Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 19, 2016
Document Release Date: 
August 14, 2000
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
November 5, 1968
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2.pdf1.53 MB
Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 25X1A2G Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : CIA-RDP78-03061 A000400030013-2 November 1968 NEO-STALINISM IN THE SOVIET UNION "... the serious violations by Stalin of Lenin's precepts, abuse of power, mass repres- sions against honorable Soviet people, and other activities in the period of the personality cult make it impossible to leave the bier with his body in the mausoleum of V.I. Lenin." N.S. Khrushchev at Twenty- second Party Congress, October 1961 Double or triple the guard beside his grave, So that he will not rise again, and with him -- the past... We carried him away -- threw him out of the mausoleum, But how shall we remove Stalin from within Stalin's heirs?... True, there are those who hurl abuse at Stalin from the platform, Who secretly at night ponder their former glory... They were the former pillars: with no liking for empty slave camps, Or halls jammed with people where poets recite their verses... As long as the heirs of Stalin remain on this earth, I shall feel Stalin is still there in the mausoleum. From "Stalin's Heirs," by Yevgeny Yevtushenko, The term "Stalinism" has come to signify many things -- the arbitrary rule of a nation by a despot, the rigid control of a nation's economy, the collectivization of agriculture, the massive displacements of minority groups, the purge trials, forced labor camps, manic secretiveness, a mas- sive secret police system, and, pervading everything, a reign of terror. The word can legitimately be stretched to fit the entire gamut of develop- ments in the Soviet Union from the late 20's until Stalin's death in 1953, during most of which time Stalin literally was responsible for every major action. Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 Stalin made a mockery of legality and justice. He stifled the entire intelligentsia of the country, insisting that all artistic work conform to the principles of "socialist realism." Internationally, he demanded, and obtained, total, blind obedience from Communist parties throughout the world. His conduct of diplomatic relations was marked by a mania for espionage and subversion which was in turn only a reflection of a basic paranoia. All these features nurtured in the Soviet leadership, perhaps as a permanent ineradicable legacy, a frame of mind we can call Stalinism -- an orthodoxy ever inclined to preserve those features of the past that proved. successful (whatever its failures) in preserving the Party's unchal- lenged strangle hold on political power, a frame of mind that shies away from experimentation with new forms. The total cost of Stalinism can never be reckoned. In terms of human lives, Soviet scientist Andrei D. Sakharov estimates that 10 to 15 million people perished from hardship, torture and execution. Robert Conquest, in his recent, definitive book, The Great Terror, estimates that Stalin's death toll may be as high as 20 million. Stalin's death in 1953, after 29 years of rule, left his successor, Georgi Malenkov faced with the necessity of consolidating his hold on the reins of power and the need to set a new direction for the nation's eco- nomic and political life which would be devoid of the worst of Stalin's excesses. Gradually, a decompression process began. Beria, head of the secret police, was defeated in his bid for power and executed. The secret police forces were purged. Huge numbers of prisoners were released from Stalin's labor camps (leaving millions in the camps, however). The Malenkov leadership gradually developed an economic program designed to sharply increase the availability of food, clothing and housing. This program came to be known as the "New Course." Early in 1955 Khrushchev came to power, deposing Malenkov and one year later made the "secret speech" that radically changed the entire po- litical. life of the nation. In this lengthy speech to the 20th Congress of the CPSU, February 1956, Khrushchev vehemently attacked the entire "cult of Stalin's personality" -- his person, his mistakes, and his misdeeds, particularly the wholesale Party purges. Then, having exposed some of Stalin's greater crimes (although Khrushchev came far from telling the entire truth, which would have implicated the whole Soviet leadership, himself included, in the crimes), Khrushchev was committed "rectifying the errors" of Stalin's time. Under Khrushchev, de-Stalinization had its ups and downs. Its rapid growth early in 1956 was almost entirely reversed by the end of the year as a consequence of the riots in Poland and the Revolution which exploded in Hungary. Nevertheless, insofar as the person of Stalin was concerned there was no letup and Stalin became an unperson almost overnight. Although Khrushchev's de-Stalinization campaign was more an attack on his political foes than an effort to right the wrongs which still persisted in the Soviet Union, many first steps were taken under Khrushchev to re- move the stain left by Stalin. One of Khrushchev's most dramatic steps Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 was the large-scale of freeing hundreds of thousands of political prisoners. Those disposed of earlier could only be rehabilitated posthumously: in 1936-39, according to Sakharov, more than 1,200,000 Communist Party members, or half of the total membership, were arrested, and of those only 50,000 regained freedom. Other steps toward de-Stalinization were carried out in each major sector of Soviet society. In the cultural sphere, significant books and articles began to appear in the liberal press, particularly in the monthly Novy Mir (New World). These included Vladimir Dudintsev's novel Not by Bread Alone (1956), a number of Ilya Ehrenburg's thought-provoking essays (1957 through 1964), and Alexander Solzhenitsyn's politically momentous novel about Stalin's camps, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1962). In the economy, Khrushchev attempted to decentralize management in order to break the bureaucracy's strangle hold on initiative. He abol- ished most of the old-line industrial ministries in 1957, and transferred many of their functions to regional economic councils, He also broke with Stalin's self-defeating chauvinism when he strongly encouraged Soviet engineers to study foreign techniques, especially American, and apply them in their own work. In military policy, Khrushchev downgraded conventional arms in favor of missiles and nuclear weapons. (This policy also enabled Khrushchev to release military men from service at a time when the USSR was suffering labor shortages.) Khrushchev ordered that the laws of the USSR be exhaustively studied, set up a commission to'draft a new constitution to take the place of the unimplemented Stalin Constitution of 1936, and extended feelers to the outside world. Not only did Khrushchev and his leading associates travel widely throughout the world, but so did relatively large numbers of tech- nical and cultural representatives of the USSR, Exchange programs were encouraged. Tourists became almost commonplace in major Soviet cities, Moreover, jamming of foreign radio broadcasts was almost completely halted. In the political sphere Khrushchev scored some notable successes. He removed from the party's top ruling body most of the dead dictator's oldest accomplices; he exposed himself and his views to millions of So- viet citizens in his travels throughout the country (notably to farm areas); his frequent speeches were published; Central Committee meetings were pub- licized and the populace began to feel that their opinions were being con- sidered by the country's leadership. Khrushchev was unsuccessful, however, in his move in November 1962 to divide the bulk of Communist Party func- tionaries into two groups, those concerned with industry and those con- cerned with agriculture, a move which antagonized and alarmed Party offi- cials who had become set in the bureaucratic ways of Stalinism. The changes of the de-Stalinization period, however, were superficial for Khrushchev, himself, remained a dictator and made use of the same Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : CjA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 machinery built by Stalin. (The secret police was curbed primarily by agreement among the leadership that no one single leader should ever again be able to use the weapon to terrorize the Party as Stalin had done. The police remained just as vigilant, and potentially just as arbitrary and brutal, toward the ordinary citizen.) And unceasing resistance to de- Stalinization by entrenched officials was effective in restricting the ac- tual scope of changes. Moreover, Khrushchev, who had himself served Stalin and was not free of the Stalinist taint, did not consistently press for changes. Thus, many aspects of de-Stalinization are remembered more as proposals, partly formed ideas, or attitudes than as accomplished acts. Nevertheless, the USSR of October 1961+, when Khrushchev was overthrown, was a far different country from the USSR of March 1953, when Stalin died. Khrushchev's ouster resulted in part from the Stalinists' resistance to change. After all, the key party, government and military leaders of 1961+ were almost all appointed and advanced by Stalin in the 15 years between the Great Purges and his death. They had shown the aptitude and ability to survive the Stalinist system, and many feared that they would lose status in any other system. There were undoubtedly other reasons for ousting Khrushchev: he impulsively launched substantial programs with- out thoroughly airing'them with his fellow Presidium members; he spoke intemperately and crudely, embarrassing many Soviet leaders; he posed a threat to the security of top military leaders; Soviet foreign relations had been a series of failures, such as the disastrous Cuban missile affair, the ever-worsening conflict with Communist Chinese leaders, and the weak- ening solidarity of the world. Communist movement. Of immediate alarm to his opponents, he had made tentative plans to seek a detente with Bonn. The new Kremlin leaders had united in opposing Khrushchev. There is little evidence, however, that they have subsequently been able to agree consistently on much else. Neither party boss Leonid Brezhnev, nor any of the other leaders has been able to establish his clear-cut primacy. One result of this situation has been top-level indecision in the USSR, an unusual circumstance for a ,Party boasting a monolithic structure. In this circumstance, it is hardly surprising that the developments of the four years of the Brezhnev-Kosygin regime have been marked by increasing reversions to Stalinist mentality and practices. This pattern became evident soon after the new regime took over, and has been accent- uated as the years have gone by. Criticism of Stalin's person and his mistakes virtually stopped within five months after Brezhnev and Kosygin displaced Khrushchev. Rehabilitations of Stalin's victims dwindled and, contrary to earlier practice, no longer mentioned Stalin's guilt or the euphemistic "period of the cult of the individual" when they exonerated "victims of false accusations" who had been "illegally repressed" or whose lives had been "tragically broken off." The measure of the political climate in Moscow is perhaps most fre- quently taken from the state of affairs among the intelligentsia; this is Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 4 Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 due to a number of factors, among them the relative volubility of this group, its access to westerners, and its quick reflection in the press, theater, and artistic styles. Therefore the infamous trial of the two Soviet writers Sinyavsky and Daniel in February 1966 was correctly viewed at the time as the harbinger of much more stringent controls over society. The pressure on Soviet citizens to toe the line gradually built up there- after. Fewer and fewer truly creative works were published in the press, art shows of anything not conforming to the worst "socialist realism" were halted, travel to and cultural exchanges with foreign countries were gradually curtailed, Soviet tourists ceased traveling, etc. By April 1968, not only had the de-Stalinization campaign come to a complete end, but a new period -- which can perhaps best be described as "Neo-Stalinism" -- began. The occasion was the plenum meeting of the Central Committee on 9-10 April at the end of which a communique was issued which warned of a "sharp aggravation of the ideological struggle between capitalism and socialism." The committee also warned against contact with foreigners -- even foreign Communists -- since any of them might be agents of capitalist subversion. This typically Stalinist xenophobia did not pass unnoticed. Brezhnev personally addressed the meeting, but his speech has never been released. Following the plenum meeting, Brezhnev -- who seemed to have taken charge of the new campaign against "foreign ideological subversion" -- and other top party leaders traveled throughout the country addressing party groups. It was evident from the speeches and statements during that period that the Soviet leader- ship was deeply concerned over widespread dissent within the Soviet Union and throughout the Soviet bloc. In the face of this mounting problem, however, their reaction, significantly, was to retreat into the cocoon of the safe, Stalinist practices of the past, however discredited, rather than to move ahead with new, progressive solutions to their problems, A leading Swiss journalist has described Neo-Stalinism in the follow- ing terms: "Neo-Stalinism is an attempt to restore the guidelines and methods of Stalinist rule which were condemned or modified after 1953 and to make them once again the foundation of Soviet policy. The neo-Stalinist turn signifies a return beyond the 20th Party Congress and a rejection of developments since then, including reform communism, recognition of the "individual road," and West-East coexistence. The opinion seems to prevail in present- day Soviet leadership that post-Stalinist policies did not produce the hoped-for successes and that reforms and coexistence only undermined the Soviet power base, while in Stalin's time there was "quiet and order" in the satellite empire and the Soviet govern- ment inspired fear and respect in the outside world." *"Czechoslovak Reforms Squashed by Soviet Neo-Stalinism," by Kux, Neue Zuercher Zeitung, 25 September 1968. The complete text of this outstand- ing article is attached. Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : CIS-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 The nature of the neo-Stalinist reaction which has set in is to be found in both major and minor incidents. Obviously the overwhelming evi- dence was given in the decision to invade Czechoslovakia. As Kux points out, this was actually a step not to correct a deviation, a counter- revolution that had already broken out, but rather a step to eliminate the possibility that something might happen. This act was based on the same reasoning employed by Stalin when he purged potential enemies of the Party -- before they had become such. Among the major events in the re-emergence of Stalinism has been the lengthy series of political trials, some well known, but others totally unknown. The first and most sensational was the trial of Daniel and Sinyavsky in February 1966. Another, involving Alexander Ginzberg and three of his friends, took place in January 1968. The most recent case is that of Pavel Litvinov, Mme. Yuli Daniel and three others, which is mentioned below. However the publicity attending these trials should not be allowed to obscure the fact that literally dozens of other political trials have been held in what has been a growing wave of deliberate ter- rorism during the past three years. Occasional glimpses of the nature and extent of these trials are afforded by documents smuggled to the free world, as was the case in the Chornovil papers -- a series of documents by an imprisoned Ukrainian lawyer which have revealed a major wave of repression which swept across the Ukraine, beginning in 1965. Pavel Litvinov, Mme. Daniel and their colleagues, most of whom had joined in earlier protests against the denial of freedom, demonstrated on 25 August in Red Square for a free and independent Czechoslovakia, for Czech-Soviet friendship, and against the Soviet occupation of Czechoslo- vakia. They were beaten (one had four front teeth knocked out and looked so bad he was not included among those later tried semi-publicly) and locked. up by plainclothesmen said to be KGB personnel. At the trial the courtroom was packed with spectators loudly hostile to the accused, while only a, small number of close relatives of the accused were allowed in. The accused were peremptorily found guilty of disturbing public order, and even their closing statements were interrupted and disputed by the judge. Their sentences were up to three years at hard labor (for the poet Vadim Delone) and 5 years exile to an as yet unannounced location for Litvinov and Mme. Daniel. The manner in which this trial was conducted indicates that its basic purpose was to serve notice on Soviet citizens that no form of overt protest will be permitted. The semi-secrecy of the trial was designed to limit, to the extent possible, foreign repercussions. One measure of the extent of re-Stalinization was provided by Mme. Daniel who described the reticence of those who hold divergent views but do not express them. She appeared to be criticizing those who play important roles in Soviet society and have made names for themselves, but fail to use the weight this gives them to state their dissent. Dozens of less dramatic incidents may be cited exemplify the turn toward. Stalinism, among them: Approved For Release 2005/08/17 CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 -- Soviet historiographers are sharply split in attempting to describe and explain events which occurred during Stalin's reign, such as the collectivization of agriculture. Typically, a book published in 1966 which denounced Stalin's mistakes in the collectivization was violently criticized in Questions of CPSU History No. 6 (June 1968). The attack implicitly absolves Stalin of all blame and even goes so far as to assert that collectivization "developed on a sound basis with observance of the principle of voluntariness." -- In much the same sense, a recent book by General Shtemenko, The General Staff During the War, whitewashes the Soviet war record and in the process refurbishes Stalin's reputation as a wartime leader. It main- tains that his military prowess and personal courage were exemplary and it attempts to minimize the culpability of Stalin and his coterie for the disasters that befell the Red Army in 1941. -- The Red Army newspaper Krasnaya Zyezda recently attacked the popular Taganka Theater and Theater magazine for their modernist view of the arts and recommended that the Taganka Theater produce more works by Mikhail Sholokhov, Alexander Fadeyev, Alexander Korneichuk and other pil- lars of Stalinist thought. -- The invasion of Czechoslovakia was accompanied by a resump- tion of the jamming of BBC and Voice of America broadcasts, which had ceased five years earlier. -- Sovetskaya Rossiya, of 4 October, devoted three columns to attacking Russian drama critic V. Kadrin for a book in which he had been "too favorable toward the contemporary theater, while dismissing works of the Stalin period.... There is no room for such views in Soviet art," the paper said. The president of the Soviet Academy of Art, Nikolai V. Tomsky, wrote an article for Pravda, published 24 September, in which he severely criticized nonconformist artists who do not create in the school of "so- cialist realism." Even more significantly, he attacked persons who are members of exhibition committees who determine what is to be shown and who thus have life and death control over all Soviet art. -- Work is underway on a new epic film about World War II in which Stalin is depicted as a "kindly, wise and trusted leader." This is the first major film portrayal of Stalin since "The Fall of Berlin," a hero-worship spectacular made shortly before Stalin's death in 1953. Other examples will be found in the attached materials. While these examples appear to be relatively minor froth on the surface, they are in truth only surface manifestations of very major conflicts going on behind the locked doors of the Kremlin. Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : Cj1 -RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 And where do the ordinary Soviet citizens stand on these issues? Again, one can only judge from the few instances of dissidence that come into view, such as the protests by a limited number of intellectuals in Red Square against the invasion of Czechoslovakia. It is hard to imagine that the peasant or the worker welcomes any return to Stalinism -- it was they who paid by far the highest toll for his despotism. One cannot help but think of the roughly parallel case of Czechoslovakia which only a short time ago was considered to be the most Stalinist of the satellites. However, when a real possibility of change came, the people unanimously stepped forward to hail the leaders who promised a total renunciation of the past. Approved For Release 2005/08/177 : CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 CURZSTLiN SCIENCE MONITOR 6ctobe r 3968 Neo-Staiinism gains in Written for The Christian Science Monitor A new rMtittcal idt"'1@ now appear to hold away In the Soviet Union -- neo-Stalinism.. The Kremlin was ready to fight before Behind it is a hard-line philosophy con- Hitler attacked. cerned with the greatness of the Soviet state : At the time of the Czechoslovak crisis in ;and with the mission of its ruling party. 7038, we are told, Moscow twice offered to Neo-Stalinism has a modern, efficiency- go to war for, Czechoslovakia--even if France conscious, flexible approach to policy forma- would not fulfill her treaty obligations to- tion and considers many of Stalin's meth- ward Prague. The first time, the authors ods archaic. But, by restoring Stalin to his say, was on April 26 in a speech by then historic.role as a great leader and architect, President Mikhail I. Kalinin; the second of the Soviet communism, neo-Stalinism was at the time of Munich when apparently pays tribute to the continuity of the Soviet Stalin informed Czechoslovak President Ed- state and sets up a barrier against criticism ward Benes through the Czech Communist of the Communist Party. Party leader Klement Gottwald of the Soviet The neo-Stalinists are believed to be Union's readiness to fight on.Czechoslo- dominant in the politbureau. Their spokes- ,yn}tih+h 010tH, man is second party secretary Mikhail A. The authors omit to mention that at the Suslov, he is seconded by trade-union chief time of Munich Czechoslovakia and the So- Alexandr N. Shelpin, the politbdreau's viet Union had no common border; and that youngest member. the 40 divisions and three tank corps which . The politbareau's so-called Jkranian fac-' Moscow allegedly held in readiness would tion (Pyotr Y. Shelest, Nikolai V. Podgorny,' have had to cross Romanian territory in or- Dmitri S. Polyansky) also, is neo-Stalinist dder to reach a remote and mountainous part inclined. General Secretary Leonid I. Brezlt, bf Czechoslovakia. nev is close to this group. Western historians question the serious- ness of Moscow's offer to fight. But the story ew line spelled out of the offer has been revived of late in order The latest move of the neo-Stalinists on to place the Soviet Union in the role of the' Ale domestic scene was the exoneration of providential protector of Czechoslovakia. Stalin of what was believed to.have been his In elaborating this episode, the authors ,greatest blunder: his trust in Hitler and his tend a bouquet to Stalin and accuse Mr. -i,.,,a ..a C..-4..4 a.,r..,,- ,,,, 41'. a,rA Mf +11o Benes of having betrayed his people by re- The new line was spelled out in Ivo. IZ 01 ;Iommunist, the leading political and theo- Nonaggression pact explained ;etical journal of the party's central com- British and French offers to negotiate mittee.,There the history of the years from with the Soviet Union about a common de- }t1938 to 1941 was authoritatively rewritten fense against Hitler are pictured as decep- liy two historians of the neo-Stalinist school,, tive. The alleged purpose of the offers was X. Klrvostov and A. Grilev. Dr. Vladimir to involve the Soviet Union prematurely in 1~. Khvostov is the director of the institute a war with the Nazis without offering ade- 'R the history of the Communist Party of quate guarantee of Western aid. ltlne Soviet Union of the Academy of Sci: Only after reports of secret deals between $cnces. London and Berlin. had reached Moscow {.,1' The thesis of the two authors is that the was the Soviet-Nazi Nonaggression Pact ;9bviets were not taken by surprise in June, of August, 1939, concluded. Stalin, the au- thatat 1941, that that haadd they used never the time trusted er gained Nazis, through and thors assert, had no illusions about the pact: th .the. Stalin-Hitler pact for intensive war The Soviet Government never believed in the loyalty of the Nazis concerning the elude, a although h Consequently, nuummer riccall ally in the authors to con the - fufiliment of their (treaty] obligations," elude, wriCas. Nazis, the Soviets entered the war under they The entry of Soviet forces into Poland the more favorable conditions than would have been the case at an earlier date. September is described as a "lib- . crating move." Soviet war preparations, the authors re- call, started at an early date. In 1930-1931 The period from then until June,. 1941, the war industry turned out 860 planes and is described as a time of "intensive Soviet 740 tanks. The corresponding figures in 1938 war preparations to ward off imperialist were 5,469 planes and 2,270 tanks. aggression." Allocations for military needs. were increased from 25.6 percent of, the Role of protector total budget in 1939 to 43.4 percent In 1941. BetmApp Sea f6vMeM sCo%V }7 : CIAJ }s sQm9oW?~ fW19O4(O 13-2 tput of try preduced 17,000 planes and 7,600 tanks. ..The Army was ? overhauled. antiaircraft, CPYRGH T CPYRGH Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 ,defenses reorganized. In June, .194.1, the military schools had five times as many students as in 1937. , Quoting from the archives of: the defense department the authors claim' that large- scale mobilization started in the beginning of 1941. Part of the forces stationed in Si beria, in the Far East, and in the Urals were then transferred to the western border, and nearly 800,000 reservists called up. According to the authors, the Soviets were well informed of Hitler's intentions-they did not need Churchill's warning-belt they tried 1o the very end to delay the attack through diplomatic maneuvers in order to gain lime. Two mistakes admitted Only two Soviet mistakes are admitted: the assumption that the armies could be placed on war footing within a few hours and belated transmission of the Kremlin's telephoned order to fight. In this context the authors mention, in passing, the "negative effects of the cult of 'personality and of unfounded repressions of the military and political cadres of tho armed forces." Although the 'odds were staked against them; the Soviets did not give in, "The party [meaning Stalin] took energetic meas- ures to weld together the efforts of the front and of the rear to defeat the enemy. A State Defence Committee was formed 'un- der the chairmanship of I. V. Stalin." This now reading of history is diametri- cally opposed to the carefully documented fhidings of Prof. Alexander M. Nekrichi in his, book "June 21, 1041," At the height of the Khruschev era this book pinned the blame for the lack of 'preparations squarely on Stalin. . , After Mr. Khruslichev's fall from power the neoStalinists counterattacked.-In 1967 Professor Nekrich was expelled from the party, but for awhile his views still con% tinued to gain recognition. Izvestia Stands Forsqure for Sothdist liwwus-uid B Art Rejoinder: LIGHT AND SHADOWS. (By B. Shcherbakov, artist. Izvestia, Sept. 20, p. 4. Complete text:) The Art Pub- lishing House has issued V. Antonova's "The State Tretyakov Gallery" in a large edition in the "Cities and Museums of the World" series. The book provides information about the fa- mous art gallery, Its history and social significance. It tells how the collection grew during Soviet years as works of Soviet art were added. The book is richly illustrated. All this prom- ises the reader an interesting acquaintance with the genuine masterpieces of this national treasure-house. But As he gets deeper into the book, a sense of puzzlement and disillusion- ment grows in connection with the treatment of the work of in- dividual artists and the tendentious'selection of the illustra- tions. One would expect the gallery's most important works of art to be chosen for illustrations. But the book does not contain reproductions of works of Soviet art that have become clas- sics, such as loganson's "At an Old Urals Factory" and "In- terrogation of Communists," the Kukryniksy canvas "The End," Nesterov's "Portrait of Academician I. G. Pavlov," the paintings of Grekov and Brodsky or sculptures by Mukhina, Shadr, Konenkov, Vuchetich and Tomsky. On the other hand, in- significant works, remote from realism, are reproduced. The writer tries to give a vivid presentation of works of the mod- ernist trend. For example, Kandinsky's canvas "Vagueness" is reproduced in color, whereas marry splendid works of clas- sical Russian art and Soviet art appear in black and white, The principle by which the works of prominent artists were chosen also seems strange. Out of the whole rich heritage of M. V. Nesterov, why was his pasteboard "The Birth of Christ," painted in 1891, reproduced, but not ,a single work of the Soviet period of his activity? The selection of works of the wonder- ful artist Konclialovsky also causes chagrin. Our contempo- raries knowvery well that most of his paintings were produced in Soviet times. But his work is represented among the illus- trations by the far from best still life "Dry Paint," produced in 19131 It is utterly incomprehensible why such masterpieces by Valentin Serov as "Girl With Peaches" or "Portrait of Mika Morozov" were Ignored, whereas his copies of ikons were presfroved For Release 2005/08/17 : CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 ApTnrnvcrl Pnr Pcicacc 9ulul 1QA117 (IA_RIlP7R_f13f1R1 Aflflfldflflfl3flf113_2 One of the important distinctive features of Soviet art is Its multinational character. Yet the book reproduces paintings only of Russian Republic artists. An exception has been made only for the Azerbaidzhanian Salakhov. Where are the artists of other republics-Saryan, Nikoladze, Azgur, Mikenas, Shovkunenko, Salkalns, Tansykbayev, Dzliaparidze, Yablon- skaya, and many others? It is hard to agree with the interpretation of individual movements in art. It is widely known, for instance, that Kazimir Malevich rejected the representational principle In art and was a follower of abstractionism. But the writer of the book says, not without symp ithy, that Malevich "sought to convey in art empty space, endlessness, trajectories inhabited by visible but weightless substance" and emphasized Male- vich's great popularity among adherents of abstract art. The legitimate question arises: What guided the publishing house in Issuing such a book? Our Thoughts and Disputes: LIFE IS THE SOURCE OF CRE- ATIVITY. (By U.S.S.R. People's Artist Yu. Vuchetich. Izves- tia, Sept. 21, p. 2. Complete text:) One morning I gathered a bouquet of peonies in the garden. The white flowers with the soft pink spots gave off the most subtle frangrance. I placed the bouquet in a vase before the mirror. It was an early .morning in summer. The sun penetrated the room through the green crowns of tall trees. The sunlight seemed to take on the fresh colors of the outdoors. The peonies, reflected twice, In the mirror and in the sunlit window pane, suddenly glowed with such color that I forgot everything as I stood looking at them. At that moment one of my artist friends came to visit me. I showed him the peonies and he, like myself, froze in delight. We stood in worshipful silence before this beauty. Finally I asked him to take canvas and paint this bouquet in the whole gamut of colors created by the light and the reflections in mirror and window pane. But my friend was silent and hung his head. What was wrong? Had I offended him somehow? Then he said: "I can't. I can't convey all this beauty. I have forgotten how. If I were to try, the peonies would fade while I searched for the right combination of colors." I believed him. 'A fine painter, talented, yet he had lost the ability. What had happened? Let us not hide the fact that the demands on the artist's mastery have declined; we have begun to regard hack work with tolerance. But this is not all. Some artists' searches have drowned in floods of short- lived "fashionable" trends, have dissolved in them and ac- quired an overall grey and inexpressive tone. Shallowness of theme swallowed up other artists; it broke down, mixed up and confused the criteria we set for art. Man with his individual diversity and beauty began to disappear from their paintings, and even the background, the "architectural structure" and so on, entered the paintings only as an external indication of the times. For the image of man, left undisclosed, did not show the signs of the times, not to mention expressive social class signs. The impatient desire of some to "criticize," "to expose," began to spread. Artistry became secondary to satire on canvas. A noisy pseudo-artistic milieu reveled in portrayals of everyday scenes; genre superficiality was presented as a discovery, as the birth of the art of "the little man." The in- significant personality was counterposed to the purposeful, heroic personality. And for this purpose they invented con- flicts between "the little man" and "the huge, cold world," in which individuality allegedly is suppressed by the collective. In a related art, the art of the cinema, neorealism, a much talked of trend, one that evidently had some progressive sig- nificance in the conditions of Italy, became popular in this period. To spy upon "real life" with the eye of the movie camera and record the picture with photographic preciseness became the goal of such cinematographers. Not to mention those who, with amazing persistence, kept dragging us into pro auMV4 16?a0W21009MffPft `:s9j41 l*0- 'fA00040003001 ?Mwft*4 "neorealism"? Why is it new? Had the old realism of L. Tolstoy and Balzac exhausted itself? Or, for example, had the realism of Repin and Surikov somehow sinned against art? And was the conflict of "the little man" with society new to art? Let us be more precise: with capitalist society! No, there was nothing new in this conflict. The Italians in the cinema were following a long and well explored path, the path of showing what bourgeois society and the crazy world of fear and desperation does to man and his feelings and aspirations. But some people were overjoyed at this "discovery" of the neorealists and in our country too dashed off in search of the conflict of the "common man," the "little man," with society. With which society? With the society of this same person who was described as "common" and "little." There never were "common" and "little" people, only people; each person constitutes a huge world of feelings and thoughts, for "man is the greatest of the marvels he has created." For some reason at our artists' meetings we began to talk little of the heroic nature of Soviet man, of creating his image in art. It is by no means a matter of mechanically borrowing the Italian "neorealists'" method. If it were only that! Phil- istinism overwhelmed some artists, and ugliness in all its unex- pected varieties took the place of the beauty of the world around us. But the best artists of socialist art did indeed create mas- terpieces that amazed the world with the majesty of the ac- complishments and wealth of spirit of the new mail. Their work opened up a new era In the artistic development of mankind, they portrayed deeply and truthfully the birth, development and victory of the socialist social system. In ? images of enormous ideological and emotional power, images that educated the broad masses, Soviet artists affirmed the communist ideal. I shall not mention the names of the best of our artists-there are many of t.henm. Soviet artists created a highly artistic gallery, vast in scope, of typical images of Soviet people, a chronicle of their heroic deeds. And when we speak how of those who are falling into hack work and shallowness of theme or unthinkingly chas- ing after each latest zigzag of the silly Western art fashions, we have in mind, of course, only a few carriers of unhealthy trends in our artistic milieu. Genuinely progressive art, capable of retaining its signifi- cance for centuries, was always lofty In mastery and deeply human In content, filled with thoughts and aspirations of man- kind and concern for man. Great writers and artists have always understood that art never left man's side, always corresponded to his needs and his ideal, always helped him In pursuit of this ideal-was born with man and developed along with his historical life. Who of us does not remember "Chapayev," the famous film made by the Vasilyevs? These directors created an image of a hero that even our ill-wisher:; applauded. Or in art: "Lenin the Leader," "Lenin on the Platform" "At an Old Urals Fac- tory," "Transportation Being Sept in Order," "Interrogation of Communists," "The Sentry," "Worker and Collective Farm Woman"-there is enough in these canvases to show the face of our artistic culture, which is counterposed to modern dec- adent bourgeois art. But let us return to the discussion of so-called "new" trends, whatever names they bear. Do we see in them the humanistic Ideals of the vra, its heroic content? Ilan time been merciful toward the "iiispired" discoveries in the style of the "new trends' that were at first greeted lith extraordi- nary fuss, with tremendous pretensions and with chagrin at nonrecognition? What has remained of them in the memory of the people? With amazing wastefulness and with the bitterness of petty nihilists, people who called themselves artists trampled on beauty and rejected even what ancient )Hellas had left them as a heritage. They even hastened to replace the beauty of man's body, its plasticity and perfection, with angular features, putting outrageous images on shameless display and thereby opening the gates to bad taste. Sonic loot themselves in the flood of short-lived trends or simply became confused by the diversity of the world around them. The very colors on these ` ~ ~ 'dr Min{ tFt o c ~ 4?14 d rt it ~i~ 306IA000 Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 Al CPYRGH T trophip(I c ispropor ions that, even artists of the vlom' age wercr as hano'd oL In the age of thermonuclear reactions, supersoulc speeds aid the conquest of outer space,?solnc ills Is suddenly turned out to be on the periphery of society's life. It seems to me that this is because, in the pursuit of sup- posed innovation and cheap success, they somehow forgot about the chief function of art: to look into the soul of its con- temporary, the fighter and builder of the new life; to look deep, as deep as our times demand. In a half century elan has matured by a century, yet we still cannot portray this suitably. flow will we render account to posterity? It is -generally recognized that the flourishing of the personality is judged not from formless lumps but from lofty artistic images that disclose t[te concepts of beauty and harnNniy. Who is he, the hero of our Soviet times? The worker, whose hands create the material benefits of socialist society) the collective farmer, growing the grain for our daily bread! The Soviet soldier, who cleansed the world of fascism I The scientist splitting the atomic nucleus, the surgeon operating on the hu tan heart! Apparently no one would object to calling thein heroes. But [low are they to be portrayed? After all, they are utterly incompatible with shallowness of theme. What Is more, the heroic is difficult! For worthy portrayal of our contemporary one needs far-!runt-exhausted potentialities of art, one needs all the richness ;tnd diversity of color. But not only this. One must also be able to rise to the level of the hero, to penetrate his spirit, to be able to read and reflect his huge and complicated inner world. "Neo" does not help here. No coin ma shapes, not even a comma of wild color superim- posed on a chaotic intersection of lines and spots, can substi- tute for the image of our contemporary; it cannot substitute for the depth of his thought, his courage and, Ititally, his beauty! Raphael's "Sistine Madonna" - has been attracting pilgrims for several centuries. I lti:; paintini', has only (only!) beauty. The beauty of nialern:tl love, Maternal tenderness, eternal fonifninity, disclosed with :in a palette :nil virtuosity fit handling this pal)Lie. Leonardo da Vinci loved to tell his pupils the story of the razor. A ray of light once struck the razor, and the latter saw its reflection in a mirror. It was delighted with how it looked and complained at having to shave men's coarse beards. The razor was offended that its hr illiant blade had to be sharpened ton a rough whetstone, strapped and honed, it decided to hide. 'l'ime passed, and eventually fill' razor nt:tiiaged to see its re- fluction again. But. the blade np longer shcittc, it was eroded with coarse rust and had become ns rough-edged as a saw. R was no accident that. this story sprang from the artist's iniagination. As long as art serves a fully idea and its noble purpose of helping; people to retake our life beautiful, it dues not, lose its shine and it glistens as the sun. This is exactly how the art of socialist t?ealistit is. rl'?i. R, 1,761 THE WA SIB INGTON POST Soviets _111 cif Crackdown Ry Anatole Shub holfdavs, has resumed with who stood so close to the ern- w-ns,hli,ctnn Fnst rmel 1, 9crrlar VigM?? In Addition to Chills, dent inventions of imperialist MOSCOW, Oct, 5--Soviet Yugoslavia and long-favored propaganda concerning file Communist critics, seeking to targets in Czechoslovakia, the 'occupation' of Czechosinva- restore the "monolithic" politi? Soviet press Is probing deeper For Krasnays Zvezcla, the cal and cultural unity of the in exposing unacceptable "do- army paper, the targets were early 1950s, have been lashing, vint.ions." the lively Taganka Thealer out at heretics in Russia Itself Toda.v's Pravda contained a and Theater magazine. as Well as in Czechoslovakia long attack on Ernest Fischer, ?'f life and -deuce Communist. Party. And the world Communist retfbian and Marxist plliloso? mindedness---these aspects of movement. pher? socialist esthetics are indissn- I t t gether,"' the ro~v' c iF ePe~l 8"' '/08/ ~' :? '~f4dRiP) Edo 0E# 00 p0 `01r4. It recom- egun n prl anc emporar rnong the ran s of omrnu? ily slowed during the summer s nlst Party members any mended that, the i'aganka where," Pravda said, "a person T1 nfer prndnce more works by Mikhail Sholnkhnv, Alexan- der i'artevev, Alexander Kor- ncichuk and other stalwarts of she Stalin period. The foreign affairs weekly Za Rubezhom takes after the Czechoslovak press, in add!- lion to Yugoslav and Western publications. The Soviet weekly at:lncks the satirical lnsgsrilles halloo and i)ikn. braz, the Bratislava dailies Pravda and Smena, the Kosice daily Vyehndnslovenske Novi iny, the Moravian paper Nova Svnhndna, Sc well as Czeehol sfovak theaters and publishing houses. Friday's Sovietskaya Rossiys devoted three columns to a Russian drama critic, V. Kad- Frirbn'. ()rt. 18. 1968 gosi By Anatole Shub We'hiniton Poet Toretin service BELGRADE, Oct. 17-Yu- goslav Communists fear the Soviet Union has entered what may he a long period of neo-Stalinism which yvtll permit neither Czechoslovak reformers nor other mode-' pendent-minded forces in Eastern Europe much room for maneuver. Despite Moscow's promise eventually to remove most of Its occupation army from Czechoslovakia, qualified sources here believe the So- viet, aim is to reduce that country in the status of East Germany, Poland and Bul- garia--without even the de- gree of cultural freedom and economic reform achieved by Hungary in re- cent years. The Soviet aim, It Is said here, Is to make Czechoslo? vakia an object lesson for other Communist parties and peoples in Eastern Eu- rope who might contemplate embarking on political or economic experimentation without full Kremlin clear- Ance. The lesson, directed primarily now at Independ- enceaninded Rumania and Internally moderate Hun- gary, is that states which rebel can expect harsher treatment than those which remain 100 per cent loyal td Moscow. Approved,For rin, for a book "The 17ignity of Art." Kadrin had been too fa- vorable toward the Savre. menik (contemporary) theater and other cultural phenomena, while dismissing works of the Stalin period. "There is no room for such views In Soviet art," The news. paper said--urging greater at. tention to Vaevolod Kouhetov, Anatoly Sofronov, Korncichuk and' other Stalinist and neo- Stalinist. authors. For the party theoretical monthly Kommuniet, the tar. gets were two philosophers, Y. A. Milner-Ir?inin and I', M. Egidec, whose contrthulions to a recent symposium on ethics V were found to be permeated with "anarchist. idealism" and Kant.ian views. Kommunist was extremely critical of the Department of Ethics at, Tbil- isi University, which spun-' cored ' the symposium anti "permitted the publication of bheoreatically erroneous mate- TTals." A long glintstion from T%Iil. neu?-Irinin provider a hint of the views underlying all these objectionable heresies. "Ethics," he writes, "is far from being the science of what is, has been and will be . lit is the only science which concerns what, tit the moral consciousness of man- kind, should be." F Arll 4 sou O-~ '( a ism With the signing yester- day In Prague of a treaty legitimizing the "tempo. rary" stationing of Soviet troops, the Kremlin has ale ready achieved one of Its In. RIM goals In Czechoslova- kia. The next step Is to ob- tain a statement from Czechoslovak authorities that there was a danger of `counterrevolution" In Au' gust which justified the So- viet Intervention. Observers here believe that continuous Soviet pres- sure on Prague will produce such a statement In a matter of weeks or, at most, a few months. These formalities are needed by Moscow In order to bring back into line the West European Communist parties which condemned the Invasion. The Kremlin still hopes to stage a world summit conference of loyal' parties to consolidate pro. Soviet ranks. Some 65 par- ties had originally agreed to hold such a conference In Moscow on Nov. 25, but Western Communist Pro- tests over the occupation of Czechoslovakia forced a key Western parties whose ranks are split over the Czechoslovak events. in the French, Italian And Finnish parties, an esti- mated 20 to 30 per cent of the leadership disagreed originally with their parties' condemnation of the Inva, sion. The Soviet Party has made clear its readiness to split these parties If need he, and is reported also to have withheld funds on which these parties are lit large measure dependent. The Italian Party, In it Central Committee plenary meeting this week, Is dis- cussing for the first time whether It should make the break for genuine independ- ence of Moscow. The out, come of the discussion is un- certain, but compromise and delay are in the Italian tra- dition. However the Italians de- cide, it is now cod'sidered likely that the nextinterna- tionat Communists pr+'para? tors meeting, to be held in Budapest on Nov. 17, will, agree in principle to a cone ference early next year, without setting a precise date, postponement. Such a conference would While pressing Prague foe deal with "common tasks iii Justification of the Invasion, the struggle against imperi' the Soviet Party has algo alism" and would not dis- cuss Czechoslovakia. It R'M as `'2oOS/69Pf?re df'A-RDR7S8wIItOfn41400OO4?803O13-2 CPYRGH T Approved or Release - - - Chinese and Yugoslav here- Mocow is spared the trou- sles, reaffirm the hard So- ble of coiitriving his dis- viet line on the German and missal. If he stays and exe, Mideast questions, and pro- cutes Moscow's harsh terms, claim collectively the Krem- he loses popularity among lin thesis that "sharpening" the Czechs and Slovaks -- of the struggle against the and can then more easily be West requires strengthening discarded later, as one of supranational control source here puts it, "like a both In the East European squeezed lemon." bloc and in the international' Despite the syrface unity Communist movement. displayed in .Prague thus By the time such a confer- far, differences In view have ence Is held next spring, ,the already emerged among the Soviet Union expects to reformers, and there are have the Czechoslovak Party fears that with continued well in hand. Already, such, Soviet. pressure Prime Min- collaborators as Alois Indra Oldrich Cernik and and Vasil Bllak-ostract zed possibly President Ludvik for weeks by the Czechoslo-, Svoboda may yet be induced vak progressives-are sit- to collaborate with a new ting in on meetings of the Czechoslovak leadership. Soviet-controlled Party lead- Old Stalinists like Anton ership of the Indra-Bilak Kapek and Karel Mestek type. have organized a hard-line As for differences within pressure group on the out- the Soviet leadership con- side. c' e r n I n g Czechoslovakia, At the same time, the process of undermining the unity of the original reform- ers is exected to continue, as occupied Czechoslovakia tends to he abandoned by the outside world and espe' Bally by the foreign Coin- munist parties. Czechoslovakia's Popular National Assembly Presi- dent, Josef Smrkovsky, is high on the Soviet purge list and his resignation or dig, missal is considered merely a matter of time. Party leader Alexander Dubcek has been placed in an Imnos- sihie position. If he resigns, Instead, the reputed Kremlin doves either cited the diffticult repercussions which might he expected in the West: and in the Commu- nist movement - or argued that further attempts should he made to halt the Czerho. slovak demorratizntlon by political pressures "short of war" before turning to the last resort of the Red Army, Yugoslav observers be- lieve the present Soviet Central Committee to be dominated by long-en- trenched Stalinist and neo- Stalinist bureaucrats god. erned largely by fear foe .their own positions. These stalwarts of the Party apparatus, the army and the political police fear that even the slightest At. tempt at internal democrati- zation, economic reform or relaxation of tensions with these were not disagrees ' the West would open a Pan. inents over principle but dora's box and jeopardize only over timing and tactic, their entire system. Premier Kosygin, ideologist Under such conditions, liti Mikhail Suslov, trade union chief Alexander Shelepin, Deputy Premier Dmitry Po- lyansky and Party Secretary Boris Ponomarev argued against the Invasion of Aug. 20. None or them did so, hdwever, out of sympathy logue In the near. future, Contrary to some Western d i p I o in atic assessments, qualified Yugoslavs believe that Russia is not at all In. terested In an early settle- for the Czechoslovak experi? menu of the Middle East ment or belief In the inde, problem, but would prefer, pendence of small nations, to keep the pot boiling for (Yugoslav leaders are now five ot six years - time recalling for the first time enough to establish a solid ill years the fate of the Ba1- Soviet military and eco- tic republics incorporated nomic presence in Mediter. CHRISTIAN SCIENCE i' )NITOR'by Russia'in 1940). ranean Sea. 13 June 1968 Soviet trend? Grigory Svirsky, a well-known novelist, was excluded from the Communist Party because of a speech he made before a Mos- cow writers meeting on Jan. 16, in which he attacked censorship and complained, "Everything that seeks to overcome the fatal consequences of the cult of person- ality Is burned out with a red-hot iron. One sometimes is not even allowed to mention ,that the cult of personality existed." Party expulsion hinted Stalin hack on his pedestal," received a The critic and essayist Lev Kopelev, nvho' medal for 'distinguished work on the occa- in December, in the Austrian Communist sion of the 50th anniversary of the revolu- journal Tagebuch attacked those Soviet tionplpO leb W CIq B'}iP3b 0@4#6bW0f 2n, also mission to travel abroad. Is Bal to have been expelled from the '111*alsud C.,,ain . i - I By Patti Wohi Written for The Christian Science Monitor Once again, Stalin is being honored in the Soviet Union, albeit cautiously. Although no one talks of the Stalin cult of personality any longer there are Indica tions that it is being revived. An otherwise undistinguished young poet, Feliks Chuyev, who published a.poem glori- lying Stalin and publicly demanded: "Put' CPYRGH CPYRG.~il Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 the rehabilitation of Stalin has spread to military writings. In February, even Kommunist, magazine of the Central Com- mittee, gave credit to Stalin for having "taken part in organizing the struggle .against white guardists" and for having had a big stake in winning World War II. Far more serious than such indicatiofl of the party leadership's attempt to re- store Stalin to a distinguished place. in his- tory 1s the reaction of much of the people at large. When Defense Minister Marshal Andrel ,.A. Grechko, In a speech on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Red Army on Feb. 23, mentioned Stalin's role as chair- man of the State Defense Committee, he was interrupted by' loud applause. When reminiscing about' the war, many older people often raise toastsyto Stalin, not only in the late dictator's native Georgia but all over the Soviet Union. Secret police glorificll Hand in hand with a thnewed Stalin cult goes the glorification of the state security services, formerly called the secret police. A theater play by Sergei Mikhalkov, which was favorably reviewed by Pravda and Red Star, the daily of the armed forces, referred to secret police agents or Chekistj as "those admirable people, courageous, intrepid, heroic, true knights without fear and re- proach," NO wonder that the Soviets are, disturbed about Czechoslovakian periodicals implicat ing Stalin's friend, former Soviet President ' Mikoyan, in the Czech trials of the early flftles and the honoring of Stalin's victims. Mr. Svirsky, in his speech before the Moscow writers, singled out a novel by V, 'Zakhrutin among the works rehabilitating Stalin. It appeared last year in the con- servative journal Oktyabr. "Do not tackle [the] Stalin (problem-]," says Mr. Zakhrutin's positive hero. "We know why Stalin got stuck in your throat. . , , Because he defended the ideas of Lenin i and cut short all attempts to betray him," `Loyal and dediculcd' "Who knows, perhaps prison, exile, the solitude of the taiga (Siberian forest), the cold and hunger which he endured, hard- ened his soul, made his brusque and rude, ,but he wads loyal afid dedicated to Lenin like -a soldier. With all his strength and will power he defended Lenin's teachings against the rabble of the opposition and watched over the purity and discipline of the party." Another example of Stalin idolatry are the verses of the well-known writer Sorge! Srhirnov, in the journal Moskva of last Oc- tober, "It was Stalin who, in the years of trial, did not leave his command post. And. Nwe, ? legitimately, honored in him out own strength. . ." All this, Complained Mr. Svirsky, goes on "with the approval of Glavlit (the censor. ship office], , . , Anyone who praises Stalin Js encouraged. . ; . Critics of the survival of the [Stalinist] past are told 'Ono %must not stir up the past, one most not open up old wounds etc,",' CZECHOSLOVAK REFORMS SO11ASiit?D BY SOVTCT NEO-STALINISM (Artlrle by Kx; Zurich, None Zuerclrer Zeitung, German, 25 September 1968, pp 1, 2( The intervention in Czechoslovakia has clearly brought out a fundamental reorientation in the Soviet "general line." Against the background of the invasion of Prague, we can now detect the most 'profound changes in Soviet policies since Stalin's death. Czecho- -;lovakia wanted to catch up with the "de-Stalinization" ushered in by Khrushchev at the 20th Party Congress in 1.956 at a very late :late because it had missed this opportunity in 1956; on the other hand, the exact opposite development in the Soviet Union has brought a return to the Formerl.v c:ritiirtzed totalitarian methods of rule and Stalin's ideological dogmas. The irreconcilability of these two development tendencies -- away from "Stalinism" in Prague, back to "Stalinism" in Moscow -- constituted the basis for the tensions be- tween the Czechoslovak and the Soviet leaderships and inescapably led to an attempt to resolve the situation by force. There was quite oh- virntsly much more at stake here for the Soviet leadership than the new forward-strategy of the Warsaw pact and quarantine measures against the revisionist source of infection, that is to say, the fundamental decision on the future "general line" of Soviet domestic and foreign policy. Appror"i Or Re1ent3;e,20W017 td PtrF F37t8~03tQ6Es1AtQQQ4AQQ3Qili1 gation of a party eager to institute reforms, the further splitting 8 CPYRGH o f Uifgvp",R~ Nea ~ic 0~5c~~ /11i7t ~~QeR r ~39 I 9 z09913ii31 am e of power, but it also signified the first phase of an upheaval in Soviet policy with as yet unforeseeable consequences. Counter-Reform Movement Since Khrushchev's overthrow in October 1964, there has been a silent "de-Khrushchevization movement" parallel to the beginning of a "re-Stalinization." These tendencies of course were nqt expressed in any fundamental and comprehensively political and theoretical manner, such as the dramatic turn away from the Stalin era in Khrushchev's secret speech and in the resolutions of the 20th Party Congress, some- $hing which was done un,lc?r I he again of neo-LeniniSin. The changes ninc,e 1964 were sneaked in through the back door in that a veil of complete oblivion was spread over Khrushchev and his era, while a more positive .evaluation of the Stalin era was undertaken and while the list of sins of 1956 was increasingly ignored. This creeping re-Stalinization burst into open after the 9 and 1.0 April 1968 CC Plenum, when hitherto rejected theories of Stalin were once again upgraded. This involved not onI.y a better evaluation of the Stalin era, a re- habilitation of Stalin and other problems of coping with the past, but it also involved the development of. new ideological perspectives and of the future political. line. Neo-Stalinism is an attempt to restore the guidelines and methods of Stalinist rule which were condemned or modified after 1953 and to make them once again the foundation of Soviet policy. The neo-Stalinist turn signifies a return beyond the 20th Party Congress and a rejection of developments since then, along with reform communism, recognition of the "individual road" and West-East coexistence. The opinion seems to prevail in present-day Soviet leadership that post-Stalinist policies did not produce the hoped-for successes and that reforms and coexist- ence only undermined the Soviet power base, while at Stalin's time there was "quiet and order" in the satellite empire and the Soviet gov- ernment inspired fear and respect in the outside world. This attitude so far has not produced any actual restoration of Stalin's "old regime" with permanent purges, secret police terror, and slave labor camps. In addition to the jingoistic and anti-Semitic relics which have been swept forward again, neo-Stalinism -- like most counter-reform movements -- also contains modernistic and dynamic features. By falling back on tried methods, the Moscow neo-Stalinists want to extricate the country from the stagnations of reforms, from the decay of the economy and society, and from the corruption of con- stant compromises; they want to alter the status quo and they want once again to restore "order" at home and power and hegemony abroad. For this purpose, they have upgraded the decisive ideological, political, and military dogmas from Stalin's textbook more in spirit than in the letter and they have combined these dogmas into a new "general line" which is by no means identical with Stalin's line. His methods and teachings are today being applied more roughly, more brutally, and more uninhibited than the sly and coolly calculating Stalin himself used to do or the way he would have done it now in similar situations. The neo-Stalinist renegades obviously are also lacking in stature and capability so that they cannot step into Stalin's shoes without creat- ing a danger to themselves and to the rest of the world. Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 rPYRGH Rev t ~_i otl A p_ dv d o gl ase 2005/08/17 : CIA-RDP78-03061 A000400030013-2 The most visible outward sign of this Stalinist reaction is the increased secrecy and concealment of Soviet policy, such as it was customary prior to 1953. 1here is no more Giuseppe Boffa to recount the internal secrets of the Kremlin and the CIA likewise does not so far seem to have succeeded in getting its hands on the texts of Brezhnev's secret speeches to the April and July Plenums. Once again one must read between the lines, one must sift through ideological t.rncts, and one must listen for indirect signals. Just how severe the current about-face is and just how radical the revocation of the 20th Party Congress really is can be seen from a contribution in the Party journal Komunist, No 12, on the outbreak of World War II. In the past, Hitler'_s attack on Russia and Stalin's behavior in 1941 were a debated key topic of "de-Stalinization" and only recently did Soviet historian Nekrich in his heavily attacked book The 22nd of June 1941 document and criticize the mistakes on the basis of sources. This historical dispute has always constituted a concealment of present-day clashes. The interpretation of Stalin's failure in 1.941, which so far has been accepted even in official histories, has now been turned upsidg down in Komunist by key Party historian V. Khvostov and his associate A. Grilev. They now assert that the Party and the Soviet leadership (they mention Stalin by name only twice) from the very beginning did not trust in the pact with Hitler and used the time between 1939 and 1.941 as n breather, for the expansion of Soviet armament. Stalin supposedly was, right when he avoided the danger of a two-front war in Europe and In the Far East through his pact with Hitler. The Soviet Union sup- posedly strictly carried out this agreement and tried to stop the attack with,atic means until, the very last. The Soviet leader- ship allegedly was informed on Hitler's attack preparations -- some- thing that has so far been doubted and challenged by Soviet historians, military men, and writers -- and did take the necessary precautions. The blame for the outbreak of World War II is placed entirely on the Western governments. With he conclusion that the Soviet leadership 30 years ago foresaw the "Imperialist attack" and took the correct countermeasures, the authors are now concentrating on current matters through a revision of the image of Stalin. By the way, this essay draws a parallel between the antecedents of World War II and present- day developments. Although the article went to print on 12 August, it: reads as If it were an announcement and justification of the capture of Prague. Preventive Purge More frightening than the threadbare justification of Soviet in- tervention in Prague is the reappearance of the Stalinist concept of preventive punishment used in this connection. It was not a "counter- rovotution" that had already broken out -- as it was alleged in Hungary in 1956 -- but rather the danger of a threatening "counterrevolution," in other words, a possible and not a real deviation, that was to be liquidated. This is exactly the same argumentation that was used for Stalin's purges which were directed against all possible and poten- tial "enemies of the Party." The thought scheme of total suspicion, which determined the charges and the explanation of the sentences handed down during the Moscow trials, returned with dangerous threat in the acAppsWedf tfeaset2O05tOW4fferiC c P78e(I3Olail3AS664gBWOP98-2 Approve or Release 2005/08/17 : - - tured as right-wing revisionist traitors" and accomplices o Mao and of the Western Imperialists. With the allegation of a counterrevolutionary danger in Czeclio- slovakia, there has now been wiped out as inapplicable a thesis set up by Khrushchev according to which the East Bloc countries have al- ready progressed so far on the road to communism that a relapse into capitalism has become impossible. This ideological justification of a "Communist commonwealth" of Communist countries with equal rights, moving along "their own road," has now been replaced with the old Comintern formula of Stalin according to which all parties must take the CPSU as a model and prove their loyalty to the line by giving Moscow unconditional support. This demand is already being waved in front of all parties that dare criticize the capture of Prague. Not even in theory does Moscow want any more "sister nations" and equal partners in world communism; instead, it wants powerless tools and satellites, as in Stalin's time. Revival of Class Struggle CPYRGH Chin new " Inlr;m wil.houit Stalin" is in the process of replac-- tng the reformist theory of "the [arty and the state of the entire people" in the 1961 Party Program with the outdated thesis of the "class struggle in society," as this has already been done by Party Secretary Demichev in Komunist (No 10, 10 July). Stalin and Molotov were blamed for this class struggle theory on the occasion of the rehabilitation of their victims in 1956. The reappearance of this thesis as to the continuing class struggle is a signal for a domestic- policy hardening and challenges all of the past reform endeavots. Here we also find one of the decisive causes of the Czechoslovak crisis: while the Czechoslovak CP with its action program and statute draft was tying In with'Khrushchev's 1961 and 1962 Party reforms and while it wanted to develop these reforms radically, the CPSU revoked these reforms and is now once again trying to reintroduce the old-style Strict Party order. In this connection, the dispute between the. Soviet reformers and the neo-Stalinists was continued via the polemic with Prague. Although neo-Stalinist theory and practice have not yet been canonized by a Party Congress and although it is still disputed among the leadership and in the Party, it nevertheless increasingly influ- ences the Soviet scene and promises Little that is good for the future. The reimposed formulas of "class struggle" and "counterrevolution" alone would rather seem to point to convulsions and tensions, cer- tainly not to a restoration of "calm and order." Another thing that sounds ominous is the repeated hint at a ban on the formation of fractions and on a return to Party discipline, something which Stalin used to keep bringing up during the power struggles and purges. This theoretical and practical development of neo-Stalinism is undoubtedly backed up by forces that want to push their power aspira- tions through. The last consequence of neo-Stalinism would actually be a return to one-man rule. The present "collective leadership" under Brezhnev and Kosygin (lid grow up under Stalin and was molded by the Stalin era, but it. Is on the other hand closely tied in with the Klurusliche~v era and the reform endeavvnrs. The real. protagonists of. ii -S rFtovei4-t< o,'r' ~ef to am otis m . tfla y eaders who O o f necess~c CPYRGHT Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2 only constitute a compact fraction and who need not necessarily pur- sue identical objectives. slut in the history of the Bolshevik Party a sudden upheaval, such as -It now seems to emerge with the neo- Stalinist about-face, was always connected with personnel changes at the top. Confrontation Instead of Coexistence Anyone who today contlnuall.y reads the Soviet press and theo- retIcal treatises on foreign policy will feel as if he were back in the Cold War during the late. 40's. Corresponding to the revived thesie of the continuing class struggles within the Communist cotrntr.:les we now have the assumption of growing international tensions between the two camps. This fatal dialectic has already been used against the Czechoslovak "counterrevolution," when an alleged cooperation be- tween "class enemies" in Czechoslovakia and foreign "imperialists" was construed. Since the Resolutions of the April Plenum demanded increased defense against "subversive imperialist propaganda," we find that a "continuing contrast between the socialist and the imperialist -camp" is being emphasized increasingly clearly in the Soviet Union. Very quietly and hardly noticed, there has been a return to the theory of the "two camps" which was set up'by Zhdanov,in 1947 and the Image of "imperialist encirclement" was recalled through the tie-in between the Vietnam War, the Israeli campaign, "West German revenge-mongering" and 1 I u ' n i b et;edly 1vv NATO plans., The St al inI st ron11 icV theory h;is been expanded and aggravated inasmuch as there IS now nn t. oni.y t..IIk of a threat of force from t: lie outside; in addition, the real threat is considered to reside in the internal softening which has been promoted by peaceful means, in other words, in the form of -Johnson's "bridge building" and Bonn's Eastern policy. 'Conjuring up a "foreign enemy" to justify internal suppression is now turning into a much more offensive effort, in combination with expressions of the arrogance of power and the ex- pansion drive. The neo-Stalinists in the Kremlin seem to have less inhibitions and a greater readiness to take risks than their re- awakened model Stalin. Approved For Release 2005/08/17 : CIA-RDP78-03061A000400030013-2