Political authority and government

Khrushchev's downfall

• Between 1956 and 1961 he replaced two-thirds of the members of the Council of Ministers, the Presidium and the local Party Secretaries.

• In 1961 he limited to three the number of times that leading officials could be elected to the same office.
• There was to be a turnover of at least half the members of Party Committees at the lower levels and a third at the higher levels.
• He decided the Party between hierarchies responsible for agriculture and industry
• The division of the party was hugely unpopular with provincial Party Secretaries who had previously run the Party throughout the Provinces. They now had to choose between agriculture or industry which hugely minimised their reach of power and influence.

The Presidium	• Resented his arrogance, his style, his policies • Some felt his anti-Stalinism went too far
Provincial Party Secretaries and Central Committee	• Bitter resentment of reorganisations
Military	• Resented cuts in military spending and policy of relying on nuclear weapons (was refuted by the Cuban Missile Crisis)
Professionals/Managers	• Resented enhanced role of the Party and its interference
Intelligentsia	• Disappointed with the retreat from the thaw after 1962
Diplomatic Service	• Appalled by some of his behaviour and use of his son-in-law on diplomatic missions
Workers	• Alienated by the rise in food prices in 1962
Peasants	• Resented disruptive and repeated interventions and failure of policies

In 1957, Khrushchev was summoned to an emergency meeting with the Presidium by Brezhnev where they condemned his behaviour and style.

The vote to oust him was unanimous and the Presidium demanded that he should voluntarily retire.

When he died in 1971, there was a four-line announcement in the Pravda without any significant comment, demonstrating the lack of connection the public felt to Khrushchev.

📌 A reflection on Khrushchev

📌 How convincing is Khrushchev's argument in his memoirs about his greatest impact on Soviet political life?

Khrushchev argues in his memoirs that his greatest impact on Soviet political life was seen in the fact that instead of being arrested and shot, he was voted out of power by his colleagues.

His argument on the one hand is quite convincing – his Secret Speech at the beginning of his leadership led to the majority of people denouncing Stalin and encouraging many to talk about the huge issues of repression, censorship and violence that dominated Stalin's dictatorship.

Khrushchev led the move away from acts of extreme violence like the NKVD and The Great Terror, freeing thousands from the gulags and exposing Stalin's brutality to the public. However, his argument on the other hand is not convincing – his greatest legacy was not the fact that he was voted out and not shot or arrested.

This only shows that he made a limited impact on society and Russian politics, especially compared to the changes (albeit negative) made by Stalin before. Despite this, the fact that members of the Central Committee and the Presidium could actually face-to-face tell Khrushchev they were voting him out is a huge step up from Stalinist Russia. They were not afraid they themselves would be shot for even insinuating being against their leader. Khrushchev allowed the Committee and Presidium to have a voice and a much stronger say in politics compared to Stalinist Russia.

Evidence of positive change:

• Increased housing construction
• Increase in consumer goods
• Increased numbers in higher education
• Decreased reliance on Terror and Repression
• Freed thousands of innocents from the gulags
• Increased successes in Space technology

Evidence of limited change:

• Housing was of poor quality
• Censorship and propaganda was still at large
• Repression of religion
• Undercover operations like the killings in the Novocherkassk Workers' Revolt
• Agricultural failures
• Cuban Missile Crisis
• Limited successes in the industry

"After the war, Stalin consolidated his rigid system. Under Khrushchev there was real change." Assess the validity of this view.

Stalin:

• Late 1930s – context

Evidence of consolidation

• Political:
• Economic:
• Cultural/Social:
• High Stalinism

Khrushchev:

• Fundamentally changed political system as a whole

📌 How did life improve under Khrushchev?

Khrushchev prioritised 'the good of the people' and aimed to improve the lives of ordinary workers. Home aids like washing machines and TVs became more common, and meat consumption rose 55% between 1958-65. Khrushchev allowed and encouraged consumerism in order to increase the quality of life. Wage differences were smaller and the gaps between social classes had been reduced. Housing construction programmes (despite being cheap and not of high quality) had a huge impact on families that used to share just one room, and the educational sector of society improved too – numbers in higher education almost trebled. Under Khrushchev, life mostly improved, despite a few negative outcomes (like the bad harvests of the Virgin Lands and the Maize Obsession).

📌 Was Khrushchev more or less tolerant of religion than Stalin?

Khrushchev had a less violent view of religion but was still atheist – anti-religious propaganda was rife and taxes on religious activity increased. Churches and monasteries were closed, and mosques and synagogues were also under attack.

Historiography

• Robert Hornby has highlighted that in this era dissent was mostly from workers, not the intelligentsia

• The Soviet Procuracy mostly focused on workers in underground groups at this time

• Was a gov bureau concerned with pursuing dissenters accused of anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda Novocherkassk

• Solidly working-class Ukrainian town

• 1st June 1962, they rebelled

• Reduction in wages and increase in prices coincided

• Butter +25%, meat +30%

• A passing train had a placard hung on it saying 'cut up Khrushchev for sausages'

• The Party HQ were occupied

• Troops were brought in

• 28 killed, 80 injured

• Bodies buried overnight in unmarked graves

• The Square where the shootings took place was asphalted over that night

• There was a News Blackout

• This was only reported 30 years later

• The nature of this protest was typical of the Khrushchev era Overall protests

• Estimated that 500,000 people protested during the yeas 1953-64

• According to Ludmilla Alexeyeva these years were an 'incubation period where people began to learn about the problems of Soviet life.'

Nature of Dissent under

Stalin

• Largely spontaneous and volatile

• Often centred on angry peasants and workers Khrushchev

• Involved both workers and peasants and a few members of the intelligentsia

• Did not act together, however Brezhnev

• More legalistic and sober criticism

• Mainly from a small proportion of intelligentsia in the big cities Dealing with dissent

• Workers' demands were relieved through a cap on prices and increased consumer goods

• Despite increasing cost of production

• Caused huge economic problems

• Intelligentsia and political dissent was rooted out through a deep network of informants

• After the 1956 Hungarian Uprising, more people were jailed in 1957-58 than at any other time since Stalin's death

• The idea that Khrushchev was somewhat more liberal is a clear exaggeration

• The USSR was still a very authoritarian state

Cuban Missile Crisis

• Khrushchev was determined to show the USSR was capable of defending its own interests vigorously
• The American Nuclear Missiles in Turkey on the USSR's border were resented for years
• Communist revolution in Cuba 90 miles from the coast of the US gave a similar opportunity to the USSR
• Began placing Soviet Missiles on Cuban bases
• American spy planes detected the scheme before completion
• President Kennedy placed a naval blockade around Cuba
• The world stood on the brink of a nuclear war
• Khrushchev never intended to launch this, so he drew back
• Missiles were removed
• A compromise was made. The US had promised to both dismantle its Turkish nuclear facilities and never invade Cuba. Part of this compromise was that it had to remain secret. This was so the USSR seemed humbled in the eyes of the world
• Khrushchev had consulted the Presidium throughout the crisis
• The missiles had been his idea and ultimately he alone was blamed

Agricultural failures

• 1963: the dry summer, problems of the VL campaign and the maize obsession meant grain harvest was only 107 million tonnes
• Was judged against Khrushchev's boasting and planned target of 170-180 million tonnes
• Khrushchev would take no risks after Novocherkassk
• Precious gold and currency reserves were used to buy grain from the West
• It was a humiliation for Khrushchev in what he regarded his field of expertise
• Oct 1964: Khrushchev summoned to a meeting of the Presidium
• Was accused of gross mistakes in agricultural organisation

The effect of reorganisations

• The restlessness and impatience of Khrushchev were clear in his attempts to interfere with the State and Party, he liked to shake up institutions
• Left persuasion and reshuffling of personnel as the only means available
• Between 1956-61: replaced more than two-thirds of the members of the Council of Ministers, the Presidium and the local Party secretaries, and half of the Central Committee
• 1961: limited the number of times leading officials could be elected into office to three
• Was to be a turnover of at least half the members of Party committees at lower levels, a third at higher levels and a quarter of the members of the Central Committee and the Presidium at each Party Congress
• 1962: divided the Party between parallel hierarchies responsible for agriculture and industry
• The last two moves were particularly resented bitterly by officials affected
• Division of the Party was especially unpopular with provincial Party Secretaries who'd previously run the Party throughout the province. They were now being asked to choose between industry and agriculture this drastically reduced their power
• Party Secretaries had great influence in the Central Committee. Their members already resented limits imposed on their time in office as they had formed Khrushchev's power base
• Leading to them resigning or being voted out of office
• Khrushchev came to face the consequences in Oct 1964
• All changes reversed soon after Khrushchev was removed from power | The Presidium | • Resented his arrogance, his style, his policies
  • Some felt his anti-Stalinism went too far | |---|---| | Provincial Party Secretaries and Central Committee | • Bitter resentment of reorganisations | | Military | • Resented cuts in military spending and policy of relying on nuclear weapons (was refuted by Cuban Missile Crisis) | | Professionals/Managers | • Resented enhanced role of Party and its interference | | Intelligentsia | • Disappointed with the retreat from the thaw after 1962 | | Diplomatic Service | • Appalled by some of his behaviour and use of his son-in-law on diplomatic missions | | Workers | • Alienated by the rise in food prices in 1962 | | Peasants | • Resented disruptive and repeated interventions and failure of policies |

📌 What was the impact of Khrushchev's time in power?

• Removed the intensity of Stalin's terror and repression
• Brought about the start of stability in Russia's leadership
• General improvement in living standards for the majority of people
• Cold War propaganda encouraged patriotism comradery and conformity
• Secret Speech encouraged the move away from Stalinist Terror
• Only military and space technology were kept to the highest standards internationally despite aims to improve industry and agriculture
• An increase in those with higher education qualifications caused the potential threat to the system (but didn't)
• Some policies alienated people and angered them, reducing their loyalty to him
• Still elements of censorship: criticism of Stalin allowed, and criticism of the present USSR was not)
• Alienated members of the Central Committee and the Presidium
• Terror had been removed from the system (arguably most important outcome of Khrushchev's rule)