Nikita Khrushchev Reference Archive
Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U., continued ...
Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956;
But this did not happen to Tito.
No matter how much or how little Stalin shook, not only his little finger but everything else that he could shake, Tito did not fall.
Why?
The reason was that, in this instance of disagreement with [our] Yugoslav comrades, Tito had behind him a state and a people who had had a serious education in fighting for liberty and independence, a people who gave support to its leaders.
You see what Stalin’s mania for greatness led to.
He completely lost consciousness of reality.
He demonstrated his suspicion and haughtiness not only in relation to individuals in the USSR, but in relation to whole parties and nations.
We have carefully examined the case of Yugoslavia.
We have found a proper solution which is approved by the peoples of the Soviet Union and of Yugoslavia as well as by the working masses of all the people’s democracies and by all progressive humanity.
The liquidation of [our] abnormal relationship with Yugoslavia was done in the interest of the whole camp of socialism, in the interest of strengthening peace in the whole world.
Let us also recall the “affair of the doctor-plotters.”
(Animation in the hall.)
Actually there was no “affair” outside of the declaration of the woman doctor [Lidiya] Timashuk, who was probably influenced or ordered by someone (after all, she was an unofficial collaborator of the organs of state security) to write Stalin a letter in which she declared that doctors were applying supposedly improper methods of medical treatment.
Such a letter was sufficient for Stalin to reach an immediate conclusion that there are doctor-plotters in the Soviet Union.
He issued orders to arrest a group of eminent Soviet medical specialists.
He personally issued advice on the conduct of the investigation and the method of interrogation of the arrested persons.
He said that academician [V. N. ] Vinogradov should be put in chains, and that another one [of the alleged plotters] should be beaten.
The former Minister of State Security, comrade [Semyen] Ignatiev, is present at this Congress as a delegate.
Stalin told him curtly, “If you do not obtain confessions from the doctors we will shorten you by a head.”
(Tumult in the hall.)
TO BE CONTINUED ...
KRUSHCHEV SPEECH ON CULT OF PERSONALITY
Re: KRUSHCHEV SPEECH ON CULT OF PERSONALITY
Nikita Khrushchev Reference Archive
Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U., continued ...
Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956;
Stalin personally called the investigative judge, gave him instructions, and advised him on which investigative methods should be used.
These methods were simple – beat, beat and, beat again.
Shortly after the doctors were arrested, we members of the Politburo received protocols with the doctors’ confessions of guilt.
After distributing these protocols, Stalin told us, “You are blind like young kittens."
"What will happen without me?"
"The country will perish because you do not know how to recognize enemies.”
The case was presented so that no one could verify the facts on which the investigation was based.
There was no possibility of trying to verify facts by contacting those who had made the confessions of guilt.
We felt, however, that the case of the arrested doctors was questionable.
We knew some of these people personally because they had once treated us.
When we examined this “case” after Stalin’s death, we found it to have been fabricated from beginning to end.
This ignominious “case” was set up by Stalin.
He did not, however, have the time in which to bring it to an end (as he conceived that end), and for this reason the doctors are still alive.
All of them have been rehabilitated.
They are working in the same places they were working before.
They are treating top individuals, not excluding members of the Government.
They have our full confidence; and they execute their duties honestly, as they did before.
In putting together various dirty and shameful cases, a very base role was played by a rabid enemy of our Party, an agent of a foreign intelligence service – Beria, who had stolen into Stalin’s confidence.
How could this provocateur have gained such a position in the Party and in the state, so as to become the First Deputy Chair of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union and a Politbiuro member?
It has now been established that this villain climbed up the Government ladder over an untold number of corpses.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U., continued ...
Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956;
Stalin personally called the investigative judge, gave him instructions, and advised him on which investigative methods should be used.
These methods were simple – beat, beat and, beat again.
Shortly after the doctors were arrested, we members of the Politburo received protocols with the doctors’ confessions of guilt.
After distributing these protocols, Stalin told us, “You are blind like young kittens."
"What will happen without me?"
"The country will perish because you do not know how to recognize enemies.”
The case was presented so that no one could verify the facts on which the investigation was based.
There was no possibility of trying to verify facts by contacting those who had made the confessions of guilt.
We felt, however, that the case of the arrested doctors was questionable.
We knew some of these people personally because they had once treated us.
When we examined this “case” after Stalin’s death, we found it to have been fabricated from beginning to end.
This ignominious “case” was set up by Stalin.
He did not, however, have the time in which to bring it to an end (as he conceived that end), and for this reason the doctors are still alive.
All of them have been rehabilitated.
They are working in the same places they were working before.
They are treating top individuals, not excluding members of the Government.
They have our full confidence; and they execute their duties honestly, as they did before.
In putting together various dirty and shameful cases, a very base role was played by a rabid enemy of our Party, an agent of a foreign intelligence service – Beria, who had stolen into Stalin’s confidence.
How could this provocateur have gained such a position in the Party and in the state, so as to become the First Deputy Chair of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union and a Politbiuro member?
It has now been established that this villain climbed up the Government ladder over an untold number of corpses.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: KRUSHCHEV SPEECH ON CULT OF PERSONALITY
Nikita Khrushchev Reference Archive
Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U., continued ...
Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956;
Were there any signs that Beria was an enemy of the Party?
Yes, there were.
Already in 1937, at a Central Committee Plenum, former People’s Commissar of Health [Grigory] Kaminsky said that Beria worked for the Musavat intelligence service.
But the Plenum had barely concluded when Kaminsky was arrested and then shot.
Had Stalin examined Kaminsky’s statement?
No, because Stalin believed in Beria, and that was enough for him.
And when Stalin believed in anyone or anything, then no one could say anything that was contrary to his opinion.
Anyone daring to express opposition would have met the same fate as Kaminsky.
There were other signs, also.
The declaration which comrade [A.V.] Snegov made to the Party’s Central Committee is interesting.
(Parenthetically speaking, he was also rehabilitated not long ago, after 17 years in prison camps.)
In this declaration, Snegov writes:
“In connection with the proposed rehabilitation of the former Central Committee member, [Lavrenty] Kartvelishvili-Lavrentiev, I have entrusted to the hands of the representative of the Committee of State Security a detailed deposition concerning Beria’s role in the disposition of the Kartvelishvili case and concerning the criminal motives by which Beria was guided."
“In my opinion, it is indispensable to recall an important fact pertaining to this case and to communicate it to the Central Committee, because I did not consider it as proper to include in the investigation documents."
“On October 30, 1931, at a session of the Organizational Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Kartvelishvili, Secretary of the Transcaucasian Regional Committee, made a report."
"All members of the executive of the Regional Committee were present."
"Of them I alone am now alive."
“During this session, J. V. Stalin made a motion at the end of his speech concerning the organization of the secretariat of the Transcaucasian Regional Committee composed of the following: First Secretary, Kartvelishvili; Second Secretary, Beria (it was then, for the first time in the Party’s history, that Beria’s name was mentioned as a candidate for a Party position)."
"Kartvelishvili answered that he knew Beria well and for that reason refused categorically to work together with him."
"Stalin proposed then that this matter be left open and that it be solved in the process of the work itself."
"Two days later a decision was arrived at that Beria would receive the Party post and that Kartvelishvili would be deported from the Transcaucasus."
“This fact can be confirmed by comrades Mikoyan and Kaganovich, who were present at that session.”
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U., continued ...
Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956;
Were there any signs that Beria was an enemy of the Party?
Yes, there were.
Already in 1937, at a Central Committee Plenum, former People’s Commissar of Health [Grigory] Kaminsky said that Beria worked for the Musavat intelligence service.
But the Plenum had barely concluded when Kaminsky was arrested and then shot.
Had Stalin examined Kaminsky’s statement?
No, because Stalin believed in Beria, and that was enough for him.
And when Stalin believed in anyone or anything, then no one could say anything that was contrary to his opinion.
Anyone daring to express opposition would have met the same fate as Kaminsky.
There were other signs, also.
The declaration which comrade [A.V.] Snegov made to the Party’s Central Committee is interesting.
(Parenthetically speaking, he was also rehabilitated not long ago, after 17 years in prison camps.)
In this declaration, Snegov writes:
“In connection with the proposed rehabilitation of the former Central Committee member, [Lavrenty] Kartvelishvili-Lavrentiev, I have entrusted to the hands of the representative of the Committee of State Security a detailed deposition concerning Beria’s role in the disposition of the Kartvelishvili case and concerning the criminal motives by which Beria was guided."
“In my opinion, it is indispensable to recall an important fact pertaining to this case and to communicate it to the Central Committee, because I did not consider it as proper to include in the investigation documents."
“On October 30, 1931, at a session of the Organizational Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Kartvelishvili, Secretary of the Transcaucasian Regional Committee, made a report."
"All members of the executive of the Regional Committee were present."
"Of them I alone am now alive."
“During this session, J. V. Stalin made a motion at the end of his speech concerning the organization of the secretariat of the Transcaucasian Regional Committee composed of the following: First Secretary, Kartvelishvili; Second Secretary, Beria (it was then, for the first time in the Party’s history, that Beria’s name was mentioned as a candidate for a Party position)."
"Kartvelishvili answered that he knew Beria well and for that reason refused categorically to work together with him."
"Stalin proposed then that this matter be left open and that it be solved in the process of the work itself."
"Two days later a decision was arrived at that Beria would receive the Party post and that Kartvelishvili would be deported from the Transcaucasus."
“This fact can be confirmed by comrades Mikoyan and Kaganovich, who were present at that session.”
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: KRUSHCHEV SPEECH ON CULT OF PERSONALITY
Nikita Khrushchev Reference Archive
Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U., continued ...
Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956;
The long, unfriendly relations between Kartvelishvili and Beria were widely known.
They date back to the time when comrade Sergo [Ordzhonikidze] was active in the Transcaucasus.
Kartvelishvili was the closest assistant of Sergo.
The unfriendly relationship impelled Beria to fabricate a “case” against Kartvelishvili.
It is characteristic that Kartvelishvili was charged with a terroristic act against Beria in this “case.”
The indictment in the Beria case contains a discussion of his crimes.
Some things should, however, be recalled, especially since it is possible that not all delegates to the Congress have read this document.
I wish to recall Beria’s bestial disposition of the cases of [Mikhail] Kedrov, [V.] Golubev, and Golubev’s adopted mother, Baturina – persons who wished to inform the Central Committee concerning Beria’s treacherous activity.
They were shot without any trial and the sentence was passed ex post facto, after the execution.
Here is what the old Communist, comrade Kedrov, wrote to the Central Committee through comrade [Andrey] Andreyev (comrade Andreyev was then a Central Committee Secretary):
“I am calling to you for help from a gloomy cell of the Lefortovo prison."
"Let my cry of horror reach your ears; do not remain deaf, take me under your protection; please, help remove the nightmare of interrogations and show that this is all a mistake."
“I suffer innocently."
"Please believe me."
"Time will testify to the truth."
"I am not an agent provocateur of the Tsarist Okhrana."
"I am not a spy, I am not a member of an anti-Soviet organization of which I am being accused on the basis of denunciations."
"I am also not guilty of any other crimes against the Party and the Government."
"I am an old Bolshevik, free of any stain; I have honestly fought for almost 40 years in the ranks of the Party for the good and prosperity of the nation...."
“... Today I, a 62-year-old man, am being threatened by the investigative judges with more severe, cruel and degrading methods of physical pressure."
"They (the judges) are no longer capable of becoming aware of their error and of recognizing that their handling of my case is illegal and impermissible."
"They try to justify their actions by picturing me as a hardened and raving enemy and are demanding increased repressions."
"But let the Party know that I am innocent and that there is nothing which can turn a loyal son of the Party into an enemy, even right up to his last dying breath."
“But I have no way out."
"I cannot divert from myself the hastily approaching new and powerful blows."
“Everything, however, has its limits."
"My torture has reached the extreme."
"My health is broken, my strength and my energy are waning, the end is drawing near."
"To die in a Soviet prison, branded as a vile traitor to the Fatherland – what can be more monstrous for an honest man?"
"And how monstrous all this is!"
"Unsurpassed bitterness and pain grips my heart."
"No!"
"No!"
"This will not happen; this cannot be, I cry."
"Neither the Party, nor the Soviet Government, nor the People’s Commissar, L. P. Beria, will permit this cruel, ireparable injustice."
"I am firmly certain that, given a quiet, objective examination, without any foul rantings, without any anger and without the fearful tortures, it would be easy to prove the baselessness of the charges."
"I believe deeply that truth and justice will triumph."
"I believe."
"I believe.”
The old Bolshevik, comrade Kedrov, was found innocent by the Military Collegium.
But, despite this, he was shot at Beria’s order.
(Indignation in the hall.)
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U., continued ...
Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956;
The long, unfriendly relations between Kartvelishvili and Beria were widely known.
They date back to the time when comrade Sergo [Ordzhonikidze] was active in the Transcaucasus.
Kartvelishvili was the closest assistant of Sergo.
The unfriendly relationship impelled Beria to fabricate a “case” against Kartvelishvili.
It is characteristic that Kartvelishvili was charged with a terroristic act against Beria in this “case.”
The indictment in the Beria case contains a discussion of his crimes.
Some things should, however, be recalled, especially since it is possible that not all delegates to the Congress have read this document.
I wish to recall Beria’s bestial disposition of the cases of [Mikhail] Kedrov, [V.] Golubev, and Golubev’s adopted mother, Baturina – persons who wished to inform the Central Committee concerning Beria’s treacherous activity.
They were shot without any trial and the sentence was passed ex post facto, after the execution.
Here is what the old Communist, comrade Kedrov, wrote to the Central Committee through comrade [Andrey] Andreyev (comrade Andreyev was then a Central Committee Secretary):
“I am calling to you for help from a gloomy cell of the Lefortovo prison."
"Let my cry of horror reach your ears; do not remain deaf, take me under your protection; please, help remove the nightmare of interrogations and show that this is all a mistake."
“I suffer innocently."
"Please believe me."
"Time will testify to the truth."
"I am not an agent provocateur of the Tsarist Okhrana."
"I am not a spy, I am not a member of an anti-Soviet organization of which I am being accused on the basis of denunciations."
"I am also not guilty of any other crimes against the Party and the Government."
"I am an old Bolshevik, free of any stain; I have honestly fought for almost 40 years in the ranks of the Party for the good and prosperity of the nation...."
“... Today I, a 62-year-old man, am being threatened by the investigative judges with more severe, cruel and degrading methods of physical pressure."
"They (the judges) are no longer capable of becoming aware of their error and of recognizing that their handling of my case is illegal and impermissible."
"They try to justify their actions by picturing me as a hardened and raving enemy and are demanding increased repressions."
"But let the Party know that I am innocent and that there is nothing which can turn a loyal son of the Party into an enemy, even right up to his last dying breath."
“But I have no way out."
"I cannot divert from myself the hastily approaching new and powerful blows."
“Everything, however, has its limits."
"My torture has reached the extreme."
"My health is broken, my strength and my energy are waning, the end is drawing near."
"To die in a Soviet prison, branded as a vile traitor to the Fatherland – what can be more monstrous for an honest man?"
"And how monstrous all this is!"
"Unsurpassed bitterness and pain grips my heart."
"No!"
"No!"
"This will not happen; this cannot be, I cry."
"Neither the Party, nor the Soviet Government, nor the People’s Commissar, L. P. Beria, will permit this cruel, ireparable injustice."
"I am firmly certain that, given a quiet, objective examination, without any foul rantings, without any anger and without the fearful tortures, it would be easy to prove the baselessness of the charges."
"I believe deeply that truth and justice will triumph."
"I believe."
"I believe.”
The old Bolshevik, comrade Kedrov, was found innocent by the Military Collegium.
But, despite this, he was shot at Beria’s order.
(Indignation in the hall.)
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: KRUSHCHEV SPEECH ON CULT OF PERSONALITY
Nikita Khrushchev Reference Archive
Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U., continued ...
Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956;
Beria also handled cruelly the family of comrade Ordzhonikidze.
Why?
Because Ordzhonikidze had tried to prevent Beria from realizing his shameful plans.
Beria had cleared from his way all persons who could possibly interfere with him.
Ordzhonikidze was always an opponent of Beria, which he told to Stalin.
Instead of examining this affair and taking appropriate steps, Stalin allowed the liquidation of Ordzhonikidze’s brother and brought Ordzhonikidze himself to such a state that he was forced to shoot himself.
(Indignation in the hall.)
Beria was unmasked by the Party’s Central Committee shortly after Stalin’s death.
As a result of particularly detailed legal proceedings, it was established that Beria had committed monstrous crimes and Beria was shot.
The question arises why Beria, who had liquidated tens of thousands of Party and Soviet workers, was not unmasked during Stalin’s life.
He was not unmasked earlier because he had utilized very skillfully Stalin’s weaknesses; feeding him with suspicions, he assisted Stalin in everything and acted with his support.
Comrades: The cult of the individual acquired such monstrous size chiefly because Stalin himself, using all conceivable methods, supported the glorification of his own person.
This is supported by numerous facts.
One of the most characteristic examples of Stalin’s self-glorification and of his lack of even elementary modesty is the edition of his Short Biography, which was published in 1948 (sic).
This book is an expression of the most dissolute flattery, an example of making a man into a godhead, of transforming him into an infallible sage, “the greatest leader, sublime strategist of all times and nations.”
Finally, no other words could be found with which to lift Stalin up to the heavens.
We need not give here examples of the loathesome adulation filling this book.
All we need to add is that they all were approved and edited by Stalin personally.
Some of them were added in his own handwriting to the draft text of the book.
What did Stalin consider essential to write into this book?
Did he want to cool the ardor of the flatterers who were composing his Short Biography?
No!
He marked the very places where he thought that the praise of his services was insufficient.
Here are some examples characterizing Stalin’s activity, added in Stalin’s own hand:
“In this fight against the skeptics and capitulators, the Trotskyites, Zinovievites, Bukharinites and Kamenevites, there was definitely welded together, after Lenin’s death, that leading core of the Party... that upheld the great banner of Lenin, rallied the Party behind Lenin’s behests, and brought the Soviet people onto the broad paths of industrializing the country and collectivizing the rural economy."
"The leader of this core and the guiding force of the Party and the state was comrade Stalin.”
Thus writes Stalin himself!
Then he adds:
“Although he performed his tasks as leader of the Party and the people with consummate skill, and enjoyed the unreserved support of the entire Soviet people, Stalin never allowed his work to be marred by the slightest hint of vanity, conceit or self-adulation.”
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U., continued ...
Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956;
Beria also handled cruelly the family of comrade Ordzhonikidze.
Why?
Because Ordzhonikidze had tried to prevent Beria from realizing his shameful plans.
Beria had cleared from his way all persons who could possibly interfere with him.
Ordzhonikidze was always an opponent of Beria, which he told to Stalin.
Instead of examining this affair and taking appropriate steps, Stalin allowed the liquidation of Ordzhonikidze’s brother and brought Ordzhonikidze himself to such a state that he was forced to shoot himself.
(Indignation in the hall.)
Beria was unmasked by the Party’s Central Committee shortly after Stalin’s death.
As a result of particularly detailed legal proceedings, it was established that Beria had committed monstrous crimes and Beria was shot.
The question arises why Beria, who had liquidated tens of thousands of Party and Soviet workers, was not unmasked during Stalin’s life.
He was not unmasked earlier because he had utilized very skillfully Stalin’s weaknesses; feeding him with suspicions, he assisted Stalin in everything and acted with his support.
Comrades: The cult of the individual acquired such monstrous size chiefly because Stalin himself, using all conceivable methods, supported the glorification of his own person.
This is supported by numerous facts.
One of the most characteristic examples of Stalin’s self-glorification and of his lack of even elementary modesty is the edition of his Short Biography, which was published in 1948 (sic).
This book is an expression of the most dissolute flattery, an example of making a man into a godhead, of transforming him into an infallible sage, “the greatest leader, sublime strategist of all times and nations.”
Finally, no other words could be found with which to lift Stalin up to the heavens.
We need not give here examples of the loathesome adulation filling this book.
All we need to add is that they all were approved and edited by Stalin personally.
Some of them were added in his own handwriting to the draft text of the book.
What did Stalin consider essential to write into this book?
Did he want to cool the ardor of the flatterers who were composing his Short Biography?
No!
He marked the very places where he thought that the praise of his services was insufficient.
Here are some examples characterizing Stalin’s activity, added in Stalin’s own hand:
“In this fight against the skeptics and capitulators, the Trotskyites, Zinovievites, Bukharinites and Kamenevites, there was definitely welded together, after Lenin’s death, that leading core of the Party... that upheld the great banner of Lenin, rallied the Party behind Lenin’s behests, and brought the Soviet people onto the broad paths of industrializing the country and collectivizing the rural economy."
"The leader of this core and the guiding force of the Party and the state was comrade Stalin.”
Thus writes Stalin himself!
Then he adds:
“Although he performed his tasks as leader of the Party and the people with consummate skill, and enjoyed the unreserved support of the entire Soviet people, Stalin never allowed his work to be marred by the slightest hint of vanity, conceit or self-adulation.”
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: KRUSHCHEV SPEECH ON CULT OF PERSONALITY
Nikita Khrushchev Reference Archive
Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U., continued ...
Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956;
Where and when could a leader so praise himself?
Is this worthy of a leader of the Marxist-Leninist type?
No.
Precisely against this did Marx and Engels take such a strong position.
This always was sharply condemned also by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
In the draft text of [Stalin’s] book appeared the following sentence: “Stalin is the Lenin of today.”
This sentence appeared to Stalin to be too weak.
Thus, in his own handwriting, he changed it to read: “Stalin is the worthy continuer of Lenin’s work, or, as it is said in our Party, Stalin is the Lenin of today.”
You see how well it is said, not by the nation but by Stalin himself.
It is possible to offer many such self-praising appraisals written into the draft text of that book in Stalin’s hand.
He showers himself especially generously with praises regarding his military genius and his talent for strategy.
I will cite one more insertion made by Stalin on the theme: “The advanced Soviet science of war received further development,” he writes, “at Comrade Stalin’s hands."
"Comrade Stalin elaborated the theory of the permanent operating factors that decide the issue of wars, of active defense and the laws of counteroffensive and offensive, of the cooperation of all services and arms in modern warfare, of the role of big tank masses and air forces in modern war, and of the artillery as the most formidable of the armed services."
"At various stages of the war, Stalin’s genius found correct solutions that took into account all the circumstances of the situation.”
(Movement in the hall.)
Further, Stalin writes: “Stalin’s military mastership was displayed both in defense and on offense."
"Comrade Stalin’s genius enabled him to divine the enemy’s plans and defeat them."
"The battles in which comrade Stalin directed the Soviet armies are brilliant examples of operational military skill.”
This is how Stalin was praised as a strategist.
Who did this?
Stalin himself, not in his role as a strategist but in the role of an author-editor, one of the main creators of his [own] self-adulatory biography.
Such, comrades, are the facts.
Or should be said, rather, the shameful facts.
One additional fact from the same Short Biography of Stalin: As is known, the History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Short Course was written by a commission of the Party Central Committee.
This book, parenthetically, was also permeated with the cult of the individual and was written by a designated group of authors.
This fact was reflected in the following formulation on the proof copy of the Short Biography of Stalin: “A commission of the Central Committee, All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), under the direction of comrade Stalin and with his most active personal participation, has prepared a History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Short Course.”
But even this phrase did not satisfy Stalin: The following sentence replaced it in the final version of the Short Biography: “In 1938, the book History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Short Course appeared, written by comrade Stalin and approved by a commission of the Central Committee, All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks).”
Can one add anything more?
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U., continued ...
Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956;
Where and when could a leader so praise himself?
Is this worthy of a leader of the Marxist-Leninist type?
No.
Precisely against this did Marx and Engels take such a strong position.
This always was sharply condemned also by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
In the draft text of [Stalin’s] book appeared the following sentence: “Stalin is the Lenin of today.”
This sentence appeared to Stalin to be too weak.
Thus, in his own handwriting, he changed it to read: “Stalin is the worthy continuer of Lenin’s work, or, as it is said in our Party, Stalin is the Lenin of today.”
You see how well it is said, not by the nation but by Stalin himself.
It is possible to offer many such self-praising appraisals written into the draft text of that book in Stalin’s hand.
He showers himself especially generously with praises regarding his military genius and his talent for strategy.
I will cite one more insertion made by Stalin on the theme: “The advanced Soviet science of war received further development,” he writes, “at Comrade Stalin’s hands."
"Comrade Stalin elaborated the theory of the permanent operating factors that decide the issue of wars, of active defense and the laws of counteroffensive and offensive, of the cooperation of all services and arms in modern warfare, of the role of big tank masses and air forces in modern war, and of the artillery as the most formidable of the armed services."
"At various stages of the war, Stalin’s genius found correct solutions that took into account all the circumstances of the situation.”
(Movement in the hall.)
Further, Stalin writes: “Stalin’s military mastership was displayed both in defense and on offense."
"Comrade Stalin’s genius enabled him to divine the enemy’s plans and defeat them."
"The battles in which comrade Stalin directed the Soviet armies are brilliant examples of operational military skill.”
This is how Stalin was praised as a strategist.
Who did this?
Stalin himself, not in his role as a strategist but in the role of an author-editor, one of the main creators of his [own] self-adulatory biography.
Such, comrades, are the facts.
Or should be said, rather, the shameful facts.
One additional fact from the same Short Biography of Stalin: As is known, the History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Short Course was written by a commission of the Party Central Committee.
This book, parenthetically, was also permeated with the cult of the individual and was written by a designated group of authors.
This fact was reflected in the following formulation on the proof copy of the Short Biography of Stalin: “A commission of the Central Committee, All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), under the direction of comrade Stalin and with his most active personal participation, has prepared a History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Short Course.”
But even this phrase did not satisfy Stalin: The following sentence replaced it in the final version of the Short Biography: “In 1938, the book History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Short Course appeared, written by comrade Stalin and approved by a commission of the Central Committee, All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks).”
Can one add anything more?
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: KRUSHCHEV SPEECH ON CULT OF PERSONALITY
Nikita Khrushchev Reference Archive
Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U., continued ...
Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956;
A pertinent question comes to our mind: If Stalin is the author of this book, why did he need to praise the person of Stalin so much and to transform the whole post-October historical period of our glorious Communist Party solely into an action of “the Stalin genius”?
Did this book properly reflect the efforts of the Party in the socialist transformation of the country, in the construction of socialist society, in the industrialization and collectivization of the country, and also other steps taken by the Party which undeviatingly traveled the path outlined by Lenin?
This book speaks principally about Stalin, about his speeches, about his reports.
Everything without the smallest exception is tied to his name.
And when Stalin himself asserts that he himself wrote the Short Course, this calls at least for amazement.
Can a Marxist-Leninist thus write about himself, praising his own person to the heavens?
Or let us take the matter of the Stalin Prizes.
(Movement in the hall.)
Not even the Tsars created prizes which they named after themselves.
Stalin recognized as the best a text of the national anthem of the Soviet Union which contains not a word about the Communist Party; it contains, however, the following unprecedented praise of Stalin: “Stalin brought us up in loyalty to the people."
"He inspired us to great toil and deeds.”
In these lines of the anthem, the whole educational, directional and inspirational activity of the great Leninist Party is ascribed to Stalin.
This is, of course, a clear deviation from Marxism-Leninism, a clear debasing and belittling of the role of the Party.
We should add for your information that the Presidium of the Central Committee has already passed a resolution concerning the composition of a new text of the anthem. which will reflect the role of the people and the role of the Party.
(Loud, prolonged applause.)
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U., continued ...
Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956;
A pertinent question comes to our mind: If Stalin is the author of this book, why did he need to praise the person of Stalin so much and to transform the whole post-October historical period of our glorious Communist Party solely into an action of “the Stalin genius”?
Did this book properly reflect the efforts of the Party in the socialist transformation of the country, in the construction of socialist society, in the industrialization and collectivization of the country, and also other steps taken by the Party which undeviatingly traveled the path outlined by Lenin?
This book speaks principally about Stalin, about his speeches, about his reports.
Everything without the smallest exception is tied to his name.
And when Stalin himself asserts that he himself wrote the Short Course, this calls at least for amazement.
Can a Marxist-Leninist thus write about himself, praising his own person to the heavens?
Or let us take the matter of the Stalin Prizes.
(Movement in the hall.)
Not even the Tsars created prizes which they named after themselves.
Stalin recognized as the best a text of the national anthem of the Soviet Union which contains not a word about the Communist Party; it contains, however, the following unprecedented praise of Stalin: “Stalin brought us up in loyalty to the people."
"He inspired us to great toil and deeds.”
In these lines of the anthem, the whole educational, directional and inspirational activity of the great Leninist Party is ascribed to Stalin.
This is, of course, a clear deviation from Marxism-Leninism, a clear debasing and belittling of the role of the Party.
We should add for your information that the Presidium of the Central Committee has already passed a resolution concerning the composition of a new text of the anthem. which will reflect the role of the people and the role of the Party.
(Loud, prolonged applause.)
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: KRUSHCHEV SPEECH ON CULT OF PERSONALITY
Nikita Khrushchev Reference Archive
Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U., continued ...
Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956;
And was it without Stalin’s knowledge that many of the largest enterprises and towns were named after him?
Was it without his knowledge that Stalin monuments were erected in the whole country – these “memorials to the living”?
It is a fact that Stalin himself had signed on July 2, 1951 a resolution of the USSR Council of Ministers concerning the erection on the Volga-Don Canal of an impressive monument to Stalin; on September 4 of the same year he issued an order making 33 tons of copper available for the construction of this impressive monument.
Anyone who has visited the Stalingrad area must have seen the huge statue which is being built there, and that on a site which hardly any people frequent.
Huge sums were spent to build it at a time when people of this area had lived since the war in huts.
Consider, yourself, was Stalin right when he wrote in his biography that “...he did not allow in himself... even a shadow of conceit, pride, or self-adoration”?
At the same time Stalin gave proofs of his lack of respect for Lenin’s memory.
It is not a coincidence that, despite the decision taken over 30 years ago to build a Palace of Soviets as a monument to Vladimir Ilyich, this palace was not built, its construction was always postponed and the project allowed to lapse.
We cannot forget to recall the Soviet Government resolution of August 14, 1925 concerning “the founding of Lenin prizes for educational work.”
This resolution was published in the press, but until this day there are no Lenin prizes.
This, too, should be corrected.
(Tumultuous, prolonged applause.)
During Stalin’s life – thanks to known methods which I have mentioned, and quoting facts, for instance, from the Short Biography of Stalin – all events were explained as if Lenin played only a secondary role, even during the October Socialist Revolution.
In many films and in many literary works the figure of Lenin was incorrectly presented and inadmissibly depreciated.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U., continued ...
Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956;
And was it without Stalin’s knowledge that many of the largest enterprises and towns were named after him?
Was it without his knowledge that Stalin monuments were erected in the whole country – these “memorials to the living”?
It is a fact that Stalin himself had signed on July 2, 1951 a resolution of the USSR Council of Ministers concerning the erection on the Volga-Don Canal of an impressive monument to Stalin; on September 4 of the same year he issued an order making 33 tons of copper available for the construction of this impressive monument.
Anyone who has visited the Stalingrad area must have seen the huge statue which is being built there, and that on a site which hardly any people frequent.
Huge sums were spent to build it at a time when people of this area had lived since the war in huts.
Consider, yourself, was Stalin right when he wrote in his biography that “...he did not allow in himself... even a shadow of conceit, pride, or self-adoration”?
At the same time Stalin gave proofs of his lack of respect for Lenin’s memory.
It is not a coincidence that, despite the decision taken over 30 years ago to build a Palace of Soviets as a monument to Vladimir Ilyich, this palace was not built, its construction was always postponed and the project allowed to lapse.
We cannot forget to recall the Soviet Government resolution of August 14, 1925 concerning “the founding of Lenin prizes for educational work.”
This resolution was published in the press, but until this day there are no Lenin prizes.
This, too, should be corrected.
(Tumultuous, prolonged applause.)
During Stalin’s life – thanks to known methods which I have mentioned, and quoting facts, for instance, from the Short Biography of Stalin – all events were explained as if Lenin played only a secondary role, even during the October Socialist Revolution.
In many films and in many literary works the figure of Lenin was incorrectly presented and inadmissibly depreciated.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: KRUSHCHEV SPEECH ON CULT OF PERSONALITY
Nikita Khrushchev Reference Archive
Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U., continued ...
Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956;
Stalin loved to see the film The Unforgettable Year of 1919, in which he was shown on the steps of an armored train and where he was practically vanquishing the foe with his own saber.
Let Klimenty Yefremovich [Voroshilov], our dear friend, find the necessary courage and write the truth about Stalin; after all, he knows how Stalin had fought.
It will be difficult for comrade Voroshilov to undertake this, but it would be good if he did it.
Everyone will approve of it, both the people and the Party.
Even his grandsons will thank him.
(Prolonged applause.)
In speaking about the events of the October Revolution and about the Civil War, the impression was created that Stalin always played the main role, as if everywhere and always Stalin had suggested to Lenin what to do and how to do it.
However, this is slander of Lenin.
(Prolonged applause.)
I will probably not sin against the truth when I say that 99 per cent of the persons present here heard and knew very little about Stalin before the year 1924, while Lenin was known to all.
He was known to the whole Party, to the whole nation, from children all the way up to old men.
(Tumultuous, prolonged applause.)
All this has to be thoroughly revised so that history, literature and the fine arts properly reflect V. I. Lenin’s role and the great deeds of our Communist Party and of the Soviet people – a creative people.
(Applause.)
Comrades!
The cult of the individual caused the employment of faulty principles in Party work and in economic activity.
It brought about rude violation of internal Party and Soviet democracy, sterile administration, deviations of all sorts, cover-ups of shortcomings, and varnishings of reality.
Our nation bore forth many flatterers and specialists in false optimism and deceit.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U., continued ...
Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956;
Stalin loved to see the film The Unforgettable Year of 1919, in which he was shown on the steps of an armored train and where he was practically vanquishing the foe with his own saber.
Let Klimenty Yefremovich [Voroshilov], our dear friend, find the necessary courage and write the truth about Stalin; after all, he knows how Stalin had fought.
It will be difficult for comrade Voroshilov to undertake this, but it would be good if he did it.
Everyone will approve of it, both the people and the Party.
Even his grandsons will thank him.
(Prolonged applause.)
In speaking about the events of the October Revolution and about the Civil War, the impression was created that Stalin always played the main role, as if everywhere and always Stalin had suggested to Lenin what to do and how to do it.
However, this is slander of Lenin.
(Prolonged applause.)
I will probably not sin against the truth when I say that 99 per cent of the persons present here heard and knew very little about Stalin before the year 1924, while Lenin was known to all.
He was known to the whole Party, to the whole nation, from children all the way up to old men.
(Tumultuous, prolonged applause.)
All this has to be thoroughly revised so that history, literature and the fine arts properly reflect V. I. Lenin’s role and the great deeds of our Communist Party and of the Soviet people – a creative people.
(Applause.)
Comrades!
The cult of the individual caused the employment of faulty principles in Party work and in economic activity.
It brought about rude violation of internal Party and Soviet democracy, sterile administration, deviations of all sorts, cover-ups of shortcomings, and varnishings of reality.
Our nation bore forth many flatterers and specialists in false optimism and deceit.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: KRUSHCHEV SPEECH ON CULT OF PERSONALITY
Nikita Khrushchev Reference Archive
Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U., continued ...
Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956;
We should also not forget that, due to the numerous arrests of Party, Soviet and economic leaders, many workers began to work uncertainly, showed overcautiousness, feared all which was new, feared their own shadows, and began to show less initiative in their work.
Take, for instance, Party and Soviet resolutions.
They were prepared in a routine manner, often without considering the concrete situation.
This went so far that Party workers, even during the smallest sessions, read [prepared] speeches.
All this produced the danger of formalizing the Party and Soviet work and of bureaucratizing the whole apparatus.
Stalin’s reluctance to consider life’s realities, and the fact that he was not aware of the real state of affairs in the provinces, can be illustrated by his direction of agriculture.
All those who interested themselves even a little in the national situation saw the difficult situation in agriculture, but Stalin never even noted it.
Did we tell Stalin about this?
Yes, we told him, but he did not support us.
Why?
Because Stalin never traveled anywhere, did not meet city and kolkhoz workers.
He did not know the actual situation in the provinces.
He knew the country and agriculture only from films.
And these films dressed up and beautified the existing situation in agriculture.
Many films pictured kolkhoz life such that [farmhouse] tables groaned from the weight of turkeys and geese.
Evidently, Stalin thought that it was actually so.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin looked at life differently.
He always was close to the people.
He used to receive peasant delegates and often spoke at factory gatherings.
He used to visit villages and talk with the peasants.
Stalin separated himself from the people and never went anywhere.
This lasted ten years.
The last time he visited a village was in January, 1928, when he visited Siberia in connection with grain procurements.
How then could he have known the situation in the provinces?
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U., continued ...
Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956;
We should also not forget that, due to the numerous arrests of Party, Soviet and economic leaders, many workers began to work uncertainly, showed overcautiousness, feared all which was new, feared their own shadows, and began to show less initiative in their work.
Take, for instance, Party and Soviet resolutions.
They were prepared in a routine manner, often without considering the concrete situation.
This went so far that Party workers, even during the smallest sessions, read [prepared] speeches.
All this produced the danger of formalizing the Party and Soviet work and of bureaucratizing the whole apparatus.
Stalin’s reluctance to consider life’s realities, and the fact that he was not aware of the real state of affairs in the provinces, can be illustrated by his direction of agriculture.
All those who interested themselves even a little in the national situation saw the difficult situation in agriculture, but Stalin never even noted it.
Did we tell Stalin about this?
Yes, we told him, but he did not support us.
Why?
Because Stalin never traveled anywhere, did not meet city and kolkhoz workers.
He did not know the actual situation in the provinces.
He knew the country and agriculture only from films.
And these films dressed up and beautified the existing situation in agriculture.
Many films pictured kolkhoz life such that [farmhouse] tables groaned from the weight of turkeys and geese.
Evidently, Stalin thought that it was actually so.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin looked at life differently.
He always was close to the people.
He used to receive peasant delegates and often spoke at factory gatherings.
He used to visit villages and talk with the peasants.
Stalin separated himself from the people and never went anywhere.
This lasted ten years.
The last time he visited a village was in January, 1928, when he visited Siberia in connection with grain procurements.
How then could he have known the situation in the provinces?
TO BE CONTINUED ...