It is not known for certain what exactly Nikita Sergeevich “reported” to the delegates on February 25, 1956. No shorthand was carried out, the printed versions were repeatedly corrected, therefore, it is impossible to assert about 100% relevance of those words and the letters published later. But the discrepancies are hardly too great, although, for example, the reaction of listeners in different sources and according to eyewitness accounts is different.
For example, the 1956 Munich version mentions “movements in the hall”, “thunderous applause” and… “laughter” after, in particular, the words: “Let’s remember the film“ The Fall of Berlin ”. Only Stalin acts in it; he gives orders in a hall where there are many empty chairs and only one person comes up to him and reports something – this is Poskrebyshev, his faithful squire. “
Yeah, funny … Others, on the contrary, recreate – “deathly silence”, “without a single sound or whisper”, “general confusion” and “several heart attacks.”
Abroad “flowed” almost immediately through the reporter of the Reuters agency John Rhett – he was finishing another business trip to Moscow and he was told about the event (in general terms, without a specific text) by a certain “mediator”. Retty himself has repeatedly stated that he was thus personally informed Khrushchev… Whoever it was, the level of involvement of the “source” is undoubtedly high, because at first the document was marked “top secret”. Later it was changed to “not for publication”, but it was necessary to notify the comrades not only in the localities, but also in the “fraternal parties”, so the Report was published in a small print run. From Poland, such a book came to the Israeli intelligence Shin Bet, from there to the head of the CIA Allen Dulles, he told President Eisenhower, and with the approval of the head of the United States – already to the journalists of The New York Times (June 5, 1956).
In addition to a moral slap in the face of a former ally and “strategic enemy”, such an action had a purely practical meaning. Firstly, China reacted sharply to Khrushchev’s speech, it is not for nothing that it is named among the main reasons for the Soviet-Chinese split. Secondly, the “Report to the Congress” dealt such a blow to the leftist movement in the West that no senator McCarthy I never dreamed of it – only the US Communist Party lost about 30 thousand members in a couple of weeks, people simply left …
Nowadays everyone can get acquainted and form their own opinion about the “cult of personality and its consequences”, so there is no need to refer to what has been read and re-read. Much more important is what was around and around, like the immediate environment Stalin “Honored” and whether anyone defended the former leader. Spoiler no! Moreover, it all did not start with Khrushchev, the phrase “cult of personality” for the first time officially sounded from the lips Malenkova the very day after Stalin’s funeral – March 10, 1953 at an extraordinary meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee. It was he who intended to come out with cautious criticism, without details, but at that time he had to talk about “crimes Beria“.
Long before the XX Congress already Kaganovich announced the “Central Committee against the personality cult” when asked whether Stalin’s birthday would now be celebrated. And one of the future advisers, or rather even the “co-rapporteurs” of Khrushchev, many call Mikoyan, the fact that “from Ilyich to Ilyich without heart attack and paralysis.”
The materials were collected by the “commission Pospelova”And Pyotr Nikolaevich knew what he was doing. Well, still – he was preparing the “Short Course of the CPSU (b)”, one of the authors of the book “Iosif Vissarionovich. Brief biography “, Stalin Prize laureate, speechwriter of Beria’s speech at Stalin’s funeral
Was anyone going to object to Khrushchev in principle, as a party member to a party member, they say, no report is needed? The minutes of high meetings on the eve of the XX Congress are evidence of this.
Bulganin: “I consider Comrade Khrushchev’s proposal correct. Party members see that we have changed our attitude towards Stalin. “
Suslov: “We must tell the delegates of the congress everything. We are talking about the collective nature of the leadership, but with the Congress we will be cunning?
Malenkov: “I consider it correct to say this to the Congress. The “leader” really was “dear”. “
Kaganovich: “History cannot be deceived. You can’t throw out the facts. Comrade Khrushchev’s proposal to hear the report is correct. “
Voroshilov: “Stalin became rabid (in the struggle) with the enemies. However, he had a lot of humanity. But there were also animal manners. I agree to bring it to the Congress ”.
In short, disagreements arose only on the wording, but not on the main point. Both the “young” and, with some reservations, the “old” united against Stalin. Motivation is more than transparent. The biblical principle: to whom much is given, the same amount will be asked – is good only in the Bible. The last time was applied to Stalin, “asked” after death. And then, once and for all, it was necessary to “break” with responsibility, having procured a “leading indulgence” for a personal pack of comrades. From there it became the custom …
However, it’s time, in words Vysotsky, emerge from the “fog of the cold past.” I’m wondering, but Putin are there delusions? After all, the same does not happen – from Rurikovich to Yeltsin all were wrong, and, suddenly, holy infallibility. And if personal miscalculations still exist, then why don’t they talk about them – not there, with them, but here, with us?
Perhaps, in a “close circle”, the president of the Russian Federation is being cut into the eyes of the “truth-womb”, while the rest simply do not know. But the “public mind” will still require its share of information, and the more it is “squeezed”, the more it will be “unclenched” later. And questions will arise for everyone. It was not in vain that he remembered Vysotsky: “Even if the giraffe was wrong, it is not the giraffe who is guilty, but the one who shouted from the branches – a big giraffe, he knows better.” Although Vysotsky is not entirely right – for those in the “branches”, it is still easier to blame the giraffe when it becomes not so “big”.
For those who saw the comparison of “cults” and, even more so, “personalities” – nothing of the kind! History is “identical” in the same way as today “repeats” yesterday, the next month is the previous month, and last year is the year before last. And with all my desire I will not be able to present an exposing report to the United Russia congress, even as an art house.