caesar 43 - the stalin issue and the soviet leadership struggle

8/2/2019 Caesar 43 - The Stalin Issue and the Soviet Leadership Struggle

1/18

A P P RO V ED F O R R ELEASEDATE: J U N 2 0 0 7

D I R E C T O R A T E OFI N T E L L I G E N C E

\

Intelligence Report. H R 7 0 - 1 4(U). ...._

TH E STA LIN ISSU E ANDTHE SOVIET LEADERSHIP STRUGGLE

I ( R e f e r e n c e T i t l e : CAESAR XXXII)

I I5 J u l y 1968RSS N o . 0030


2/18

.

. ., sE+rTHE STALXN ISSUE AND THE SOVIET LEADERSHIP STRUGGLE

P r e f a c e

S i n c e t h e ou st er of Khrushchev i n t h e f a l l of 1964t h e d o m e s t i c p o l i t t c a l s c e n e i n t h e So vi e t Union has w i t -ne ss e d a s t r ug g l e f o r power w i th in t h e l e a d e r s h i p . Twoof t h e key f i g u r e s in t h i s s t ruggle , Brezhnev and She lepin ,have a t tempted t o g a i n t h e s u p p o rt of t h e old-guard par tya ppa r a t c h iks by e s pous ing o r thodox po l i c i e s ; of t h etwo Shel ep in has been th e more ag gr es si ve and Brezhnevi n g e n er a l t h e more caut io us , bu t thu s f a r Brezhnev hasc l e a r l y g a in e d t h e upper hand i n t h e competition. Accompa-nying t h e s t r u g g l e has been a gradua l bu t cont inuingreve rs ion toward t h e i de o log i c a l o r t hodoxy , r i g i d c o n t r o ls ,and repressdon whic h c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e S t a l i n y e a rs . Oneaspec t of t h i s move toward orthodoxy h a s been t h e r e s u r -r e c t i o n o f S t a l l n ' s r e p u t a t i o a and t h e cl e a n s in g of h i sta rnished image, developments whic h many Sov ie t c i t i z e n sf e a r may mark a r e t u r n t o "Sta l inism."

The re ign of S t a l i n covered some 30 years , more thanh a l f t h e h M t o r y of t h e So vie t Unio3 . I t was a per iod ofi n t e n s e i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , of f o r c e d mass c o l l e c t i v i z a t i o n ,and of t h e g r e a t s a c r i f i c e s of World War 11. I t was alsoa p e r i o d of t e r r o r and s ep r e ss i c in du r ing w h i c h m i l l i o n sof S o v ie t c i t i z e n s d i e d i s t h e purges . Al though t h e term"Sta l in i sm" has a number of connpta t ions , t o So vie tc i t i z e n s i n g e n er a l and t o t h e i z- :c ll ec t ua l s i n p a r t i c u l a r ,t h e t e r m conjures up memories of tDtal p o l i c e c m t r o l . ,r e p r es s i o n , t e r r o r , p ur ge t r i a l s , and la bo r camps. I t isi n t h a t c o n te x t t h a t t h e t e r m .Ls used 13 t h i s paper .

T h e s c ope of t h e pa pe r is l i m i t e d to t h e ge ne r a luse by t h e l e a d e r s h i p of t h e S t a l i n i s s u e i n t h e s t r u g g l e

-i-s+


3/18

...,. .

. . . ....-.~..

.-..

fo r power a nd t h e p r a c t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of a r e h a b i l i t a -t i o n of S t a l i n f o r in t e l l ec tua l f r eedom i n t h e S o v ie t UnionT h e p a p e r does no t d e a l w i t h s p e c i f i c p o l i c y i m p l i c a t i o n sof ten i n v o l v e d i n t h e u s e of t h e i s s u e - -s u c h a s m i l i t a r ye x p en d i t u r es , a g r i c u l t u r e , n a t i o n a l i t i e s p r o b l e m s . N e i t h e rd o e s i t d e a l w i t h o t h e r p o l i c y q u e s t i o n s d i v i d i n g t h el e a d e r sh i p .T h e b u l k of d e t a i l e d e v i d e n ce a n d a n a l y s i s uponw hi ch t h e r e p o r t is b a s e d w i l l be p u b li s h ed s e p a r a t e l ya s an A n n e x .p a r i n g t h i s r e p o r t is C a r o l y n E k e d a h l .The r e s e a r c h a n a l y s t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p r e -

J o h n K e r r y KingC h i e f , D D I S p e c i a l R es e ar c h S t a f f

Note: T h i s r e p o r t was p ro du ce d s o l e l y b y C I A . I t wasp r e p a r e d by t h e S p e c i a l R es e ar c h S t a f f a n d c o o r d i n a t e dw i t h t h e O f f i c e of C u r re n t I n t e l l i g e n c e a nd t h e O f f i c eof N a t i o n a l E s t i m a t e s .-


4/18

THE STALIN ISSUE AND THE SOVIET LEADERSHIP STRUGGLE

S i n c e t h e f a l l of Khrushchev i n October 1964 a gradualr e s t o r a t i o n of S t a l i n ' s p o l i t i c a l r e s p e c t a b i l i t y w i th i nt h e Sovi et Union has coin cide d w i t h a re tu rn t o more o r thodoxp o l i c i e s a nd i n c r e a s in g ly r e p r e s s iv e m ethods of d e a l i n g w i t hnon-conformists. The i s s u e of S t a l i n ' s r e h a b i l i t a t i o n h a sbeen used by v a r io u s leaders , most notably Brezhnev andS h e l ep i n , i n t h e i r a tt em pt s t o a t t a i n t h e t o p p o s i t i o n i nt h e P a r t y h i e r a r c h y . The a i m of each h a s b ee n t o g a i n t h esuppor t o f t h e p a r t y appa ra t ch i k s , bo t h h i g h and mediumlevel , many of whom were dismayed and f e l t t h r e a t e n e d b yKhrushchev's ref orm is t tend enci es , Thus, each has t r i e d t odemons t ra te tha t h e and he a l o n e i s t h e l e g i t i m a t e l e a d e rof t h e p a r t y f a i t h f u l , I n o r de r t o do so , each h a s sup-por ted o r thodox v i e w s and each h as a t t e m p te d t o r e a c haround t h e r ef or me r Khrushchev t o S t a l i n i n a n e f f o r t t oe s t a b l i s h a d i rec t l i n e of legi t imacy f rom Lenin.

Thus f a r , Brezhnev has p re va i led over She lep in i nt h e o ng oing s t r u g g l e f o r power; i n o r d e r t o do so h e a d o p t e dt h e n e o - S t a l i n i s t p o s i t i o n f i r s t assumed by t h e S h e l e p infact ion. Brezhnev has a l s o managed t o s t a v e o f f attemptsby moderates w i t h i n t h e lead ership , re pre sen ted by Podgornyyand Kosygin, t o push t h e i r own po li cy views; i n t h e p r o c e s sh e h as apparen t ly ga ined a measure of s u p p o r t from them,possibly by convincing them t h a t t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t o himw a s even less desira ble--e. g., Shel epin . However, w h i l eBrezhnev tias emerged as t h e s t r o n g e s t of t h e S o v ie t l e a d e r s ,h i s p o s i t i o n is still l i m i t e d by t h e n a t u r e of t h e l eader ss h i p ; f o r a m a jo r i t y of t h e S o v ie t leaders h a s a ves tedi n t e r e s t i n p reven t ing Brezhnev f rom acq u i r ing to o muchpower.The Issue And What I t Means

T h e S t a l i n i s s u e evokes a gr ea t emotional responseamong t h o s e who s u f f e r e d dur ing t h e S t a l i n y e a rs and f e a ra r e t u r n t o t h e harsh rep res s iv e methods o f thos e years .

-I-


5/18

A t t h e same t i m e t h e i s s u e h as g r e a t p o l i t i c a l s i g n i f ic a n ce .To Communists, h i e t o r y is no t a matter of academic con cern ;r a t h e r i t is a v i t a l element i n p o l i t i c a l l i f e . Communistideology is based upon t h e i n e v i t a b i l i t y of a c e r t a i nh i s t o r i c a l p r og r es s io n ) and t h e c o n t i n u e d j u s t i f i c a t i o nof t h e sys tem as it e x i s t s is based upon t h e p e r p e t u a t i o nof t h a t concept of h i s t o r y . Thus, a l l p o l i c i e s must a tl e a s t have t h e appearance of conforming t o t h e ideology,a nd f o r t h i s r e a s on each s u c c e s s i v e S o v i e t regime h as f e l tt h e need t o rewrite S o v i e t h i s t o r y i n o rd er t o s up po rt i t sown p ol ic i es .T h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of S t a l i n t ouc hes upon t h e veryna ture and leg i t imacy of t h e world ' s foremost Communistsystem. I t w a s imposs ib le t o denounc e S t a l i n w i thou tp l a c i n g in q u e s t i o n t h e myth of t h e p ar ty ' s i n f a l l i b i l i t yand undermining i t s i d e o lo g i c al a u t h o r i t y ; t h i s i s p r e c i s e l ywhat happened i n t h e So vi e t Union fol low ing Khrushchev' s

1956 denuncia t ion of t h e S t a l i n p e r io d and i t s c u l t ofp e r s o n a l i t y . The c o n t i nu i n g b u t g r ad u a l r e h a b i l i t a t i o no f S t a l i n is p a r t of a n at te m pt t o r e t u r n t h e p a r t y a ndt h e system t o a p o s i t i o n of i de o log i c a l l e g i tim a c y. Thedamage done t o t h e p a r t y ' s c r e d i b i l i t y by t h e denunc ia t ionof S t a l i n to ok i t s t o l l i n t h e morale of t h e p a r t y apparat-c h i k s . Thus t h e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of S t a l i n a l s o r e pr e s en t san at tempt t o r e as su r e these old-guard-and by n a t u r econservat ive--cadres t h a t t h e party r e t a i n s i ts l e g i t i m a c ya nd a u tho r i t y .

Khrushchev's a t t a ck on S t a l i n r e p r e s en t e d a n a t t a c kon o rt ho do xy a nd i n f l e x i b i l i t y ; i t w a s t h e beginning of adr ive f o r c ha nge . In genera l , tho se who supp or t cont inuedd e - S t a l i n i z a t i o n are those who a l s o fa vo r change, re form,and l i b e r a l i z a t i o n .t o adapt t h eo r y t o t h e needs of t h e c oun t r y ra the r t h a n ,v ice -ve rsa. The i r in c l in a t io n toward re form in g e n e r a lcreates an atmosphere conducive t o more open d i scuss ionand, as a resul t , more f reedom. A p o s i t i v e character iza-t i o n of S t a l i n , on t h e ot he r hand, sug ges t s a more r i g i d ,dogmatic approach t o p o l i t i c s and economics . Those whoview t h e S t a l i n era i n a f a vo r a b l e l i g h t have gene ra l lyargued t h e case f o r d o c t r i n a l c o n t i n u i t y and h ave empha-s ized t h e i d e o l o g i c a l r o l e of t h e p a r t y . T h e i r approach

They tend toward pragmatism and prefer

-2-


6/18

n e c e s s i t a t e s t i g h t c o n t r o l and c l o s e s u p e r v i s i o n of t h epragmat i s t s and t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l s , a n d a correspondingl e s s e n i n g of pe r sona l f reddomias w e l l as on o t h er p o l i c i e s , is q u i t e complex, and t h ea ss ig nm en t of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s t o i nd i v i d ua l s and g roupsis admi t ted ly somewhat ar b i t r a ry . I t n o n e t he l e s s s e r v e st h e purpose of i d e n t i f y i n g a nd h i g h l i g h t i n g Bhades ofdifference in approach and in p o i n t s of view. There a reseveral groupings wi th in t h e l e a d e r s h i p which might w e l lw i s h t h e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of S ta li n- - bu t f o r d i f f e r e n t r e as o n sa n d. &o d i f f e r e n t d e gr e e s. The old- l ine appara tch iks whot e nd t o be dogmatic would, in a l l l ikel ihood, welcome ar e t u r n t o an atmosphere of t i g h t con t r o l and r i g i d , un-ques t i oned v i e w s ; t h i s is t h e atmosphere i n which t heyr o se t o t h e t op and i n which they would f e e l more comfort-ab le . Ind iv id ua l s who s e e m t o f i t t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n , bestr e p r e s e n t e d by Suslov, w i l l be referred t o a s o rt ho do x.

ano the r , seemingly more coo rdin ate d, group ofi n d i v i d u a l s t oo k t h e e a r l y l e ad i n a c t i v e l y pu sh in g a n endt o c r i t i c i sm o f S t a l i n ' s c u l t of pe r s ona l i t y and in urg ingt i g h t e r c o n t r o ls on t h e con t en t of p u b l i s h e d m a t e r i a l .For t h i s reason t h e y a r e referred t o as a n e o - S t a l i n i s tf a c t i o n . T h e i r main purpose seems t o have been t o capiet a l i z e on t h e views of t h e or thodox appa ra t ch i k s i n o rde rt o g a i n su pp or t i n t h e i r d r iv e f o r power. T h i s f a c t i o nis composed p r i m a r i l y of young members of t h e h i e r a r c h y ,many of whom came.up th ro ug h t h e Komsomol and have beenc l o s e l y a l i g n ed w i t h Shelep in . The ne o-S ta l in i s t s havede m bm s t r a t e dan a b i l i t y t o be q u i t e pragmat i c , un l iket h e orthodox grouping, and even t o s h i f t p o s i t i o n s i no rd er t o a t t a i n t h e i r main goal , t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of t h einstruments of power.

On t h e o t h e r s i d e of t h e p o l i t i c a l spectrum, t h emodera tes o r p ragmat i s t s see a need f o r change and reformin t h e So vi et Union and tend a w a y f rom r i g i d , o r thodoxpo si t i on s. Kosygin and proba bly Podgornyy ( a t l e a s t a tone t i m e ) belong i n t h i s ca tegory . They would be i n c l i n e dt o oppose a r e ha b i l i t a t i on of S t a l i n . Even more t o t h e

Alignment within t h e h i e ra rchy on t h e S t a l i n i s s u e ,

-3-


7/18

, . .

r ef o rm s i d e of t h e spectrum are t h e l i b e r a l s . The m e m b e rof t h e hierarchy who came c l o s e s t t o r ep re se nt in g t h i spos i t ion, Mikoyan, was dropped from t h e Pr e sid ium i n March1966. Th e m a in s t r e ng th of t h e l i b e r a l s is found amongt h e i n t e l l e c t u a l s - - f o r example, t h e ch ie f e d i t o r of t h el i b e r a l j o u r n a l Novig Mkr, Aleksandr Tvardovskiy.i n t e l l e c t u a l s w a m r n r e e d o m t o w r i t e , t o speak, andt o d i ss e nt . They have ac t ive ly opposed t h e r e s t o r a t i o n ofSta l in ' s image .The

S h i f t s in po l i c y c onc e rn ing va r ious a s pe c t s of t h eS t a l i n i s s ue are ref lected f i r s t i n t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l com-munity.h i s t o r i a n s a n d writers t o adhere t o t h e new line. The re-S t a l i n iz e r s have demanded th a t cri t ic&sm o f S t a l i n ceasea nd , i n t h e p a s t t h r e e yea rs , they have had c o n s i d e r a b l esucces6 in e f f o r t s t o un ta rn is h S t a l i n ' s h i s t o r i c a l image.The r e h s t a l i n i z e r s a l s o demand t h a t w ri t t en mater ia l bejudged accord ing t o t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f s o c i a l i s t realism--wh i ch means t h a t , when writ ing on t h e Sovie t Union, cr i t ic i smis out of or de r and only t h e achievements and promises ofCommunism may be discussed . In o rd er t o r e s t o r e S t a l i n ' sp o l i t i c a l r e s p e c t a b i l i t y , , t h e r e f o r e , i t has been necessaryt o reimpose prescr ibed, r i g i d formulas , and t o clamp downon non-conf ormists .

Revers ion t o a f a v o r a b l e v i e w of S t a l i n h as r e q u i re d

I n c r ea s i n g p r e s su r e on i n t e l l e c t u a l s t o c onform ha s ,i n f a c t , accompanied t h e g r a d u a l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of S t a l i n .I n t h e three ye a r s s i nc e K hr us hc he v' s ous t e r , t h e regime'swarnings , t h r e a t s , a nd o u t r i g h t r e p r e s s i o n hav e i n t e n s i f i e d .F r u s tr a t ed i n t h e i r e f f o r t s t o c on ti nu e t h e i r moves towardgr e a t e r f r e e dom a nd f r i gh t e ne d by what t h e y cons ide red t obe a move back toward St a l i n i s t methods, t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l shave responded w i t h de m ons t r a t i ons , pe t i t i ons , a nd l e t t e r so f p r o t e s t . These, i n t ur n, have r e s u l t e d i n e ve n s t r o n g e rmeasures by t h e regime--inc luding expu ls ion f rom t h e p a r t y ,ar res t s , commitments t o menta l in s t i t u t i o n s , and inca rce ra -t i o n in labor camps. The r e s u l t h a s be en a s p i r a l i n g cyc leof a c t i o n a nd r e a c t i o n r e s u l t i n g i n i n c r e as i n g l y h a r s hmeasures.


8/18

Alignment of ForcesThe regime's moves toward hars her p o l i c ie s havegener a ted cons i derab le publ i c oppos i t ion , and have beenaccompanied by--indeed a r e a p a r t of--an ongoing s tr u g g lef o r power w i t h i n t h e h i e ra rchy . In t h e f i r s t f e w monthsa f t e r K hrushchev' s ous t e r , t h e new Soviet l e a d e r s werepreoccupied w i t h e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e i r pos i t i ons and o rgan i z i ngt h e i r fo rc es . Both Shele pin, a ne o- Sta l in is t , and Podgornyy,

a moderate, seemed t o be I n f a i r l y p ow er fu l p o s i t i o n s , w i t hBreehnev seemingly occupying a m i d d l e ground. The ex is te nc eof t h i s somewhat d i f f u s e d p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n was r e f l e c t e di n t he lack of a c lea r p o l i c y on c u l t u r e , r e s u l t i n g i nc o n s i de r a b l e freedom f o r t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l s . L i b e r a l a r t i c l e swere numerous and criticism of S t a l i n w id es pr ea d.time i t was t h e moderates. Apparent P r es id iu m - l ev e lsup por t e r s f o r a . moderate p o l i cy inc luded Podgornyy ,Kosygin, and Mikoyan, w h i l e those who c l e a r l y seemed t of a v o r a h a r d l i n e w e r e She l ep i n , S h e l e s t , and Suslov. Witht h e Presidium d i v i d e d i n t h i s manner, a bal anc ing group,conse rva t i ve by i nc l i n a t i on and headed by Brezhnev,possessed Cons iderab le power t o swing vo tes i n favor ofone group o r ano ther . Po lyansk iy and Ki r i l enk o probablybe longed t o t h i s group.

I f a n y f a c t i o n seemed to have a s l i gh t edge a t t h e

In f i gh t i ng B eg i nsBrezhnev apparent ly sa w h i s b i g g e s t t h r e a t a s c omingfrom t h e modera tes . In February 1965 a n a t t a c k w a s launchedag ai ns t Khar 'kov Oblast , Podgornyy 's former bai l iwi ck; th eau thor o f t h e a r t i c l e was S h c h e r bi t s k iy , t h e F i r s t S e cr e t a r yof Dnepropetrovsk Ob las t , Brezhnev's ol d power base. I nt h e same month members of t he neo -S t a l i n i s t f a c t i o n (Pavl ovand Yegorychev) at ta ck ed t h os e who c r i t i c i z e t h e p e r i o d oft h e c u l t of p e r s o n a l i t y . Thus, t h e s t r ug g l e f o r power hadbegun, w i t h t h e moderates coming under a t t a c k from botht h e ne o- Sta l in is t s and Brezhnev.

-5-


9/18

By t h e e a r l y s p r in g of 1965 t h e backers of are ha b i l i t a t i on of S t a l i n had a wel l -coord ina ted campaignunderway t o res tore St a l i n ' s Wor l d War I1 image. AlthoughBrezhnev 's s ta tements a t t h e t i m e were n o t s o ha r sh ast hose o f s u c h n e o - S t a l i n i s t s as Moscow Ci t y C h i e f Yegorychevand Komsomol F i r s t Se cr et ar y Pavlov, h e must have supportedt h e p r o p o sa l t o r e s t o r e S t a l i n ' s r e p u t a t i o n a nd ha ve swunga d e c i s i o n i n f a v o r of i t . H e probably had va r i ous r ea sonsfor doing so. I n o r de r t o j u s t i f y K hrushchev' s ous t e r i twas u se f u l t o dem ons tr a te t h a t Khrushchev had s t r a y e d fromt h e t r u e p a r t y l i n e ; t h us , i f v i r t u a l l y t h e whole periodof p a r t y r u l e was no t t o be i n d i s r ep u t e, t h e r e s p e c t a b i l i t yof t h e S t a l i n e r a (and of S t a l i n h i m s e l f ) must be r e s t o r e d .Secondly , Brezhnev too was f ig h t in g f o r t h e l e a d e r s h i pand must have f e l t t h a t h e needed t h e suppor t of t h eor thodox appara tch iks .

The d e c is i o n t o r e h a b i l i t a t e S t a l i n w a s implementedf i r s t w i t h respect t o S t a l i n ' s image a s a wart ime leader .V a r i ous m i l i t a ry l eade r s made increas ing ly favorab lecomments concernin g S t a l i n as a wart ime leader . Th e m i l i -t a ry has been i n t h e f o r e f r o n t o n t h e S t a l i n i s s u e nom a t t e r w h i c h l i n e t h e pa rt y has adopted--always usin g t h ei s s u e t o d ef en d t h e p r e r o g a t i v e s of t h e mi li ta r y . Whende-Sta l in i za t ion was t h e l i n e , t h e m i l i t a r y c r i t i c i z e dS t a l i n f o r n ot l i s t e n i n g t o t h e pr of es si on al s . Now, t h e ybegan t o p r E e hi m because he d i d l i s t e n . Another ind i -c a t i o n o f t h e t rend was t h e par-1 su sp en sio n i n t h esp ri ng of 1965 of t h e program of r e h a b i l i t a t i n g S t a l i n ' sv ic ti ms . T h is p a r t i a l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of S t a l i n w a s &iveno f f i c i a l sa nc ti on i n May 1965, when Brezhnev became t h ef i r s t m e m b e r of t h e h i e ra rchy t o m en ti on S t a l i n ' s name i np u b l i c ; a t t h i s t i m e h e r e fe r red t o S t a l i n as t h e w a r t i m ehead of t h e State Defense Committee.

I n t h e s u m m e r and e a r l y f a l l of 1965 t h e l i b e r a l sfought back aga in s t t h e onslaughts of b o t h t h e neo-S t a l i n i s t s and Brezhnev. Pub l i ca t i on of r e h a b i l i t a t i o n so f S t a l i n ' s v i c t i m s was resumed and a number of l iberala r t i c l e s a pp ea re d. I n e a r l y S ep te mb er a l i b e r a l de f en s eof t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l s , s i gn e d by Pravda editor Rumyantsev,

-6 -

SEC ET9


10/18

a p o s s i b l e assoc ia te of Podgornyy, appeared i n Pravda.T h i s coun t e ra t t ack b y t h e l i b e ra l s was, h o w e v e r m t -l i v e d .replaced by Zimyanin, a B e l o r us s i a n c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e dw i t h Be lor us sia n lea de rs Mazurov and Masherov, bot h ofwhom were t o exp re s s neo -S t a l i n i s t op i n ions subsequen t l y .Also i n September t h e wri t e r s Daniel and Sinyavskiy werear re s t ed f o r hav ing publ i shed works abroad; t h i s marked av ic tor y f o r a hard- l ine approach.

Rumyantsev was f i r e d in m i d - September and

S h e l e p i n ' s B i d F ai ls But Hard-Line Pr ev ai l sS h e l e p i n ' s d r i v e f o r power, begun i n Febru ary 1965,i n t e n s i f i e d t hr ou gh ou t t h e summer and e a r l y f a l l ; b u t i thad been d e e i s i v e l y de fea t ed by t h e December c e n t r a lcommittee plenum. The Pa rt y- St at e Co ntr ol Committeew h i c h h e headed was abolished, and h e was removed fromh i s po s i t i o n a s depu ty oha irman of t he C ounc i l of M i n i s t e r s .However, t h e moderates a l s o rece iv ed a s e t -b a c k a t t h eplenum, in d ic a t i ng t h a t t h e s t r e ng t h t o s t r i k e a t S he le pi nhad not been mobil iz ed by them, al thou gh the y might w e l lhave supported i t . Podgornyy r ep la ce d Mikoyan a s Chairmanof t h e Presidium of t h e Supreme Soviet , a p o s i t i o n w i t hf a r l ess p o l i t i c a l power t h an h i s p o s i t i o n on t h e p a r t y

S e c r e t a r i a t , whic h he l o s t . Furthermore, Mikoyan'sr em oval i n d i ca t ed t ha t t h i s s t ro ng suppo r t e r of a mode ra tep o s i t i o n was on h i s way o u t .t h i s t i m e was Brezhnev, who probably had gained t h e suppor tof Suslov by supp ort i ng orthodox v i e w s .Thus, t h e n e t g a in e r a t

B rezhnev' s suppp r t fo r r e - S t a l i n i z i ng and t h e needf o r conformity had been revea le d i n t h e p u b l i c a t i o n i nOctober 1965 of an a r t i c l e by an apparen t p ro t ege o f h i s ,T rapezn ikov, i n s t ru c t i ng p ropagand i s t s t h a t t h e pe r i od oft h e c u l t s h ou ld n o t be v i e w e d nega t i ve l y and i nd i ca t i ngt h a t t h i s app l i ed not on l y t o t h e q u e s t i o n of wartimel e a d e r s h i p bu t t o o t h e r a s p e c t s of t h e pe r i od ,such a s co l -l e c t i v i z a t i o n and i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n . A P r a v d a a r t i c l e t h ef o l l ow i n g J a nu a r y i n s t r u c t e d h i s t o r i a n s t o p e s c r i b i n gt h e S t a l i n e r a a s t h e per iod of t h e c u l t of p e r s o n a l i t y ,


11/18

.,,v ....

. .

SECY T

a s t h i s t i m e i n h i s t o ry had been character ized by manyp o s i t i v e achievements . Consequences of t h i s move towardorthodoxy include t h e a r r e s t s ' in September 1965, and t r i a lt h e fo l lowing February , o f t h e writers , Daniel and Sinyavskiy,f o r u n a u th o r iz e d p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e i r works i n t h e West.T h e 23rd Congress

On t h e eve of t h e 23rd Congress, which opened i n l a t eMarch 1966, there were numerous re po r t s t h a t S tA l in would bef o r m a l l y r e h a b i l i t a t e d . A number of hard- l ine a r t i c l e s andspeeches given dur ing t h i s p e r i o d s u p p o r t e d t h e rumors,a s d i d t h e appa ren t ly wel l -coord ina ted program t o improveS t a l i n ' s h i s t o r i c a l r e pu t at i on . The rumors were a l s o s up -po r t ed by t h e r e s u r r e c t i o n o f a number of S t a l i n i s t terms--s u c h a s cosmopol i tanism, sharpening of t h e c l a s s s t r u g g l e(used i n r ef e re n ce t o t h e 1 9 3 0 ' ~ ) ~nd enemies of t h e peo-p l e . The prospect of a r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of S t a l i n drews t r o n g n e g a t i v e r e a c t i o n s from several foreign Communistc o u n t r i e s and f r i g h t e n e d r e a c t i o n s f rom S o v i e t i n t e l l e c t u a l s ,who sent Brezhnev a l e t t e r urgdng t h a t S t a l i n n ot ber e h a b i l i t a t e d .Perhaps i n re sponse t o these r e a c t i o n s t h e S o v i e tleaders s t e p p e d back from a f u l l - s c a l e f or ma l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ,

and when t h e congress opened only t h e v e s t i g e s of s u c h aprogram remained-- the r e s to r a t i o n of t h e terms P o l i t b u r oand Genera l Secre ta ry . W h i le t h e r e t u r n of these S t a l i n i s tterms w a s .purely symbol ic , i t nonethe less demons t ra t edt h e mood of t h e Sov i e t l e a de r sh i p and sugges t ed t h e d i r e c t i o ni n wh ich i t wished t o go.t i t l e G enera l Sec re t a ry se t h i m ap a r t from h i s co l l eagues ,d i s t i n g u i s h e d him from Khrushchev, and i d e n t i f i e d h i m w i t hS t a l l n , t h e o n l y o t h e r S o v i e t leader e v e r t o h old t h i s It i t l e .

.

B rezhnev' s a c qu i s i t i o n o f t h e

Brezhnev 's success w a s f u r t h e r r e f l e c t e d i n t h ef a c t t h a t bo th t h e m oderat es and Sh e l ep i n aga i n su f f e re dset-backs a t t h e congress. Mikoyan was dropped from t h eP o l i t b u r o ; S h e l e p in , a p p a r e n t l y a t this t i m e , was assigned


12/18

r e s p o n s i bi l i t y f o r l i g h t i n d u s t r y , a c l ea r s t e p down f o rhim. Brezhnev and t h e orthodox e lement i n t h e p a r t ygained, however. Pe l she , t h e L a tv i an F i r s t S e cr e ta r yand r e p o r t e d l y a S u s lo v a s s o c i a t e , became a f u l l memberof t h e Po li tb ur o, and Kunayev, a Brezhnev protege, becamea c a n d i d a t e member. The c o n t in u e d s t r e n g th o f S h e l e p in ' sviews was suggested by t h e appointment as a c a n d id a t eP o l i t b u r o member of Be loruss ian F i r s t Sec re t a ry Masherov,who, w h i l e no t a prot ege of S hele pin , supp or te d many oft h e same views.

Brezhnev's speech a t t h e congress w a s m i l d comparedw i t h some of thos e whichfol lowed , in d i ca t i ng t h a t i n s p i t eof t h e adopt ion of a n i n c r e a s in g l y h ar d -l i ne s t a n d , p r e s s u r eby t h e n e o - S t a l i n i s t f a c t i o n f o r even harsher methods con-tinued. Some of these s p e a k e r s c a l l e d f o r a d m i ni s t ra t i v eac t i on a ga i ns t non-conformis t wri t e r s , and such l i b e r a lj o u r n a l s as Novty M i r and Yunost' rece ived s t r on g c r i t i c i s m .A f t e r t h e congress-ese th rea t s w e r e h a l t e d f o r a pe r i od ,perhaps because of t h e s h a r p p r o t e s t s , b ot h f o r e i g n anddomest ic on t h e e v e of t h e c o ng r es s , o r p o s s i b l y a s ar e s u l t of S h e l e p in ' s de fea t .L i b er a l I n i t i a t i v e

. .

..:.>.a. ......,

Perhaps encouraged by t h e f a i l u r e of t h e congresst o f o rm al ly r e h a b i l i t a t e S t a l i n and t h e r e a s s u r a n c e s g iv e nt o them t h a t S t a l i n i s t t i m e s would no t re tu rn , t h e l i b e r a l sp r o c e e d e d . t o w r i t e and pub l i sh a number o f a r t i c l e s i n t h el a t e s p r i n g and e a r l y s u m m e r of 1 966 . I n p a r t i c u l a r ,th e re w a s a temporary upsurge i n t h e program of r e h a b i l i -t a t i n g S t a l i n ' s v i c t i m s , and a number of a r t i c l e s c r i t i c i z i n gS t a l i n f o r h i s r o l e i n c o l l e c t i v i z a t i o n a pp ea re d. T h i si n i t i a t d v e was quick ly squashed however , and a r t i c l e sc a s t i n g S t a l i n i n a f a vo r ab l e l i g h t soo n predominated oncea g a in .I n s p i t e of t h e preva lence of a c o n s e r v a t i v e

i n f l u e n c e , t h e l i b e r a l s c o nt i nu e d t o v o i c e o p p o s i t i o nthroukhout 1966. In February and i n t h e summer, two


13/18

SE ET+meet ings were h e l d , one t o dis cu ss a book by A . Nekr ichc r i t i c i z i n g p re wa r pr e p a r a ti o n s , and t h e second t o discusst h e t h i r d volume of t h e His tory of t h e CPSU. A t each ofthese meetings those i n charge l o s t c o nt r o l- a n d a t t a c k swere launched by p a r t i c i p a n t s on S t a l i n and t h e p e r s o n a l i t yc u l t . A number of p e t i t i o ns a l s o were c i r c u l a t e d ; f o rexample, i n December a group of i n t e l l e c t u a l s p r o t es t e d t h epassage of a decree e x te n di ng a n a r t i c l e of t h e RSFSRc r i m i n a l code t o inc lud e any form of " s l ander" of Sov i e ts o c i e t y ; t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l s feared t h a t k h i s wuld open@em y f o rf u r t h e r r e p re s s si o n of t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l s . A ls o i n DecemberL i t e r a t u r n a y a Gazeta pub l i shed an a r t i c l e demanding at ruthful examiEZTGE of t h e p a s t . Orthodoxy s t i l l dominated,b ut r e s i s t a n c e t o t h e pre s s u re t o con fo rm con ti nued .Leadersh ip Tension Cont inues.

F r i c t i o n w i th i n t h e l e a d e r s h i p w a s r e f l e c t e d i n adebate wh i ch was waged i n t h e press dur i ng t h e summer ande a r l y f a l l of 1966. The i ssue was t h a t of c o l l e c t i v el e a d e r sh i p v er s us i n d i v i d u al r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and a l l f a c t i o n sp a r t i c i p a t e d . The neo-Sta l in i s t s opened t h e deba t e w i t hs e v e r a l a r t i c l e s s t r e s s i n g t h e importance of c o l l e c t i v eleadersh ip and warn ing of t h e d a ng e rs i n h e r e n t i n t h e impo-s i t i o n of one-man ru l e .un l i ke l y d i r ec t i on - t he l i b e r a l s who used t h e c u l t o f per-s o n a l i t y and t h e r e s u l t i n g v i o la t i o n s of l e g a l i t y t oi l l u s t r a t e t h e e v i l s of one-man r u l e . Both of thesef a c t i o n s c l e a r l y had a v es te d i n t e r e s t i n r e ta i n i n g c o l-l e c t i v e l e a d e r s h i p and i n prev ent in g Brezhnev fromac qu ir in g t o o much power.

They rece ived suppor t f rom an

Brezhnev and h i s backers responded t o t h e concer t eda t t a c k s w i t h s ev e r a l a r t i c l e s e m p h a s i z i n g t h e need forr e s p o n s i b i l i t y a n d d i s c i p l i n e , s t r e s s i n g t h e importanceof i nd i v i d ua l l e ade r sh i p , and quo t i ng L eni n t o t h e e f f e c tt h a t i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y must n o t be permit ted t o h i d e benea thre fe rence s t o co l l ec t i v i t y . B rezhnev a l s o r esponded bymention ing favorab ly th a t most no tab le of i nd i v i dua l l e ade r s - -S t a l i n ; i n a November speech i n T b i l i s i , h e re fe r red t oS t a l i n a s an "a rdent r evo l u t i ona ry . "


14/18

A r i g i d , o rt ho do x p o l i c y c l e a r l y p r e v a i l e d i ne a r l y 1967. The r e h a b i l i t a t i o n program was ha l t ed andre f u rb i sh i n g of S t a l i n ' s image con t inued . D i s s i den ti n t e l l e c t u a l s were arrested, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e Ukraineand Leningrad, where p a r t y leaders S h e l e s t and Tol s t ikovsuppor t ed t h e n e o - S t a l i n i s t l i n e . O t h e r examples of t h eascendancy of orthodoxy were t h e harassment of Noviy M i rand t h e replacement of two key members of i t s e m i rboard, and t h e expulsion of t h e h i s t o r i a n Nekr i ch fromt h e p a r t y i n J u l y f o r h i s c r i t i c i s m of S t a l i n ' s ha nd li ngof t h e prewar s i t u a t i o n .She l ep i n ' s Defeat

With t h e moderates on t h e defensive, Brezhnev andh i s fo l lowers nex t tu rned t h e i r b i g guns on She l ep i n . InMay 1967, Sh el ep in 's pr ot eg e Semichastnyy w a s removed ashead of t h e KG B and t h e fol lowing month t h e most outspokenne o- St al in is t, Yegorychev,was removed as Moscow C i t y F i r s tS e c r e t a r y . S h o r t l y b e f o r e h i s d i sm i s sa l , Yegmychev hadr e p o r t e d l y a t t a c k e d t h e l e a d e r s h ip a t a C e n t r a l C o m m i t t e eplenum f o r i t s handl ing of t h e Middle E as t cr is is . S h e l e p i nw a s appa ren t l y h e l d resp ons ib le f o r Yegorychev 's a t t a c kand h i s power was c u r ta i le d ; i n J u l y h e became head of t h eSoviet Union 's t r a d e union organi za t i on and then i nSeptember he was removed from t h e s e c r e t a r i a t .Shel ep in *s . back ers began t o i s su e more warn ings i n t h epress agains t high-handed leadership methods. As t heyhad i n 1966, t hey aga i n stressed c o l l e c t i v e l e ad e rs h ip ,b u t t h e y came down most strongly OR t h e r i g h t of p a r t ymembers t o c r i t i c i z e t h e i r s u p e ri o r s , c i t i n g t h e dangersi nvo lved i n hav ing a leader who cannot t a k e c r i t i c i s m .Two of these a r t i c l e s used t h e c u l t o f p e r s o n a l i t y (o ned i r e c t l y and one i nd i r ec t l y ) t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e dangersi n h e re n t i n t h e impos i t ion of one-man rule-meaningBrezhnev's. The adopti on i n both 1966 and 1967 of ana n t i - S t a l i n l i n e of argument by She l ep i n ' s neo -S t a l i n i s t

I n t h e face of Brezhnev 's o rgan i z a t i ona l v i c t o r i e s ,

-11-


15/18

s u p p o r t e r s was a n i n d i c a t i o n of t h e i r despe ra t ion . F indingthemselves i n a vulne r able po s i t ion , th ey used a rgumentsbest s u i t e d t o h e l p pr e ve n t both t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of f u r t h e rpower by Brezhnev and t h e i r own s u b j e c t i o n t o more p o l i t i c a ldefea t s . Some in d iv id ua l s not i n sympathy wi th Yegorychev' sviews m igh t a l s o have feared t h e precedent s e t byYegorychev's abrupt dismissa l .The d e f e a t s s u f f e r e d by She l e p in and t h e neo-S t a l i n i s t f a c t i o n i n t h e s p r i n g of 1967 b r i e f l y encouragedt h e l i b e r a l i n t e l l e c t u a l s . A t t h e end of J une sev era Ja r t i c i e s c r i t i c a l of censorsh ip and urg ing i t s a b o l i t i o nw e r e pub l i s he d , b u t almost immediately t he y were r e pud i a t e dand t h e ha r d - l i ne reaff irmed by a r t i c l e s i n t h e c e n t r a lp r e s s . The a r r e s t s a nd t r i a l s of d i s s i d e n t intellectualsc o n t i n u e d ; c l e a r l y t h e defea t of S h e l e p i n d i d n o t e n t a i la cor re sponding defea t f o r h a rd - li n e p o l i c i e s .

Pos t lude and Prospec t sDuring t h e f i r s t f e w months of 1968, t h e atmosphere

of t h r e a t a nd r e p r e s s ion grew s t i l l more menacing. I n t e l -l e c t u a l s were prosecuted for " a n t i - S o v i e t * * a c t i v i t i e s ;l i b e r a l a r t i c l e s and a n t i - S t a l i n r e f e r e nc e s d i s appe ar e df rom publ ica t ion . Ir


16/18

Bre zhn ev c o n t in u e d t o g a in s t r e n g th an d t o h ackaway a t S h e le p i n 's p o s i t i o n d ur in g t h e f i r s t h a l f of t h e p e a r ,,In A p r i l , F i r s t S e c r et a ry Katushev of Gorkiy.ObJast, who hadsuppor te d Brezhnev on sev er a l occas ions p rev ious ly ,became a P a r ty S e c r e t a r y a nd , i n May, S h e l e p in ' s p r o t e g ePavLov w a s r e l i e v e d of h i s p o s i t i o n as K o m s o m o l Chief .La te i n March Brezhnev de l ive red h i s most m i l i t a n t c u l t u r a ls ta tement t o date . Emphasizing the importance of ideology,h e d e s c r ib e d t h e " s ha r p i d e o l o g i c a l s t r u g g l e " b e in g wageda n d c h a r g e d t h a t b o u r g e o i s im p e r i a l i s t s were t r y in g t oi n f l u e n c e S o v i e t c i t izens . H e a t t a c k e d S o v ie t r e n e g a d e sand hypocr i tes who f a l l i n t o t h e im p e r i a l i s t n e t a nd warnedthat they would not go unpunished. H e again announced t h a twhat h e termed id eo l og ic al ly "weak works" would be g iv e n as t r i c t ap pr ai sa l . Less tha n two weeks l a t e r a c e n t r a lcommittee plenum adopted a r e s ol u t io n c a l l i n g f o r a f u r t h e rt i g h t e n i n g of i d e o l o g i c a l c o n t r o l s . W h i le it seems c l e a rt h a t Brezhnev's speech and t h e r e s o l u t i o n w e r e a t l e a s tp a r t i a l l y i n r e ac t i on t o t h e r e vo lu ti on ar y l i b e r a l i z i n ge v e n t s t a k in g p l a c e i n C ze ch os lo va ki a i n e a r l y 1 96 8, b o thwere c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e t r e n d w h i c h h a d e x i s t e d i n S o v i e tp o l i c y o v e r t h e previous three-and-a-half years .

.. .. ....

Whi le t h e cur ren t a tmosphere is less r e s t r i c t i v e t ha nt h a t o f t h e S t a l i n y e a r s , when t e r r o r a n d r e p r e s s i o n weret h e order of t h e day, i t is much more s t i f l i n g t han t h a twhich ex i s te d dur ing Khrushchev 's t enu re . The s i t u a t i o nva ri ed unde r Khrushchev; when h e w a s r e l a t i v e l y s t r o ngt h e r e w a s a cor responding re la xa t i on of i deo log ica l con-t r o l s , and when he w a s on t h e d e f e n s iv e ( fo r examplei n l a t e 1962 and early 1963) t h e r e w a s a t i g h t e n i n g i nc u l t u r a l p o l i c y a n d less f reedom of expr ess i on. Nonetheless ,t h e cu r r en t clamp-down f a r exceeds i n se ve r i t y any clamp-down which occu rred du ring t h e Khrushchev ye ar s.A t t h e p r e s e n t t i m e t h e r e seems l i t t l e l i k e l i h o o dof a r e t u r n t o a more l i b e r a l p o l i c y . O v e r t h e p a s t th ree-and-a-half years t he re have been few per son ne l changes a tt h e h i g h e s t l e v e l s of t h e p a r t y , b u t t h o s e t h a t haveo c c u rr e d ha ve te nd ed t o s t r e n g th e n t h e h a r d - l i n e f o r c e sap pa re nt ly dominated by Brezhnev. A s long a s t h e leader-s h i p b al an ce r emains e s s e n t i a l l y i n t a c t t h e p r e v a i l i n gp o l i c y is l i k e ly t o r em ain o r th od ox a n d , i f any th ing ,


17/18

become more repressive.On t h e other hand there would a l so appear t o bea l i m i t t o t h e e x t en t of r e g re s s io n t o S t a l i n i s t t a c t i c sa s l ong as t h e c u r r e n t l e a d e r s h i p s t r u c t u r e r em ai ns . I n

1956 when Khrushchev i n h i s ''secret speech" condemnedS t a l i n ' s crimes h e i m p l i c i t l y p le dg ed t h a t such methodswould no t aga in be employed , . t hus l imi t ing t h e p o t e n t i a lf o r con t ro l by an i nd i v i d ua l and l ay i ng t h e groundwork f o rt h e s a n c t i f y i n g of c o l l e c t i v e leadership . While t h er e h a b i l i t a t i o n of S t a l i n and t h e crackdown on t h e i n t e l -l e c t u a l s h a v e r a i s ed t h e spectre of a c om pl et e r e t u r n t oS t a l i n i s t t e r r o r t a c t i c s , such a r e v e r s i on v i r t u a l l yp re supposes t h e a b i l i t y of one i n d i v i d u a l t o impose h i sw i l l and au t ho r i t y , B a r r i ng a cr is is s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c hone man m i g h t have t o make t h e d e c i s i o n s , t h e d i v e r s i t ys t i l l e x i s t i n g w i th i n t h e Po l i t bu ro w ou l d seem t o worka g a i n s t s u ch a p o s s i b i l i t y .Each member of t h e hierarchy, wheliher moderate ororthodox, has a n i n t e r e s t i n p re v e n t i n g any o t h e r i n d i -v i d u a l from ac qu ir in g t o o much power. Thus, a l thou ghBrezhnev i s q u i t e c l e a r l y f i r s t among equals, and is mores e c u r e t h a n e v e r b e f o r e , h i s power i s f a r f rom unl imi ted .For example, w h i l e he has undermined She lep in ' s po s i t i on

cons i de rab l y , h e has no t y e t been a b l e t o o u st him fromt h e Po l i t bu ro , and a number of S h e l e p i n ' s s u p p o r t e r sr ema i n i n i m por t ant pos i t i o ns . E ach m e m b e r of t h eh i e r a r c h y h a s a v es te d i n t e r e s t i n se e in g t h a t Brezhnev'sa b i l i t y t o e xe r t h i s w i l l remains l i m i t e d .

SEC E T3


18/18

SE RET\,I

caesar 43 - the stalin issue and the soviet leadership struggle

Documents