had hidden beneath a newspaper inside a drawer. One was a note from Tito:4
Stalin: stop sending people to kill me. We’ve already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle… If you don’t stop sending killers, I’ll send one to Moscow, and I won’t have to send a second.
Thus did one gangster write to another. No one else had stood up to Stalin like this; perhaps this is why he kept the note. He had also conserved the last thing written to him by Bukharin: ‘Koba, why is my death necessary for you?’ Had Stalin wanted a frisson of satisfaction when re-reading it? (It cannot be believed that some distorted feeling of attachment to Bukharin lingered with him.) The third item was the letter dictated by Lenin on 5 March 1922 containing the demand for Stalin to apologise to Krupskaya for his verbal abuse of her. It was his last message from Lenin and it was the most wounding. He would not have conserved it in the desk unless it had echoed round the caverns of his mind.
The party leaders kept the three items a secret. But they changed public discourse after Stalin’s death and
The reformers faced a dilemma: if they advertised any abandonment of Stalin’s legacy, there would be a questioning of their legitimate claim to rule; but if they were slow to alter some policies they might meet trouble for ignoring the discontents of society. There was a further difficulty. Stalin was revered by many of those people — and there were millions of them — who had hated his repressions. The despot still exercised his spell in death. Reformers had to be seen behaving firmly and competently. Signs of panic might ignite a challenge to the whole Soviet order. The majority in the Presidium sought to alter Stalin’s policies without expressly criticising him.6 At Party Central Committee meetings they merely alluded to Stalin’s unpredictability and capriciousness in his last years. This happened at the plenum in July 1953 after Beria’s arrest on the trumped-up charge of being a British intelligence agent. Really the leadership feared that Beria was lusting after his own personal supremacy as well as planning reforms which seemed excessively radical. It was Beria, not Stalin, who was held responsible for the past crimes and abuses, and he was executed in December 1953.7
Stalin’s family experienced an abrupt change in circumstances. His daughter Svetlana sensibly changed her surname. As a student she had been known as Svetlana Stalina but after his death she called herself Svetlana Allilueva.8 By bowing low before her father’s successors, she saved herself from trouble. Vasili Stalin was incapable of such an adjustment. He was notorious for drunken party-going and debauchery. His father virtually disowned him, but only after the Leader’s death was Vasili called to account and arrested for rowdiness and misuse of public funds. His days of privilege were at an end.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs was brought under the party’s control after the fall of Beria. The limits on cultural expression continued to be widened. Malenkov and Khrushchev carried on promoting reforms while competing for personal supremacy. Prices paid for the harvest to collective farms were raised. The virgin soil of Kazakhstan was ploughed up to increase the volume of agricultural production. A rapprochement took place with Tito’s Yugoslavia. Overtures were made to the USA for a lessening of international tensions. The Korean War was brought to a close. Discussions at the Central Committee became less governed by the need to show unequivocal support for every action of the Party Presidium. Although the USSR remained a one-party dictatorship, the atmosphere of general fear had been lightened. The rivalry between Malenkov and Khrushchev kept growing. Beria had been feared equally for his reformist radicalism and his personal ruthlessness. Malenkov lacked his panache and Khrushchev, benefiting from his reputation as the conqueror of Beria, emerged as the supreme leader in the Presidium within a couple of years.
At his instigation a commission examined material on the purges of the Stalin period. Khrushchev, while searching for damaging evidence about Malenkov, also had a larger agenda. Several Party Presidium members objected to any further reforms. To secure his ascendancy Khrushchev raised the Stalin question at the Twentieth Party Congress in February 1956. When comments were made about the danger of destabilising the Soviet order, he retorted: ‘If we don’t tell the truth at the Congress, we’ll still be forced to tell the truth at some time in the future. And then we won’t be the people making the speeches. No, instead we’ll be the people under investigation!’9 At a closed session of the Congress he denounced Stalin as a monstrous individual who had sent thousands to their deaths and broken with Leninist traditions in leadership and policy. The charge sheet was not a comprehensive one. Khrushchev focused his report on Stalin’s activity from Kirov’s death in 1934 onwards. He avoided criticism of the basic political and economic structures set up in the late 1920s, and he said nothing about the terror conducted by Stalin in the Civil War and the First Five-Year Plan. Wanting to ingratiate himself with current party and governmental officials, he gave the impression that their predecessors had been the main victims of the Great Terror of 1937–8.
The Congress audience was stunned into silence. Khrushchev had achieved his purpose: he had made it difficult for his Soviet opponents to attack his leadership and policies without seeming to advocate a reversion to state terror. Yet there was a problem. It had been Stalin who had established the communist states in Europe’s eastern half. By discrediting Stalin, Khrushchev reasserted a line of legitimacy in the Soviet Union stretching from Lenin and the October Revolution. This was not the case in eastern Europe, where it was Stalin who had installed communism. Khrushchev’s report was political dynamite there. Strikers organised protest demonstrations in Poland. By October 1956 a popular revolt had broken out in Hungary.
Opponents of reform struck back in the Party Presidium in June 1957, calling for Khrushchev’s removal as Party First Secretary. But the Central Committee protected him and, after years of further struggle, he delivered a still more devastating attack on Stalin at the Twenty-Second Party Congress in October 1961. Old Bolshevik Dora Lazurkina was given the podium. Bent with years, Lazurkina told how the shade of Lenin had appeared in a dream to her demanding to rest alone in the Mausoleum on Red Square. This sentiment evoked tumultuous applause. The deed was done at dead of night and Stalin’s embalmed corpse was taken out of the Mausoleum and buried below the Kremlin Wall; a simple bust and pillar were placed above his grave only years later. The historians were ordered to search the archives for proof that Stalin had frequently fallen out with Lenin and always behaved brutally. Stalingrad was renamed Volgograd. The Lenin cult was joined by a growing cult of Khrushchev. A new party-history textbook appeared in 1959.10 Those communists who admired Stalin kept quiet or risked expulsion from the party ranks. Only a few communist parties abroad dissented. Chief among them was the Communist Party of China. Mao Tse-tung had resented Stalin in life but thought Khrushchev’s policies of reform made too great a rupture with the kind of communism espoused by both Stalin and Mao. This contrast added to the tensions, leading to a rift between the USSR and the People’s Republic of China.
Khrushchev was removed from power in 1964. The Party Politburo (as the Presidium was renamed) ditched the more idiosyncratic of his policies at home and abroad; it also stifled dissenting opinion more harshly than under Khrushchev. But this was a modification of Khrush-chev’s programme rather than a reversion to full Stalinism. The new Party General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev never contemplated terror or individual despotism. ‘Stability of cadres’ became a slogan. Behind the scenes, however, the Politburo seriously considered rehabilitating Stalin’s historical image in 1969 on the occasion of his birthday. A laudatory
Yet the desire to rehabilitate Stalin persisted. In July 1984 — less than a year before Mikhail Gorbachev came to power — the Politburo mulled over the question. The older members retained affection for him and hostility to Khrushchev:11
