THE 1950’s

This is an excerpt from the “Cantata about Stalin” by composer Alexander Alexandrov, which was frequently performed in the 1950’s, when the Stalin personality cult reached its climax. It is an epigraph to the narrative about the last years and final doings of Joseph Stalin that impacted the country’s leadership and its rank-and-file citizens.

In his historical-philosophical work “Russian symphony” outstanding Orthodox thinker, who died in 1994, Metropolitan of St.Petersburg and Ladoga Ioann wrote the following about the post-war period:

“The famous Stalin toast “To the great Russian people” at the victory banquet as if drew the final line under the altered self-awareness of the powers-that-be, turning patriotism, alongside with communism, into the officially accepted buttress of state ideology.

Without any doubt, after the Second World War the might of the USSR as a geopolitical successor of the Russian Empire grew to unseen-of proportions. However, deep within its ruling elite there still raged the mortal combat between so-called ‘nationalists’ and ‘cosmopolitans’. 

The faction of ‘nationalists’ in the party was headed at the time by Secretary of the Party Central Committee Andrei Zhdanov. Back in 1946 he came forth with sharp criticism of the ‘mongrel cosmopolitans’. That same year the Party Central Committee adopted a number of decrees, thus ‘canonizing’ the process of ‘exposing and completely stamping out all manifestations of cosmopolitanism’.

However, the ‘nationalists’ triumph didn’t last long. Andrei Zhdanov’s principal adversary inside the party was the all-powerful Lavrenty Beria. And if he was defeated in the direct conflict, in the field of secret intrigues he came out victorious. In 1948 Andrei Zhdanov died, and Beria made use of the confusion within the opposition ranks to set into motion in Leningrad – the mainstay of inner party nationalism – a grand-scale court process along the likes of the pre-war mock trials. Under cover of this trial he attempted to effect a purging of the party apparatus of the ‘regenerate nationalists’, as he put it… This was one of the largest trials in the number of execution sentences.”

Metropolitan Ioann mentions in his book a curious article, that appeared in 1955 in the respectable American journal “US News and World Report”:

“It contained records of a conversation with a certain Nikolai Khohlov, a deserter, ‘former agent of the Soviet secret police’, especially invited for the purpose to the editorial office. In the course of the conversation Khohlov quite frankly described the development of the conflict between Zhdanov and Beria. In his words, the ‘Jewish issue’ became the epicenter of the conflict, since “Jews often consider themselves to be not only the citizens of their country of residence, but also members of an international Zionist movement… Zhdanov and his group couldn’t forgive them that. So he and several others launched a struggle against the Jews.” Further Nikolai Khohlov said that as soon as Zhdanov died, Beria and Victor Abakumov – both leaders of Soviet punitive bodies, immediately set up a trial process in Leningrad. They said that the group that accused the Jews of cosmopolitanism was made up of not true communists, but ‘Russian chauvinists’. As a result people who occupied very high posts found themselves under trial. Some were executed, others sent to prison.”

Mentioning this article from the magazine “US News and World Report”, Metropolitan Ioann commented it thus:

“…I doubt it would be wise to take on trust all that is said there and to draw categorical conclusions. It’s more likely that the inter-party struggle was a great deal more complex and ambiguous. However, it is next to impossible to trace its winded route in the secret depths of the vast state apparatus of the soviet empire. The history of the communist party conceals many secrets, which perhaps only the surviving witnesses can reveal. And how many of the latter are there left?  In any case, the last years of the Stalin epoch became an arena for a new outburst of confrontation.”

Incidentally, this outburst spread beyond the USSR to other states of the ‘socialist camp’. Thus, quite unexpectedly for everyone, in autumn of 1952 in the capital of Czechoslovakia Prague they arrested a number of leading party functionaries. The instantaneous trial was ruthless – 13 of the accused were sentenced to death and shot as participants of a ‘Zionist plot’. The nationality make-up of the accused was a sensation: 11 of them were Jews. For the first time since the revolution the ‘Jewish issue’ was openly placed on the agenda. On communist party jargon this sounded thus: “Zionists and the government of Israel are agents of American Imperialism”. 

We do not know how concerted were the actions of the then Czechoslovak leader Clement Gotwald with Stalin. We likewise do not know what the personal role of this or that character of this historical drama was. It’s interesting that just several days before his death in 1953 Stalin instructed that the following announcement be printed in the army paper “Red Star”: the struggle against Zionism, he wrote, has nothing in common with anti-Semitism. Zionism is an enemy of working people of the whole world, the Jews included.”

Yet another testimony of the struggle between the so-called ‘nationalists’ and ‘cosmopolitans’ was the prominent ‘Case of the Doctors”, about which historian Leonid Katzva says the following:

“In 1952 they arrested a large group of doctors, chiefly Jews, working at the Kremlin medical department. They were accused of killing Andrei Zhdanov and a number of other party and state leaders at the orders of the ‘International Jewish bourgeois-nationalist organization “Joint”, set up by the American intelligence. Stalin personally demanded that the Ministry of State Security see the ‘Case of the Doctors’ through to the end.”

According to Leonid Katzva, a mania of persecution swept through the country:

“…people were afraid of seeking medical advice and of buying medicine. “The Case of the Doctors” was accompanied by rabid anti-Semitic propaganda. A deportation of Jews to the Far East was prepared, under the pretext of saving them from the unleashed anger of the people, incensed at the crimes of the ‘killer-doctors’.

The “Case of the Doctors” wasn’t seen through to the end, as Stalin wanted. On March 5th 1953 the ‘leader of world proletariat’ died. As it happens, Stalin’s death was followed several days later by the death of Clement Gotwald – the ‘fighter against the Zionist plot in Czechoslovakia. According to Metropolitan Ioann,

“This unexpected denouement became at the same time a starting point for an ideological revenge and triumph of ‘classical’ international communism, which quite quickly reestablished its slightly reeling positions”.

Here is an excerpt from the funeral meeting dedicated to the memory of Joseph Stalin. The First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR Lavrenty Beria made an important speech there: 

“Dear comrades and friends, its hard to express in words the great sorrow experienced these days by our Party and the peoples of our country, all progressive humanity.

Stalin – is no more. Gone is a great comrade-in-arms, an outstanding continuer of the cause espoused by Lenin. We have all lost a man who was dear to the heart of every soviet person, and to millions of working people all across the world. The entire life and activity of the great Stalin was an inspiring example of dedication to Leninism, self-sacrifice to the needs of the working class and all the working people, the cause of liberation of workers from oppression and exploitation. The great Lenin founded our party, led it to victory in the proletarian revolution. Together with the great Lenin, his comrade-in-arms of true genius – Stalin – strengthened the Bolshevist party and created the first in the world socialist state… The greatest architect of communism, an outstanding leader, our dear Stalin armed our party and the people with a grandiose program for building communism…

Comrades! The pain in our hearts is inconsolable, the burden of loss weighs down on us, yet even under this oppressive toll the iron will of the Communist party shall not buckle under, and its unity of ranks and resolve in fighting for communism shall never wane.

…Enemies of the Soviet state are hoping that the dreadful loss will lead to confusion and shall throw us off course. Yet, their hopes are in vain: they are in for a disappointment. Anyone who isn’t blind to reality can see that in these mournful days the people of the Soviet Union have closed ranks with the fraternal great Russian people around the Soviet Government and Central Committee of the Communist Party. The Soviet people unanimously support the internal and external policy of the Soviet state.

Our internal policy is based on the hard and fast union of the working class and the kolkhoz peasants, the fraternal friendship of the peoples of our country…

Our external policy is clear and understandable to all. From the very first days of soviet power Lenin determined the external policy of the Soviet state as a policy of peace. This policy of peace was inexorably executed by Lenin’s great follower, our wise leader Stalin.

The external policy of the Soviet Government shall continue the Lenin-Stalin line oriented at preserving and strengthening peace, fighting against preparation and unleashing of a new war, a policy of international cooperation and forging of mutually advantageous business ties with all countries…

Our great leaders Lenin and Stalin taught us to tirelessly raise the vigilance of party and people, to be alert to the enemy’s machinations against the Soviet state.

Today we need to raise this alertness still higher. Let no one think the enemies of the Soviet state can catch us off guard. 

For protection of the Soviet Motherland our valiant Armed Forces are equipped with all contemporary types of weaponry. Our soldiers and sailors, officers and generals, equipped with the experience garnered on the battlefronts of the Great Patriotic war, shall cope with any aggressor who dares to attack our country.

The peoples of our country can be sure that the Communist Party and the Government of the Soviet Union shall spare neither forces nor their own life to preserve the steel unity of its ranks and leadership, forge the invincible friendship of the peoples of the Soviet Union, strengthen the might of the Soviet state, and invariably remain true to the ideals of Marxism-Leninism, leading the country of socialism to a communist future, just as bequeathed by Lenin and Stalin.

Eternal Glory to our beloved, dear Leader and Teacher – the Great Stalin!”

According to historian Leonid Katzva, whether Stalin died a natural death or not is still an open question. Soon after Stalin’s death, in April 1953, those arrested in line with the “Case of the Doctors” were exonerated. 

As for Lavrenty Beria, in June of the same 1953 he was arrested at a meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. The decision to arrest him was taken by a number of members of the Presidium of the Party Central Committee and the military led by hero of the Great Patriotic war of 1941–1945 Marshall Georgy Zhukov. As historian Leonid Katzva wrote, “They all feared that Beria would make an attempt to seize supreme power in the country.

In December 1953 Beria and a group of his familiars were sentenced to execution on charges of treason. 

In the second half of the same year 1953 the top party authorities announced their intention of implementing a number of long-overdue reforms.”

Professor Olshtynsky, evaluating Joseph Stalin’s role in our history, noted: 

“There exist diverse estimates of Stalin’s role in the development of the Soviet society, and heated arguments between ‘Stalinists’ and ‘anti-Stalinists’ will continue for a long time yet. Without a doubt, Stalin contributed to the speedy development and historical achievements of Soviet society. We cannot underestimate his personal contribution as a leader of the country to the victory over fascism in World War Two. In a highly complicated historical situation, he succeeded in returning within the fold of the USSR the territories that had been lost to it earlier. Moreover, he managed to create, in the form of a commonwealth of socialist countries in Europe, something along the lines of the “Pan Slavic Union” that Russian thinker Nikolai Danilevsky dreamt of 100 years ago. Friendly relations with socialist China rendered this union invincible in the face-off with the capitalist world.

Stalin’s name is also linked with a deformation of the socialist system in the direction of authoritarian rule, a formation of a bureaucratic nomenclature, mass reprisals, and the tragedy of the early stages of the Great Patriotic war. In foreign historical surveys, where a negative characteristic of Stalin is predominant, there is an interesting characteristic of Stalin given by the encyclopedia Britannica: "He displayed extraordinary will power, tenacity and coolheadedness... He was the originator of planned economy; he found Russia working with wooden plows and left it equipped with atomic piles; and he was “father of victory”. But his achievement was marred by the despotism and cruelty of his dictatorship... - one of the most complex, powerful and controversial figures in world history.”

Joseph Stalin didn’t appoint a successor. After his death there began a struggle for power. Officially, the principle of collective leadership was proclaimed. However, in effect, Stalin’s closest companions – Lavrenty Beria, Georgy Malenkov and Nikita Khrushchev were each anxious lest one of them – the one who proves to be the strongest – claim personal power. The first to be suspected of this was the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, the powerful Lavrenty Beria.

However, after Lavrenty Beria’s arrest in June 1953 and subsequent execution, the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR was taken by Georgy Malenkov. The Secretariat of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was taken over by Nikita Khrushchev, who oversaw all personnel appointments.

Early in 1955 Khrushchev managed to get rid of his principal rival Georgy Malenkov. At Plenary meeting of the Central Committee of the CPSU the latter was accused of ‘rightist leanings’. This means that Malenkov suggested first and foremost developing industrial production of commodity goods, instead of heavy industry. In February of the same year Malenkov admitted his errors to the Party bosses and was sent into retirement. Hot on his heels followed a former associate of Stalin’s – Lazar Kaganovich, who was responsible for planning development in industry – early retirement was his fate, too.

Thus, the sole leader of the country now was Nikita Khrushchev. According to historian Pyotr Deinichenko, “There was not only a political, but also an ideological rationale behind the reshuffles effected by Nikita Khrushchev. Georgy Malenkov and Lazar Kaganovich supposed that only ‘the foundations of socialism’ had been built in the country. Khrushchev, however, was of the opinion that communism was but a step away, so its impending advent warranted all the hardships and reprisals, which were now perceived as but minor obstacles on the road to a universal happiness.”

The eradication of the authoritarian personality cult, a course towards democratization – this required serious changes in the economic policy. It needed to be ‘humanized’, oriented more towards improving the people’s living conditions.

In the 1950’s all material-technical prerequisites were falling into place for a solution to this problem. The country had the added advantage of a developed industrial potential. However, what had to be overcome was the agriculture’s lagging behind industry. The peasantry needed to be helped out of its disastrous situation. So a series of measures were implemented for this, among them a reduction of taxes and complete retraction of the arrearages of past years.

In the words of Doctor of Economy from Novosibirsk Grigory Hanin, “…the Soviet economy in the 1950’s was experiencing a veritable boom… Numerous western, and alternative soviet estimates of economic growth show that in the 1950’s the USSR ranked among the leading countries in pace of economic development, alongside the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Japan and several other countries, significantly outstripping the USA and Great Britain in this parameter.

New technology was being introduced in industry and transport. A high development pace was characteristic for labor productivity and scientific-technical progress. State allocations for science and the military-industrial complex were growing annually…

Among the indisputable successes of the Soviet Union was the launching of the first artificial Earth satellite, or Sputnik in 1957, the putting into operation of the atomic power station, the first flight of a supersonic passenger liner, and a number of other noteworthy technical achievements, in which the USSR jumped ahead of the USA…

Among the impressive achievements of Soviet industry of the period was the building of hydro-planes, a unified electro-energy system for the European part of the country, etc.

The high pace of economic development and altered attitude to the population’s problems in the 1950’s after Stalin’s death led to a qualitative improvement of their life.

By the end of the 1950’s undernourishment, so characteristic of the early post-war years, was practically eliminated. People became more active in buying various goods - clothes, watches, radio-sets, bicycles, motor-bikes, sewing machines. Round about that time the first TV sets, refrigerators and washing machines appeared in the shops. Of course, all these goods were in great demand. The state was busily building housing to provide people with free apartments.

Professor Grigory Hanin wrote:

“All these measures aimed at raising people’s living standards were translated into a rapid growth of life expectancy. By then it averaged 69 years – in other words, it had reached the level of the highly developed countries. It would not be an exaggeration to say that from the aspect of living standards of a majority of the population, the 1950’s had molded a new country, free of poverty and, according to world standards, quite well-to-do, even though not rich…

Simultaneously there were tremendous changes taking place in the social-political atmosphere. Mass political reprisals were over, and the process of exoneration of victims of Stalin’s regime of terror was launched. At the same time the cultural life was picking up.

Due to the portentous economic and social achievements of the 1950’s this period has been dubbed the epoch of the ‘Soviet economic miracle’. The command economy at the time demonstrated its viability and macroeconomic efficiency. In effect the world’s largest corporation, the Soviet economy skillfully manipulated the strong sides, inherently present in any corporation. It had the opportunity of elaborating and realizing long-term plans. It had at its disposal colossal financial resources for developing priority directions. It could inject large capital investments in the shortest of terms; spend impressive sums on scientific-industrial studies, etc. 

The achievements of the 1950’s stemmed from the powerful industrial and transport potential, created in the 1930’s and 1940’s. The USSR cleverly utilized the resources for developing the branches that determined long-term economic progress.”

A high rate of economic growth provided ample opportunity to re-arm the USSR Armed Forces. A mass production of nuclear weaponry and missile technology was set into operation. Jet-fighters were constructed, a highly complicated system of Air Defense made operational, a vast Navy provided with modern diesel and nuclear submarines. In other words, the country’s military potential was significantly boosted.

In the 1950’s the USSR extended financial and scientific-technical support to its allies in Eastern Europe and China, and started rendering noteworthy economic aid to a number of developing countries. The more noticeable manifestations of this policy were such projects as the Bhilay metallurgical plant in India and the Assuan dam in Egypt.

Incidentally, Soviet aid to Egypt found reflection in a popular song of those years by Ian Frenkel, entitled “Write to Me in Egypt, Mother”. In a letter to his mother a soviet builder involved in the Assuan dam construction tells her how together with his comrades he is putting up a dam on the river Nile, where there will soon be a sea. He writes how hard it is working in the hot desert, how he misses the cool climate of his native land and how he longs to see the Volga.

Those years witnessed a very firm friendship between the USSR and China something that was also reflected in songs. Thus, in this one “Moscow-Peking” there are lyrics that go: “Russians and Chinese - brothers forever”.

In March 1954 a Plenary meeting of the Central Committee of the CPSU took a decision to increase the grain production. For this they intended to plough up the virgin lands of Southern Siberia and Kazakhstan. 

“Already in summer of 1954 thousands of volunteers from among the ranks of the Komsomol – the Communist Union of the Youth – set off to reclaim the virgin lands,” historian Pyotr Deinichenko notes. “There were a great many city residents among them. The young people were not only answering the Party summons, but driven by hopes of finding personal happiness at their new destination. The very first year saw the ploughing up of millions of hectares that immediately produced a bountiful harvest.”

‘Round that time a lot of films and songs were dedicated to those who flocked to the virgin lands. Like a song by Isaac Dunayevsky:
 

“Farewell, Dear Home, 
Farewell, friends and kin! 
I’m off to distant lands. 
Who can say if we’ll all meet up again?! 
Write to us at new addresses, girls!”

There is another song of the time, by Boris Mokrousov:
 

“A young fellow from Moscow, 
Guitar in hand, and his girl, 
Roam hand in hand 
Far away from the bustling streets of the capital. 
Their first love lights up the desolate distant region. 
To you, Romantics, I dedicate my song!”

The 20th Congress of the CPSU was a landmark one for the country. It took place in February 1956. Historian Pyotr Deinichenko wrote about it:

“At its open sessions the most important announcements concerned International Party Politics. For the first time it was admitted that there could be different roads leading to socialism, and in bourgeois countries one could cross over to it by constitutional means. This meant the USSR was renouncing its claims to leadership over the entire Communist movement. Officially, the Congress reaffirmed Lenin’s principles of collective leadership over the Party, as opposed to the ‘personality cult’. A new 5-year plan of economic development was adopted, where, as before, heavy industry was accorded principal attention.

The relatively peaceful course of the Congress was shaken up by the ‘closed-door night session, which featured a report by Nikita Khrushchev. It was addressed exclusively to his compatriots and dwelt on ‘deviation from party principles, party democracy and revolutionary legality’. This was the first time that people heard mass reprisals spoken of from the top party rostrum. However, Nikita Khrushchev didn’t say it all: he laid emphasis on persecution of leading officials of the Party and Soviet State, skirting the plight of those who suffered from reprisals before 1934 – during collectivization; the millions of innocent people who fell victim to the monstrous campaign of terror. Khrushchev placed all responsibility for those crimes on Stalin, and on those leaders of State Security bodies, who had been already executed. Nothing was said of the blame that lay with the top party leadership, Stalin’s henchmen. However, even this half-truth shook up society. Some had known of this, but never hoped to hear it spoken of openly from party rostrum; others were hearing something they simply refused to believe: after all, by that time two generations of Soviet people had been brought up in the spirit of total devotion to Stalin.

Nikita Khrushchev’s report was considered secret and never published, yet it was read out loud at party meetings, and its contents weren’t concealed from the unaffiliated, either.”

Nikita Khrushchev’s personal qualities played a significant role in the new course mapped out for the country by the USSR leadership. He enjoyed communicating with ordinary people from the masses and listening to their opinions; he managed to become attuned to their needs and the general sentiments rampant after the war. Everyone was hoping for a better life. Frontline veterans expected an acknowledgement of their achievements. Most importantly, more and more people refused to accept the Stalin ideology. The youth was particularly sensitive to the discrepancy between communist phraseology and real-life reality. It’s not accidental that in the first post-war years anti-Stalin youth groups mushroomed across the country. They proclaimed a return to Lenin’s legacy. 

Historian Pyotr Deinichenko wrote:

“Khrushchev sought to strengthen his power, but in actual fact only boosted his own popularity. The secret report and the 20th Party Congress’s denunciation of Stalin’s ‘personality cult’ had far-reaching repercussions. Unwittingly, Khrushchev spawned a genuine opposition. Not within the party apparatus, but in society. Some wanted broad democratization both in the party and in the state, believing they ought to go still further and say the complete truth, that it was time to discuss the economic and political foundations of the Soviet system. Others, to the contrary, remained true to Stalin’s totalitarian concept of society’s development, believing it to be genuine Russian socialism. Finally, in the broad masses of society trust in the party’s infallibility had been undermined. Most importantly, the idea of building communism began to stir doubts…

The Party Congress had a serious impact on the international situation. The world Communist movement was profoundly shaken. After this, all attempts to achieve unity were doomed to failure. The denunciation of Stalin’s personality cult led to a rift with the USSR’s chief partner of the Stalin years – revolutionary China.”

In 1956 a bountiful harvest was gathered in the virgin lands. Never before had the country had so much grain. The winds of change were blowing… New literature, new, free art were gaining force. The openly-declared policy of peaceful co-existence between the capitalist and socialist systems opened a gateway to the rest of the world. Books by modern western writers were being translated in the USSR. For the first time since the war, western movies hit the screens. People had begun listening to foreign radio stations. The first soviet tourists went abroad – something unheard-of up until then. 

Finally, in 1957 Soviet people were given an opportunity to freely, or almost freely, communicate with foreigners from almost all over the world: Moscow hosted the World Festival of Youth and Students in the summer of 1957. The festival featured songs about peace and friendship. Very popular was a Hymn to world democratic youth, written by Soviet composer Anatoly Novikov:
 

“Children of different nations -
We all live in hopes of peace. 
All who are honest, wherever you might live, 
Rise up to join us in the fight to ward off war. 
This song cannot be throttled – 
It’s a Hymn of the Young, 
Echoed by all the world!”

For the Soviet people it was as if the world was finally throwing open its doors to them. They met talented people from various countries, they found idols to emulate among foreign writers, artists, singers. Thus, in the 1950’s Argentinean singer –cum-actress Lolita Torres shot to popularity in the Soviet land after a film with her participation – “Age of Love” – was shown here. 

Soviet society was becoming more open. This had both positive and negative sides to it. Since far from everyone who began visiting the Soviet Union came here with good intentions. The bodies of State Security had their work cut out for them. Incidentally, after the war the latter were greatly altered: new people had joined them, many of them war veterans. They revealed monstrous instances of abuse of power by their predecessors, and blatant crimes. The process of exoneration victims of reprisals, which started very timidly, was gathering momentum.