Go to ...

The Newspapers

Gathering and spreading news from various Russian Newspapers

The Newspapers on Google+The Newspapers on LinkedInRSS Feed

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Debunking the cult of personality of Stalin still did not reach the goal


The publication of the famous decision of the Central Committee of the CPSU “About overcoming of a cult of personality and its consequences”, which took place exactly 60 years ago, still causes a mixed assessment. Someone believes it “half” that slowed the country’s development, someone- a bomb planted under the Soviet Union. We can say only one thing: their goals, the publication is not made up.

Soviet citizens were not used to the fact that a true Leninist and comrade Stalin suddenly the Anglo-German-Japanese spy, who devoted his entire adult life to sabotage and undermine the struggle of the working class. But the chiefs for decades, was above suspicion and beyond criticism. Surprised because the rumors that at the XX Congress, Khrushchev criticized Stalin, went around the country for several months.

“The achievements of the Communist party and the Soviet country, Eulogy at Stalin went to his head”

But exactly 60 years ago, June 30, 1956, in the major Newspapers of the country published the famous resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU “About overcoming of a cult of personality and its consequences”. People’s reactions to this text, perhaps the brightest of all the described popular playwright and scriptwriter, winner of the KGB, bard, and later dissident and political emigrant Alexander Galich: “was our Father not the father, bitch…”.

The document in question is rather long but it’s worth it to disassemble it in sufficient detail is an important indicator of age.

In the first part stated that “the decisions of the XX party Congress, domestic and foreign policy of the Soviet government caused consternation in the imperialist circles of the USA”. In this case, “some of our friends abroad did not understand the question about the personality cult and its consequences and admit the sometimes misinterpretation of certain provisions”. Also it was recalled that “for over three years our party leads a consistent struggle against the personality cult of Stalin, persistently overcoming its harmful consequences.” The result of this work party, the internal forces which now nothing binds, even more closer to the people and is now in a state of unprecedented creative activity.” This ended the first part.

The second section was devoted to how the cult of personality at all possible. In addition to quoting the hostile external environment, it was emphasized that “in the country for a long time there was a fierce class struggle, was a question “who whom?” and after the death of Lenin in the party intensified hostile currents – the Trotskyists, right opportunists, bourgeois nationalists standing in the position of rejection of the Leninist theory of the possibility of victory of socialism in one country that would lead to the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.” That party and launched a relentless struggle against the enemies of Leninism. Therefore, any rehabilitation of ideological opponents of Stalin were not mentioned – and could not go.

“The achievements of the Communist party and the Soviet country, Eulogy at Stalin went to his head. In this situation, gradually began to develop a cult of personality of Stalin”, – stated in the document.

However, the resolution condemns the repression in 1937: “Great harm to the cause of socialist construction, the development of democracy within the party and the state struck the wrong formula of Stalin that if as you move the Soviet Union to socialism the class struggle will more and more worsen. This formula was brought to the fore in 1937, at a time when socialism has triumphed in our country, when the exploiting classes and their economic base was eliminated. In practice, this incorrect theoretical formula has served as justification of flagrant violations of socialist legality and mass repression”.

This Chapter provides the answer to the question, why samonazvanie “Leninist core” of the leadership of the party put Stalin in the leadership. Because “in current circumstances this could not be done”. This is the beginning of explanation. Subsequently, the authors clarify that any speech against Stalin “in these circumstances it would not be understood by the people, and it is not lack personal courage.” While the Soviet government unexpectedly exposes herself is not fully competent leaders: “Many of the facts and wrong actions of Stalin, particularly in the field of violation of Soviet law, became known only recently, after the death of Stalin, mainly in connection with the exposure of a gang of Beria and the establishment of the party’s control over the organs of state security”.

In the third part are encouraging statements by Chinese, French and American Communist parties about exposing the cult of personality and criticized the Italian Communist Palmiro Togliatti, “a thorough and interesting interview” which, in the opinion of the CPSU Central Committee, “contained incorrect position”.

Finally, in the fourth and final part of the Communists outlines the challenges ahead, and no specifics about the “demolition of statues” or “rename” is named in honor of Stalin geographic features in these objectives. There are others: to fulfill five-year plan, to observe socialist legality, to resist the aggressive NATO bloc. “Any vicious, slanderous attacks of our enemies will not be able to stop the irresistible course of historical development of mankind towards communism” – so concludes the document.

The consequences of this decision. From the socialist camp disappeared Albania, and in October of the same year there was a revolt in Hungary suppressed by Soviet troops under the command of Marshal Zhukov, who received a fourth title of Hero of the Soviet Union. Then from behind the debunking of Stalin soured relations with China that eventually led to military conflict in 1969.

In the 1957 “antiparty group of Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich and joined them Shepilova” for the first time tried to send the first Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Nikita Khrushchev to resign, but in the end, the participants themselves have lost their jobs. On prison terms, not to mention the executions, no one thought the times have changed. In 1964, more than a good conspiracy still stripped Khrushchev of power, he became the first and, except for Gorbachev, the only Soviet leader who left his post in life. The political “thaw” lasted some time after his resignation, its formal completion is the process of Sinyavsky and Daniel, which began in the fall of 1965. Two writers were convicted for having passed on their works for printing abroad.

It is impossible to give a definite answer to the question, what would have happened if Khrushchev did not publish the decision in Newspapers, restricting inner-party discussion. Or, on the contrary, had gone further, having redeemed all victims of repression, not part of them. In a totalitarian state, the exposure of the leader, who for decades portrayed infallible, can lead to serious social upheaval, but in the USSR they managed to avoid – the excitement was only in Georgia. During the crackdown dissatisfied with the revelations of Stalin killed, according to various estimates, from 15 to 150 people.

Thus there is an opinion that Khrushchev and his criticism of Stalin laid under the Soviet Union, the bomb that exploded during perestroika, but many such bombs were laid both the previous and subsequent leaders.

Perhaps the only thing you can blame Khrushchev, is that because of the incompleteness, uncertainty and partiality of his revelations in Russia there is still no slim and suits the majority of citizens of the concept of attitude to Stalin. For the intelligentsia and descendants of the repressed, it remains an Ogre without a single bright spot for supporters of a “strong hand” – the only real “father of Nations” (repression, they either ignore or do not recognize).

Any attempt of anyone to articulate a position beyond these black-and-white paradigms encountered criticism from both sides – as was the statement of Vladimir Putin that “all the positive, which, of course, was, however, was achieved at an unacceptable price”.

However, the blame is not only Khrushchev, but the pronounced ambiguity of Stalin’s policy.

Interpretations can be many, but there is one indisputable fact: after the conviction of the cult of mass repressions in our country. Yes, there were Novocherkassk 1962, were dissidents, was the shooting of the White house in 1993, was the war in Chechnya. But mass repression and deportations or executions for the wrong political position in the past.

Related posts:
Shoigu presented awards to the winners of the army WHC
"The future President of Ukraine Savchenko promised to pull the Russians to his Adam's Apple
Medvedev was jealous of the cows: "I would on this farm remained"
The Kremlin denied "recommendations" to all officials to return the children from abroad

Recommended

More Stories From Politics