Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev

< < Return to Book Page

Prologue

For a long time now my comrades have been asking me whether I was going to write my memoirs (and not just asking, but urging me to). Because I, and my generation in general, lived in very interesting times: the revolution, the Civil War, and everything connected with the transition from capitalism to socialism, as well as the developing and strengthening of socialism. It was an entire epoch. It fell to my lot to take an active part in the political struggle from the very first days after I joined the party [in 1918]. The whole time I held elected positions of one kind or another. The Civil War and the Great Patriotic War, and domestic developments in our country, have been treated extensively in the press. But there are “blank spots” that are incomprehensible to many. For a long time they were incomprehensible to me as well. After Stalin’s death, when we had the opportunity to acquaint ourselves with archival material that had previously been unknown to us, we began to see many things in a different light. Previously there had been only the blind confidence that we had in Stalin, and therefore everything that was done under his leadership was treated as necessary, as the only correct thing that could have been done. But when we ourselves began thinking in a somewhat critical way, we began checking the facts, to the extent possible, against archival data.

Many people who meet and talk with me ask if I am going to write my memoirs about the period in which I lived. They all argue, and I myself understand this, that it was a time filled with great responsibilities, a very important period in history, and that therefore people would want to know about it from a man who was right there, who lived in those times and held a high position, as happened with me. I would like future generations to have the opportunity to judge for themselves the things that transpired in the period when I was alive. This period was indeed one of great significance. It was a magnificent time because of the grandeur of the actions carried out by the party in reconstructing industry, agriculture, culture, and public administration. At the same time, many things were done that hindered our forward development, and if these things had not been done, our achievements would have been even grander.

I understand the concern of these friends who have insistently urged me to take up the pen. A time will come when literally every word of people who lived in our era will become “worth its weight in gold.” This will be especially true of people whose fate it was to be near the helm of power, from which the entire enormous ship of our state was steered in restructuring the sociopolitical life of our country, in the process exerting an enormous influence on developments worldwide. However, I must work without actually having access to archival materials. It is too complicated [to try to use such materials], and in my situation now it is probably impossible.

I want to be very fair [ochen pravdivym––that is, very accurate about the facts], and I will refer to facts so that future generations (and it is for them that I am writing) can verify them. I will indicate sources that may be referred to in order to find out about things in more detail, to verify and understand the facts. On many questions that I consider especially interesting for future generations the facts were recorded in minutes. People can acquaint themselves with these in detail. These archival materials are not accessible today, but some day they will become available to everyone. Even today I don’t think the bulk of this material is closed to the public.

I would like to express my opinion on a number of questions, knowing from experience that future generations will eagerly grasp at every word dealing with this extremely important period of history, one filled with great responsibilities, the one in which we lived, worked, and built a powerful state. This was done by our efforts, by the efforts of the people, the party, and the leaders of that time, who were the organizers of the masses. It was my good luck to be one of that number, on various rungs of the ladder at various times, from base-level party organizations all the way up to the top leadership bodies—the Central Committee of the CPSU, its Politburo and Presidium—and the top posts of chairman of the Council of Ministers and first secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU. It fell to my lot to be present when many important questions were decided, and I took part in putting those decisions into effect. I was a participant in the events of this crucial time. I therefore consider it my duty to express my opinion.

I know in advance that no opinion will satisfy everyone, and it is not my intention to try to do that. My only wish is that, among the opinions that will be recorded in one form or another and that will remain as a legacy for future generations, my opinion too will become known. There were commonly held opinions and there were differences on many particular questions. This is only natural. There is nothing contradictory in this. In fact, that’s how it will be in the future as well. The truth is born out of debate. Even in a single party, standing on the basis of a single, highly principled Marxist-Leninist viewpoint, people can have different conceptions, different shades of opinion, in trying to decide one or another question. Living in a time when a flexible approach is required for solving problems, I know that differing points of view arise, views that may even be sharply opposed to one another, but that does not bother me.

I place my reliance on those people who in the future will, as it were, act as judges. It will be the people themselves who will judge, who will acquaint themselves with this material and draw their own conclusions. I don’t think that what I say is necessarily the truth. No, each person will find the truth for himself or herself, comparing different points of view on one or another question at one or another time. That is all I wish for. Only a foolish person wants to “cut everyone’s hair to the same length,” to reduce everything to one and the same level, to denounce as heresy or stupidity or even a crime anything that doesn’t fit a certain viewpoint. Let history itself be the judge. Let the people judge.

For that reason I ask in advance that I be forgiven for any inaccuracies the reader may find in my memoirs. I am presenting my own personal view. This is how I see things now, how I understand them and write about them. I don’t want to adapt myself to what others want, to be a timeserver. I don’t want to hold my tongue or suppress the truth. I don’t want to gloss things over or varnish our reality. Our reality doesn’t need varnishing because in itself it is grand and immense enough. It was my good fortune, certainly, to have lived at such a critical, transitional time, a time when we broke up the old way of life, based on capitalist-landowner foundations, tossed it aside, and built a new life on the basis of new theories and a new practice.

Theory without practice is dead. What happened with us was that on the basis of the most advanced theory, Marxist-Leninist theory, we laid the groundwork for achievements in practice. This is a very complicated matter, because during this period [of transition from capitalism to socialism] mistakes and miscalculations, whether intended or not, cannot be excluded. As the saying goes, may our descendants forgive us. May they consider the fact that this was the first experience [in trying to build socialism]. That’s why it was unique, and as for subsequent attempts, they were a kind of repetition of the first. May we be judged in such a way that allowances are made for the conditions in which we lived and worked. We did our work first, and only afterward did we start to write memoirs, so that the good things created in our history by us, by the party, the working class, and the toiling peasantry, would not be lost sight of, and so that the mistakes—and I would also say, the crimes committed in the name of the party and for the party, supposedly—would not be repeated.

Today it is clear that there was abuse of power. The reports at the Twentieth Party Congress, and again, to some degree, at the Twenty-Second Party Congress, shed light on the causes giving rise to this abuse. I think that everything was correct that was said on this subject [by those two party congresses]. Even today I take my stand on the positions adopted then, and it is precisely from that standpoint that I will tell about the times of heavy responsibility on the eve of the Great Patriotic War and during the war, and then I will continue to lay out the course of events as long as I have the strength to do so, relating how I saw and understood events then and how I evaluate them now.

Where to begin? I think it’s necessary to begin with the figure of Stalin. Why? That will become clear (if I succeed in carrying this project through to the end). If I were to try, to some degree, to give an explanation at this point, I could say that before Stalin’s death we considered everything done under him to have been irreproachably correct, the only thing possible for the revolution to survive, and for it to develop and grow stronger. It’s true that in the final period of Stalin’s life, the time leading up to the Nineteenth Party Congress [1952] and especially just after it, some doubts began to arise in our minds. I am speaking of those who were in his immediate circle (myself, Bulganin, Malenkov, and to some extent, Beria). We had no opportunity to test those doubts then. Only after Stalin’s death, and not all at once, did we find enough party and civic courage to lift the curtain and look behind the scenes of history. It was then that I learned some facts I want to shed light on now.

< < Return to Book Page