satisfied by this and, at the time, we explained to ourselves that this is a necessity of the historic epoch, demanding one leader of this kind and...
And this is how we explained it at the time.
In one of Stalin's speeches it was said that at the moment when war approaches it's possible to militarize the party.
There's even this designation, in fact, literally-- militarization.
Limiting the principles of internal party democracy.
It's about this, today, how do comrades, the CPSU leadership, see this side of the situation, arising precisely from the method, from the system.
Was this system not connected with the necessity of bringing together the nation, and precisely the militaristic, in some sense, method of control... during the anti-fascist war.
It would appear to us that today we are not in a position to clarify the matter of one person, the matter of the psychology of one person.
After all, it's not like this.
In the development of a situation there are objective agents and...
And, after all, the masses also, in some sense, produced this cult of the individual.
It's about this, if from this perspective, what kind of perspectives are there for study...
I'm aware that to the end ... it's not possible to determine, that the meaning of the historic epoch can't be changed, but surely comrades are thinking about this and maybe they'd want to tell us, how they look at it from this perspective, precisely from the perspective of the method of the system of leadership.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
Comrade Khrushchev [in Russian]
Here's the military comrade who asked and then repeated the question: How is it possible to combine this?
I repeat that it can be combined quite well, because where would you place Stalin?
Would you say he's a Marxist?
Yes, Stalin, who occupied such a prominent position in the party, and possessed indisputable, colossal influence, and revolutionary abilities, and led the party in which direction?
In the direction of building a socialist society.
This is a fact.
Could Stalin have lead in a different direction?
He could have.
Could he have brought it to some other result?
I think that he couldn't, because the party would have resisted.
But, Stalin himself was a staunch Marxist, and he was convinced that society in particular must become a communist society, and he served this society with his body and soul.
Of this, I have no doubt.
The question of the means and of the course taken, this is a completely different question.
It's difficult to combine, but it's a fact.
This fact already took place.
How you want to combine it, and think it through, this depends, so to speak, on your abilities.
But, it's a fact.
We can't say that by using such and such methods to kill people, he killed them in order to destroy the socialist regime, so that he could turn the Soviet Union towards a capitalist way of living.
It would be a silly thing to say.
It would be a lie.
Who would have believed it?
No, that's wrong.
Here's the whole tragedy.
Who doubted that somebody isn't an enemy?
Stalin, of course.
But, if we look at this from the position of the liberals, then, of course, this isn't right.
But, Stalin was a revolutionary.
And therefore, to affirm the new, we should fight with the old.
And in this struggle, comrades, we never denied harsh methods and extreme actions.
We didn't deny it in the past, and we don't deny it now.
Therefore, on this, Stalin was a Marxist, and he served, and used all the methods available.
He used them so that in this struggle to affirm the new, he destroyed his own people.
His own people were destroyed.
Of course it's possible.
This was in every party.
There were always cases where someone was under the suspicion of being an agent provocateur.
Sometimes investigations and courts were used, but it later turned out that they had been honest people.
Were there cases like these?
Of course there were.
And it was the same in the Polish party.
It was everywhere.
If there's an underground, if there's a struggle, then it's always possible.
And the fact that the enemy sends its agents is known to everybody, comrades.
We have the question of intelligence, methods, and abilities.
Stalin had such views, he understood it well, and tried to protect us.
And in protecting the revolution, he got to the point where, as they say, the artillery fired on its own army.
Well, I can't say anything else.
I would be lying if, after his death, everything was blamed on him.
That wouldn't be very smart.
We would then not have been Marxists, or we would not have understood it and explained it.
Stalin in particularly was a Marxist.
A Marxist.
We think so.
The question of his mistakes on the questions of theory, and in other instances, is not being discussed right now, comrades.
This was a man who devoted his body and soul to the working class.
There isn't a single doubt about it.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Comrade Khrushchev [in Russian]
Here's the military comrade who asked and then repeated the question: How is it possible to combine this?
I repeat that it can be combined quite well, because where would you place Stalin?
Would you say he's a Marxist?
Yes, Stalin, who occupied such a prominent position in the party, and possessed indisputable, colossal influence, and revolutionary abilities, and led the party in which direction?
In the direction of building a socialist society.
This is a fact.
Could Stalin have lead in a different direction?
He could have.
Could he have brought it to some other result?
I think that he couldn't, because the party would have resisted.
But, Stalin himself was a staunch Marxist, and he was convinced that society in particular must become a communist society, and he served this society with his body and soul.
Of this, I have no doubt.
The question of the means and of the course taken, this is a completely different question.
It's difficult to combine, but it's a fact.
This fact already took place.
How you want to combine it, and think it through, this depends, so to speak, on your abilities.
But, it's a fact.
We can't say that by using such and such methods to kill people, he killed them in order to destroy the socialist regime, so that he could turn the Soviet Union towards a capitalist way of living.
It would be a silly thing to say.
It would be a lie.
Who would have believed it?
No, that's wrong.
Here's the whole tragedy.
Who doubted that somebody isn't an enemy?
Stalin, of course.
But, if we look at this from the position of the liberals, then, of course, this isn't right.
But, Stalin was a revolutionary.
And therefore, to affirm the new, we should fight with the old.
And in this struggle, comrades, we never denied harsh methods and extreme actions.
We didn't deny it in the past, and we don't deny it now.
Therefore, on this, Stalin was a Marxist, and he served, and used all the methods available.
He used them so that in this struggle to affirm the new, he destroyed his own people.
His own people were destroyed.
Of course it's possible.
This was in every party.
There were always cases where someone was under the suspicion of being an agent provocateur.
Sometimes investigations and courts were used, but it later turned out that they had been honest people.
Were there cases like these?
Of course there were.
And it was the same in the Polish party.
It was everywhere.
If there's an underground, if there's a struggle, then it's always possible.
And the fact that the enemy sends its agents is known to everybody, comrades.
We have the question of intelligence, methods, and abilities.
Stalin had such views, he understood it well, and tried to protect us.
And in protecting the revolution, he got to the point where, as they say, the artillery fired on its own army.
Well, I can't say anything else.
I would be lying if, after his death, everything was blamed on him.
That wouldn't be very smart.
We would then not have been Marxists, or we would not have understood it and explained it.
Stalin in particularly was a Marxist.
A Marxist.
We think so.
The question of his mistakes on the questions of theory, and in other instances, is not being discussed right now, comrades.
This was a man who devoted his body and soul to the working class.
There isn't a single doubt about it.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
Comrade Khrushchev [in Russian], continued ...
Here, people talked about Lenin's will at the 13th congress.
You see, when Lenin's will was read during the congress, Stalin then asked to be released.
Stalin would write to Lenin.
Lenin wrote...
Let's select the Secretariat.
No.
Comrades, we can't discuss the 13th congress right now, on the 20th, in 1956.
(Voices from the audience: Correct.)
These are different questions, comrades.
Back then the Trotskyists attacked the party.
Stalin occupied the leading position.
He was the leader.
He was the sword of the party, with which he destroyed the enemies of the party.
And then we let Stalin upstairs.
Back then we thought that Lenin may be ill.
He could be under some kind of influence.
Back then we concluded that we're a collective body.
We will advise and Stalin will be our leader.
And, comrades, he was that leader.
We defeated the foreign intervention, and defeated the right-wing extremists.
Who defeated them?
The party did?
A comrade said that the party did it.
No, comrades, the party did it, but with Stalin.
And Stalin, with this party, and not only as an ordinary member, but also as leader of the party.
So, I think, comrades, that his due should be given.
His fair share, then we will have our feet firmly planted on the ground.
If we start explaining things that happened thirty years ago, we'll confuse ourselves.
Well, you know how memoirs are written by old Bolsheviks sometimes, and they describe events that happened forty years ago.
But, and ... always, so to say, humans are fallible.
Something unpleasant is omitted, something pleasant is exaggerated.
So these kind of memories are not accepted as a valid source of history.
I don't want to insult our elders, I myself am not young, but I know that sometimes... forty to fifty years ago, everyone says different things.
The disbanding of the Polish party, I didn't really understand the question: Coincides with 1938?
(Voices from the audience: Yes.)
Comrades, I forgot to tell you that I don't have very good knowledge about the history of the Communist Party of Poland...
I didn't pay any special attention to the fact that the Communist Party of Poland was disbanded in 1938.
But, I think it's a coincidence.
But, here... that the war was coming closer, therefore the pursuit of spies, naturally, and, of course, the purge of party members, the purge of Comintem, and the fight against enemies of the revolution and supporters of capitalist countries...
Stalin valued every revolutionary.
It had to be seen.
We saw it.
We're now talking about the negative side of history.
But, Stalin, comrades, if I could talk about the good times, the attention and care of the person.
This was a revolutionary.
He lived life, but he had a mania about somebody pursuing him...
And, because of it, he would never stop...
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Comrade Khrushchev [in Russian], continued ...
Here, people talked about Lenin's will at the 13th congress.
You see, when Lenin's will was read during the congress, Stalin then asked to be released.
Stalin would write to Lenin.
Lenin wrote...
Let's select the Secretariat.
No.
Comrades, we can't discuss the 13th congress right now, on the 20th, in 1956.
(Voices from the audience: Correct.)
These are different questions, comrades.
Back then the Trotskyists attacked the party.
Stalin occupied the leading position.
He was the leader.
He was the sword of the party, with which he destroyed the enemies of the party.
And then we let Stalin upstairs.
Back then we thought that Lenin may be ill.
He could be under some kind of influence.
Back then we concluded that we're a collective body.
We will advise and Stalin will be our leader.
And, comrades, he was that leader.
We defeated the foreign intervention, and defeated the right-wing extremists.
Who defeated them?
The party did?
A comrade said that the party did it.
No, comrades, the party did it, but with Stalin.
And Stalin, with this party, and not only as an ordinary member, but also as leader of the party.
So, I think, comrades, that his due should be given.
His fair share, then we will have our feet firmly planted on the ground.
If we start explaining things that happened thirty years ago, we'll confuse ourselves.
Well, you know how memoirs are written by old Bolsheviks sometimes, and they describe events that happened forty years ago.
But, and ... always, so to say, humans are fallible.
Something unpleasant is omitted, something pleasant is exaggerated.
So these kind of memories are not accepted as a valid source of history.
I don't want to insult our elders, I myself am not young, but I know that sometimes... forty to fifty years ago, everyone says different things.
The disbanding of the Polish party, I didn't really understand the question: Coincides with 1938?
(Voices from the audience: Yes.)
Comrades, I forgot to tell you that I don't have very good knowledge about the history of the Communist Party of Poland...
I didn't pay any special attention to the fact that the Communist Party of Poland was disbanded in 1938.
But, I think it's a coincidence.
But, here... that the war was coming closer, therefore the pursuit of spies, naturally, and, of course, the purge of party members, the purge of Comintem, and the fight against enemies of the revolution and supporters of capitalist countries...
Stalin valued every revolutionary.
It had to be seen.
We saw it.
We're now talking about the negative side of history.
But, Stalin, comrades, if I could talk about the good times, the attention and care of the person.
This was a revolutionary.
He lived life, but he had a mania about somebody pursuing him...
And, because of it, he would never stop...
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
Comrade Khrushchev [in Russian], continued ...
He, even his own relatives...
He shot them.
Executed them by having them shot.
Because, he thought that the brother of his first wife-- a Georgian woman, she died a long time ago.
(From the audience: Alliluyeva. No, Alliluyeva's the last wife.)
Svanidze.
Svanidze.
Her brother.
This was a friend of Stalin's.
This was already an old man.
He was a Menshevik, then he joined the party, and was often seen with Stalin.
And, evidently, Beria suggested that this Svanidze was an agent, that he was an enemy, and that he had a directive to kill Stalin.
Stalin, of course, said listen, he sleeps over at my place, he dines with me, he's often with me.
So, why is he not doing what he's supposed to?
He could have poisoned me a long time ago.
But, Beria tells him: "No."
"You know there are different agents."
"Some get the assignment immediately."
"Some agents are supposed to be around you, behave normally, then the time comes when he'll get the signal, and then he'll do it!"
Stalin believed him.
Svanidze was arrested.
He was interrogated by different methods.
He was sentenced to execution by shooting.
Stalin lived with Svanidze for so many years, so he still had doubts.
Then, he asks Beria the following: When Svanidze is about to be shot, tell him that if he admits his guilt -- Stalin was already sure that Svanidze was an enemy -- and asks for forgiveness, we will forgive him.
Before Svanidze was shot, he was told Stalin's words, and he replied: "Exactly what is my crime?"
"Why should I ask for forgiveness."
"I'm not a criminal."
"I'm a member of the party."
"I'm an honest person."
"I didn't commit any crimes before Stalin, and before the party and country."
"I won't ask."
And he was shot.
That's what was happening.
So, why did Stalin destroy?
He destroyed for nothing...
He believed it's an enemy.
We have to put more work on our brains to explain things that are not so easy.
But, complicate this question a little bit.
Only then will you understand correctly, and correctly give an explanation.
This is a complicated question.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Comrade Khrushchev [in Russian], continued ...
He, even his own relatives...
He shot them.
Executed them by having them shot.
Because, he thought that the brother of his first wife-- a Georgian woman, she died a long time ago.
(From the audience: Alliluyeva. No, Alliluyeva's the last wife.)
Svanidze.
Svanidze.
Her brother.
This was a friend of Stalin's.
This was already an old man.
He was a Menshevik, then he joined the party, and was often seen with Stalin.
And, evidently, Beria suggested that this Svanidze was an agent, that he was an enemy, and that he had a directive to kill Stalin.
Stalin, of course, said listen, he sleeps over at my place, he dines with me, he's often with me.
So, why is he not doing what he's supposed to?
He could have poisoned me a long time ago.
But, Beria tells him: "No."
"You know there are different agents."
"Some get the assignment immediately."
"Some agents are supposed to be around you, behave normally, then the time comes when he'll get the signal, and then he'll do it!"
Stalin believed him.
Svanidze was arrested.
He was interrogated by different methods.
He was sentenced to execution by shooting.
Stalin lived with Svanidze for so many years, so he still had doubts.
Then, he asks Beria the following: When Svanidze is about to be shot, tell him that if he admits his guilt -- Stalin was already sure that Svanidze was an enemy -- and asks for forgiveness, we will forgive him.
Before Svanidze was shot, he was told Stalin's words, and he replied: "Exactly what is my crime?"
"Why should I ask for forgiveness."
"I'm not a criminal."
"I'm a member of the party."
"I'm an honest person."
"I didn't commit any crimes before Stalin, and before the party and country."
"I won't ask."
And he was shot.
That's what was happening.
So, why did Stalin destroy?
He destroyed for nothing...
He believed it's an enemy.
We have to put more work on our brains to explain things that are not so easy.
But, complicate this question a little bit.
Only then will you understand correctly, and correctly give an explanation.
This is a complicated question.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
Comrade Khrushchev [in Russian], continued ...
The role of Stalin.
I think we already talked about it, that now this cannot...
You've see in my presentation, his positive side is explained, so to speak, expanded upon.
And the negative side is illustrated there.
Why was it done like this?
Because, we were doing positive work with Stalin and, as a result of which, today we have a socialist society and country.
And in this, Stalin laid the foundation.
I don't know who can deny it.
I can't.
But, we wanted to show the negative side, some of the things that were not needed, and the results of these actions, so that it wouldn't be repeated.
Therefore, we constructed a sequence for the presentation at the congress.
But, we want it to be understood correctly, his role and his shortcomings.
The beginning of the war and Stalin.
Comrades, here, it was said that maybe we could have use it to our advantage, when he turned out to be...
This was impossible, comrades.
The war began... the enemy approaches, and we, at that time, announced that we dismissed Stalin from the leadership.
Comrades, a better present to Hitler could not be imagined...
(Voice from the audience: Correct, had to direct the people.)
Exactly, had to direct.
Comrades, all this is being explained simply, right here at this meeting, and after Stalin's death, and you have to have the right conditions.
The war was going on, and the name of Stalin played big part, and suddenly we're announcing we dismissed Stalin.
Comrades, this is defeatist.
This would mean the death of the country.
I, comrades, don't want to distort your question.
I understood it like this, and think that at that time the Politburo reacted absolutely correctly, and did the right thing, that Stalin had to be reinstated.
He simply got frightened and lost his head.
He had to be reinstated.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Comrade Khrushchev [in Russian], continued ...
The role of Stalin.
I think we already talked about it, that now this cannot...
You've see in my presentation, his positive side is explained, so to speak, expanded upon.
And the negative side is illustrated there.
Why was it done like this?
Because, we were doing positive work with Stalin and, as a result of which, today we have a socialist society and country.
And in this, Stalin laid the foundation.
I don't know who can deny it.
I can't.
But, we wanted to show the negative side, some of the things that were not needed, and the results of these actions, so that it wouldn't be repeated.
Therefore, we constructed a sequence for the presentation at the congress.
But, we want it to be understood correctly, his role and his shortcomings.
The beginning of the war and Stalin.
Comrades, here, it was said that maybe we could have use it to our advantage, when he turned out to be...
This was impossible, comrades.
The war began... the enemy approaches, and we, at that time, announced that we dismissed Stalin from the leadership.
Comrades, a better present to Hitler could not be imagined...
(Voice from the audience: Correct, had to direct the people.)
Exactly, had to direct.
Comrades, all this is being explained simply, right here at this meeting, and after Stalin's death, and you have to have the right conditions.
The war was going on, and the name of Stalin played big part, and suddenly we're announcing we dismissed Stalin.
Comrades, this is defeatist.
This would mean the death of the country.
I, comrades, don't want to distort your question.
I understood it like this, and think that at that time the Politburo reacted absolutely correctly, and did the right thing, that Stalin had to be reinstated.
He simply got frightened and lost his head.
He had to be reinstated.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
Comrade Khrushchev [in Russian], continued ...
The role of Stalin.
I think we already talked about it, that now this cannot...
You've see in my presentation, his positive side is explained, so to speak, expanded upon.
And the negative side is illustrated there.
Why was it done like this?
Because, we were doing positive work with Stalin and, as a result of which, today we have a socialist society and country.
And in this, Stalin laid the foundation.
I don't know who can deny it.
I can't.
But, we wanted to show the negative side, some of the things that were not needed, and the results of these actions, so that it wouldn't be repeated.
Therefore, we constructed a sequence for the presentation at the congress.
But, we want it to be understood correctly, his role and his shortcomings.
The beginning of the war and Stalin.
Comrades, here, it was said that maybe we could have use it to our advantage, when he turned out to be...
This was impossible, comrades.
The war began... the enemy approaches, and we, at that time, announced that we dismissed Stalin from the leadership.
Comrades, a better present to Hitler could not be imagined...
(Voice from the audience: Correct, had to direct the people.)
Exactly, had to direct.
Comrades, all this is being explained simply, right here at this meeting, and after Stalin's death, and you have to have the right conditions.
The war was going on, and the name of Stalin played big part, and suddenly we're announcing we dismissed Stalin.
Comrades, this is defeatist.
This would mean the death of the country.
I, comrades, don't want to distort your question.
I understood it like this, and think that at that time the Politburo reacted absolutely correctly, and did the right thing, that Stalin had to be reinstated.
He simply got frightened and lost his head.
He had to be reinstated.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Comrade Khrushchev [in Russian], continued ...
The role of Stalin.
I think we already talked about it, that now this cannot...
You've see in my presentation, his positive side is explained, so to speak, expanded upon.
And the negative side is illustrated there.
Why was it done like this?
Because, we were doing positive work with Stalin and, as a result of which, today we have a socialist society and country.
And in this, Stalin laid the foundation.
I don't know who can deny it.
I can't.
But, we wanted to show the negative side, some of the things that were not needed, and the results of these actions, so that it wouldn't be repeated.
Therefore, we constructed a sequence for the presentation at the congress.
But, we want it to be understood correctly, his role and his shortcomings.
The beginning of the war and Stalin.
Comrades, here, it was said that maybe we could have use it to our advantage, when he turned out to be...
This was impossible, comrades.
The war began... the enemy approaches, and we, at that time, announced that we dismissed Stalin from the leadership.
Comrades, a better present to Hitler could not be imagined...
(Voice from the audience: Correct, had to direct the people.)
Exactly, had to direct.
Comrades, all this is being explained simply, right here at this meeting, and after Stalin's death, and you have to have the right conditions.
The war was going on, and the name of Stalin played big part, and suddenly we're announcing we dismissed Stalin.
Comrades, this is defeatist.
This would mean the death of the country.
I, comrades, don't want to distort your question.
I understood it like this, and think that at that time the Politburo reacted absolutely correctly, and did the right thing, that Stalin had to be reinstated.
He simply got frightened and lost his head.
He had to be reinstated.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
Comrade Khrushchev [in Russian], continued ...
I don't know where, in which motion picture it was shown, but I really liked the following scene: the battle is on, the commanding officer led his army in attack and was killed.
This commanding officer was very heroic and knew how to lead an army.
Then, his adjutant, he had been an actor sometime before, put on make-up and doubled as the commanding officer, got on a horse, and led the army toward the enemy.
The army followed him and destroyed the enemy lines.
The officer was killed.
But it wasn't the officer.
It was the double.
Did he do the right thing?
I think so.
Everything was used to destroy the enemy.
How could we start such a mess without Stalin?
It would have been absolutely unthinkable.
It was not done and could not have been done.
I admit, comrades, that I did not read the article written by Comrade Ulbricht.
I was sick at that time...
I didn't read it, but was told that in the article there's a very badly formulated concept, which should not have been done.
I think that you will decide for yourselves.
I'm not trying to avoid the question, just saying that I didn't not read the article...
Stalin must be criticized, and we already criticizing him so much.
But, comrades... even if you smear the person more and more; more smear that he deserves and he's not going to be.
We can smear his reputation.
But, after us, there are going to be people, we know, like restorers, who go to churches and cathedrals and start restoring things that were already touched here and there by different painters.
But, a good restorer takes it, cleans everything, washes everything off, and says: "This is, in reality, the work of such and such."
"And everything that was done before were merely appended."
Here's the whole matter, comrades.
Stalin, comrades, is such figure that it'll take more than just one historian to break his own teeth trying to learn this history.
Therefore, we can't, now that we're in power.
He's dead.
To append these things so that it's like we're doing our part, it would be silly.
No?
Stalin is Stalin.
He's a very complex figure.
He had a lot of good and a lot of bad.
Now, we're trying to smooth out the bad so that we can enforce our party's correct path of action.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Comrade Khrushchev [in Russian], continued ...
I don't know where, in which motion picture it was shown, but I really liked the following scene: the battle is on, the commanding officer led his army in attack and was killed.
This commanding officer was very heroic and knew how to lead an army.
Then, his adjutant, he had been an actor sometime before, put on make-up and doubled as the commanding officer, got on a horse, and led the army toward the enemy.
The army followed him and destroyed the enemy lines.
The officer was killed.
But it wasn't the officer.
It was the double.
Did he do the right thing?
I think so.
Everything was used to destroy the enemy.
How could we start such a mess without Stalin?
It would have been absolutely unthinkable.
It was not done and could not have been done.
I admit, comrades, that I did not read the article written by Comrade Ulbricht.
I was sick at that time...
I didn't read it, but was told that in the article there's a very badly formulated concept, which should not have been done.
I think that you will decide for yourselves.
I'm not trying to avoid the question, just saying that I didn't not read the article...
Stalin must be criticized, and we already criticizing him so much.
But, comrades... even if you smear the person more and more; more smear that he deserves and he's not going to be.
We can smear his reputation.
But, after us, there are going to be people, we know, like restorers, who go to churches and cathedrals and start restoring things that were already touched here and there by different painters.
But, a good restorer takes it, cleans everything, washes everything off, and says: "This is, in reality, the work of such and such."
"And everything that was done before were merely appended."
Here's the whole matter, comrades.
Stalin, comrades, is such figure that it'll take more than just one historian to break his own teeth trying to learn this history.
Therefore, we can't, now that we're in power.
He's dead.
To append these things so that it's like we're doing our part, it would be silly.
No?
Stalin is Stalin.
He's a very complex figure.
He had a lot of good and a lot of bad.
Now, we're trying to smooth out the bad so that we can enforce our party's correct path of action.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: 1956 SPEECH OF NIKITA KRUSHCHEV
March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw, continued ...
Comrade Khrushchev [in Russian], continued ...
But, Stalin will, in any case, from us, and after us, and from our grandchildren and children, receive what he deserved.
He played his part and played in such a way that God left it to others, who worked with him, to make it known.
I'm saying it directly, because it's a question of the struggle...
Stalin had his own methods.
He said that in order for the working class to succeed, in order to take power, many thousands and millions of workers had to die.
Maybe it was a mistake.
At such a moment during the revolutionary struggle, it's possible that there are innocent victims.
But, he says, history will forgive me.
Is it possible?
Perhaps.
The question concerns the dosage of these mistakes.
A question of methods.
Because his doses were incorrect, because an incorrect method of leadership was used.
And we want to avoid this.
Comrades, we ourselves aren't guaranteeing that mistakes won't be made.
We also can't allow; we also arrested people, and will probably make arrests in the future.
I think that you'll be doing it.
But, if you now become liberals, and look at everybody and pat everybody on the back, then these enemies will bite your hands off.
We have such enemies and you have them.
You probably have more enemies, because you're younger than we are, and we destroyed more, and you're closer to them.
So, I think that even in the future we'll make mistakes.
I can't say, right now, that we promise that not even a single hair will fall from the head of any person.
No, Comrades, this is very complicated.
Comrades, the enemy is really insidious, the enemy really is, has been all the while, and we'll fight with these enemies wherever we recognize them and, maybe, wherever we won't recognize them.
I, for example, know that when I worked in Ukraine, we destroyed not one, but many of our enemies by using the hands of our enemies.
We knew... these ones... we forged some documents.
We would place them surreptitiously everywhere... they arrested them, torture them, and hung them.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Comrade Khrushchev [in Russian], continued ...
But, Stalin will, in any case, from us, and after us, and from our grandchildren and children, receive what he deserved.
He played his part and played in such a way that God left it to others, who worked with him, to make it known.
I'm saying it directly, because it's a question of the struggle...
Stalin had his own methods.
He said that in order for the working class to succeed, in order to take power, many thousands and millions of workers had to die.
Maybe it was a mistake.
At such a moment during the revolutionary struggle, it's possible that there are innocent victims.
But, he says, history will forgive me.
Is it possible?
Perhaps.
The question concerns the dosage of these mistakes.
A question of methods.
Because his doses were incorrect, because an incorrect method of leadership was used.
And we want to avoid this.
Comrades, we ourselves aren't guaranteeing that mistakes won't be made.
We also can't allow; we also arrested people, and will probably make arrests in the future.
I think that you'll be doing it.
But, if you now become liberals, and look at everybody and pat everybody on the back, then these enemies will bite your hands off.
We have such enemies and you have them.
You probably have more enemies, because you're younger than we are, and we destroyed more, and you're closer to them.
So, I think that even in the future we'll make mistakes.
I can't say, right now, that we promise that not even a single hair will fall from the head of any person.
No, Comrades, this is very complicated.
Comrades, the enemy is really insidious, the enemy really is, has been all the while, and we'll fight with these enemies wherever we recognize them and, maybe, wherever we won't recognize them.
I, for example, know that when I worked in Ukraine, we destroyed not one, but many of our enemies by using the hands of our enemies.
We knew... these ones... we forged some documents.
We would place them surreptitiously everywhere... they arrested them, torture them, and hung them.
TO BE CONTINUED ...