Khrushchev Remembers

by Nikita Khrushchev, Strobe Talbott (Translator), Edward Crankshaw (Introduction)

Khrushchev Remembers is a unique -- and enthralling -- historical first. Never before, in all the years since the great Russian Revolution, have we had access to the intimate political reminiscences of a Soviet leader. Never before have we had the opportunity to penetrate to the power center of the Kremlin itself -- as we do now in tehse absorbing, often shocking, sometimes bizarre, frequently ingenuous, occasionally humorous, always illuminating recollections of the man who sat at the summit of power in the modern Russian empire from 1953 until 1964 and whose impact on the outside world, particularly the Western world, was so vivid and unsettling. Includes an introduction, commentary, and notes.

Genres: History, Biography, Russia, Nonfiction, Politics, Russian History, Memoir

639 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1970

About the author

Soviet politician Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev served from 1953 as first secretary of the Communist party, denounced Joseph Stalin in 1956, thwarted the Hungarian revolution, and from 1958 as premier improved image of his country abroad, but for his perceived weakness in dealing with the west and his failure to the economy, people deposed him in 1964.

Nikita Khrushchev initiated a vast agricultural project, centered at Astana, a small mining town until the 1950s.

He led union during part of the Cold War. He stood as chairman of the council of ministers of the union. Khrushchev responsibly partially changed the union, backed the progress of the early space program, and made several relatively liberal reforms in domestic affairs. From power, colleagues removed him and replaced him Leonid Brezhnev and Alexei Kosygin.

People employed him as a metalworker in his youth and as a commissar during the Russian civil war. With the help of Lazar Kaganovich, he worked his way up the hierarchy. He supported purges and approved thousands of arrests. In 1939, sent to govern Ukraine, he continued the purges. During the known great patriotic war in the union or the eastern front, Khrushchev, again a commissar, provided an intermediary with generals. Khrushchev took great dignity in fact of his presence at the bloody defense of Stalingrad throughout his life. After the war, he returned to Ukraine before people recalled him to Moscow as close adviser.

Death in 1953 triggered the power, and after several years, victorious Khrushchev emerged. On 25 February 1956 at the twentieth congress, he delivered the "Secret Speech" on purges and ushered in a less repressive era in the union. He aimed often ineffectively at bettering the domestic lives of ordinary citizens, especially in agriculture. Khrushchev expected eventually to rely on missiles for national defense and ordered major cuts in conventional forces. Despite the cuts, rule of Khrushchev saw the tensest years of the Cold War and culminated in the Cuban missile crisis.

Emerging rivals particularly saw somewhat erratic Khrushchev and quietly rose in strength in October 1964. He, however, suffered not the deadly fate of some previous losers of power struggles but received a pension, an apartment in Moscow, and a dacha in the side. People smuggled his lengthy memoirs and published part in 1970. Khrushchev died of heart disease.

Reviews

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I was told of the existence of Nikita Khrushchev’s reminiscences, my first thought was that they would prove to be a forgery.

So begins the introduction to the memoirs of one of the most interesting leaders on the international stage in the second half of the 20th century – a volume published in the depths of the Cold War, before the end of the Vietnam War and even prior to Khrushchev’s death. Edward Crankshaw provides commentary before each major section to give the reader perspective about everything we are about to read from Khrushchev; Crankshaw also includes poignant footnotes throughout the work and includes a list of at least a dozen other works (written by both Soviets and non) that offer additional insight to the world events surrounding Khrushchev’s thoughts.

My fascination with the USSR began sometime in 6th grade when our civics class watched black-and-white footage of an angry Khrushchev taking off his shoe and banging a lectern with it while telling the capitalists that he would bury them. Soon after I was taught about how the Cuban Missile Crisis nearly ended the world and that our president squared off against a Soviet demon that was the same man at the UN General Assembly that used his loafer for a gavel. Khrushchev was my boogeyman of the ‘80s; the lunatic that pushed us deep into a rhetoric war that had a very real chance of ending in nuclear fire.

I spent a long time reading Khrushchev’s memoirs because I came to this book with ossified filters of hatred and dread for the man; each time I read something that made him human I wanted to dismiss the thought and continue seeing him as a villain. By the end of the 600 pages I came away with a completely different view of Khrushchev; a more sympathetic understanding of a Russian hillbilly that somehow survived the countless Stalin purges, orchestrated a masterful riddance of his chief rival Beria following Stalin’s death, a statesman completely out of his league when he hit the world stage but who constantly reinvented himself and learned on the job in a Soviet environment so non-conducive to true critical thinking it is Khrushchev’s right to claim prowess despite his situations, not because of them. He could never completely exorcise the demons of his Stalinist background, nor could he extend beyond his grade-school Marxism. He wanted the USSR to exist in a peaceful world but when he was challenged his go-to move was chicanery and the threat of violence. Because violence and lawlessness was the tapestry of Soviet politics for decades – he certainly perpetrated his share of show-trials and “bullet justice” during his time under Stalin. But this is also the man that was brave enough to give the now famous “Secret Speech” to the Soviet Assembly at the XXth Congress that outlined a clear break from Stalin in a speech that stretches 55 pages in the appendices – an accounting to the Soviet leadership just how awful a man Stalin was and that the country shouldn’t continue to venerate him.

The most interesting, page-turning part of the memoir is Khrushchev’s account of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The retelling of events from his perspective is jaw dropping indeed; his bullying of a president he thought to be weak and taking the world to the doorstep of nuclear war in order to protect a fledgling communist state is a tale that has to be read to be believed. Or not believed. This is, after all, a politician that operated by aggression and sleight-of-hand – why should his memoir be any different?

I can’t recommend this book strongly enough to anyone interested in 20th century Soviet culture and history. It’s shocking that such an important figure’s memoirs presented with insightful commentary and footnoting has seemed to slip into obscurity. I’m glad that Rising Up and Rising Down pointed me in this book’s direction.

[Jeanne · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a fascinating read. Krushchev is putting his best foot forward, his best face on things, with prefaces and annotations by Edward Crankshaw to correct the record when Krushchev's remembrances of his own deeds becomes too rosy. I started reading it after watching the movie The Death of Stalin to see what Krushchev himself had to say about party infighting and Stalin himself. And, in fact, that is half of the reason he wrote the book -- it is a long discussion and condemnation of the methods used by Stalin to implement his cult of personality and eliminate his detractors. Krushchev vacillates between praising Stalin and excoriating him. The movie was also helpful because you will never forget Beria and Beria is a major player in the book.

There are many examples of communist correction applied to everyday problems. One of the more interesting was the torturing of agricultural scientists accused of (and confessing to) poisoning horses on a collective farm. Krushchev intervenes and begs them to form a new scientific committee to investigate and they prove that the horses are dying after consuming moldy hay. Krushchev develops a sympathy for the victims of the famine in the Ukraine after he receives reports like the one about the woman driven mad by starvation who is cutting her children into pieces one by one over time and salting them down for future consumption. He begs Stalin to relent on the grain quotas for the Ukraine that took everything they could produce and more leaving nothing for the people themselves.

Was Krushchev an antisemite? Crankshaw says there is no question the answer is yes. But Krushchev clearly wishes he hadn't been or at least knows he shouldn't have been. In fact, his expressions of love for all mankind are repeated often enough to sound sort of sincere. There is no mention here of his famous temper, although he admits to being irritated or annoyed a lot. And I nearly fell over that he considered John Kennedy something of a bestie. The defeat of the Hungarian uprising, the Cuban missile crisis, the Vietnam war -- all explained here from a very different point of view. For example, the containment policy of the West is described by Krushchev with a very straight face as an "encirclement policy." From his perspective, the missiles were all pointing at them, trapping them. He gleefully reports the joy of putting missiles in Cuba so America will see how it feels to have missiles pointed at them. There is a charming moment when Crankshaw notes the evolution of the Ukrainian peasant to the well dressed man of business after Krushchev attends his first conference in Geneva in old style Soviet clothing and looks around him at the very polished and sleek capitalists in their fine threads. Crankshaw notes that the Soviets became very interested in men's fashion after that point.

The ending is a beautiful vision of what paradise would be like if a communist state were a paradise. It shows a politician who in his declining years, his pensioner years as he says, has evolved considerably in his thinking about the world and about the rights of the people in it, especially the possible right of people to move freely through the borders of different countries. As Crankshaw says at one point, if Krushchev had his life to live over again, is it possible he would do things very differently considering how much his thinking evolved over time.

[Nadienne Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was thoroughly entertained by reading Comrade Khrushchev's memoirs. I don't care what anyone will say, but American Presidents (with a couple of exceptions) could never achieve this level of intelligence, thoughtfulness, and philosophical ponderings in their own writing (not without the judicious help of a talented ghost-writer). These memoirs were not filtered through several committees of lawyers, publishers, and rewriters. Comrade Khrushchev dictated them to an assistant shortly after his ouster and they were then, unknown to himself, smuggled out of the Soviet Union to be published, without permission, in the West. He denounced their authenticity after he learned of it. This is not the polished "biography" that many may be used to.

Comrade Khrushchev rose from obscurity to greatness and did it whilst continuously increasing his own understanding of both statesmanship and Marxism. Is he perfect? By no means. Did he watch and/or participate in the worst kind of atrocities under Stalin? Absolutely. Does that make him unworthy of study? Not at all. Does that invalidate his thoughts, opinions, and understandings on and of the world around him during his life? Of course not. Overall, Khrushchev was probably one of the better leaders to reign over the Soviet Union.

There are moments where I felt sympathy (i.e., the same feelings) when he described various events. One such moment is describing the absolute lack of cold water whilst he was on a State visit to Egypt. He described it as "cold" only in the fact that it was not heated artificially. Having just come back from a trip to Arizona myself (in July), I can attest that there was also no cold water coming out of that tap - it was room temperature, at best.

I would highly recommend reading this if you have any interest in the Soviet Union, the Cold War, Marxists, etc. The asides, notes, clarifications, and commentary from Edward Crankshaw are neither unwelcomed, nor overly critical, and also help to put events in context.

[Carlos Martinez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Khrushchev's first-hand account of his rise through the ranks of the CPSU, his time as a leader in Moscow and Ukraine, his role in World War 2, life in the politburo under Stalin, the battle for supremacy among his peers after Stalin's death, Khrushchev's take on the various complex situations he had to deal with in the international field: Yugoslavia, Hungary, Egypt, China and Vietnam. He also gives his take on the Sino-Soviet Split - which should be more interesting than it is.

Given the author was a leading protagonist in some of the most important events in 20th century history, his memoirs are of course a valuable source. However, the narrative is sufficiently candid that Khrushchev sort of gives away the fact that he isn't really much of a Marxist, beyond having mastered the basic slogans. For most people that's fine, but for the leader of the Soviet Union, it seems not quite ideal. For example, when discussing the relationship between class struggle and anti-imperialism in 1950s Egypt, it's quite obvious that he hasn't read or thought about the role of national liberation struggles within the overall trajectory towards socialism - in spite of the fact that Lenin wrote on the subject in detail four decades previous. No wonder Mao didn't think much of him!

Rambling, long-winded, full of contradictions and inaccuracies, detailed when you need a summary, vague when you need detail, but nonetheless a valuable and at times passionate first-hand account of some fascinating moments in history.

[Bob Mayer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm writing a book that uses Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis as backdrop and this book is fascinating as research. I find I use books more and more for research now rather than the internet. Books give you the random details you don't usually find in a directed search on the internet. This is going to be the second book in my Presidential series, The Kennedy Endeavor.

What's key about this book is to realize how much elements of the military wanted war so badly based on false information. The 'missile gap' that wasn't? Kennedy made it a key part of his platform only to realize once he was in office that there wasn't one. At least not what was publicized-- in fact the US was way ahead of the Soviets in capability.

A big problem American have is dehumanizing those who aren't us. We're very ethnocentric. We all live in the same world.

[Peter Corrigan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some might say dry at times but also a fascinating window into the world of the defunct USSR. Written in 1970 some years of Khrushchev fell from power (Oct. 1964) this covers his life from his roots in Russia (right near the Ukraine), his rise through the Communist hierarchy (during the famines and purges of the 1930s, the Great Patriotic War and of course the Cold War and his time as Premier (roughly 1956-64). The books is superbly annotated by Edward Crankshaw (a highly regarded author of numerous books on Soviet Russia) who provides frequent needed doses of reality and context where Nikita veers off the rails into sheer distortion or untruth. Yet as Crankshaw notes in the excellent introduction, these memoirs are actually quite readable and often free of the worst distortions and cant of the typical Soviet writing of the period. The portraits of Stalin and his inner circle in the post-war period are especially riveting. The banality of evil in all it's glory. Khrushchev was the first Soviet leader I became aware of in childhood and always of course as the bogeyman. Especially of course during the Cuban Missile Crisis which I remember mainly for the 'thrill' that we might have to live in the basement! His account of that episode is among the best in the book (as noted by Crankshaw) and puts a somewhat different light on things. What is often described as 'victory' for the U.S. was in actuality as much a win or more for Cuba since we were forced to disavow any use of force to overthrow Castro, something that has held for over 50 years. Khrushchev comes off at the end as an almost sympathetic character. Despite his immersion in the Communist ideology and success within its confines he managed to retain enough humanity to at least appear that way in retrospect. And again Crankshaw elucidates the character of this man far better than me in a closing commentary. There are interesting appendices with portraits of his Politburo 'colleagues' and a full timeline. For students of the USSR and the Cold War this should be an invaluable resource.

[Julio The Fox · Rating 5 out of 5]

I once encountered a young Russian student at our university gymnasium who told the other fellows in the locker room that "Khrushchev is alive and well and living in retirement in Moscow." "No", I told him and the small crowd. "That's Gorbachev. Khrushchev died in 1971." How quickly they forget! It's hard to think of any other figure in contemporary history who rose so high, essentially the most powerful man in the world from 1954-1964, to near oblivion, including among his own countrymen. These taped memoirs, first published in the West in 1970 and classified as false by the Brezhnev regime (although authenticated and vindicated by Mr. K's son, and Kremlinologists), not only preserve his legacy but tell of his fascinating rise from coal miner in the Ukraine to Premier of the USSR. His is a black and white world for the most part: he looks back fondly on Eisenhower and Castro and with contempt for Kennedy and Mao. Yet the figure who hangs over these recollections is, of course, Josef Stalin, mentor and menace to our memoirist, builder and near destroyer of Soviet socialism. How did Khrushchev's life fare after his own fall in 1964? Once a school teacher asked his grandson, "What does your grandfather do all day?" "Grandpa?", the boy replied, "Grandpa cries."

[Bill Tress · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a strange book indeed. Supposedly written by Khrushchev (KHR) with an introduction, commentary, and notes by Edward Crankshaw and than translated and edited by Strobe Talbott. Talbott was an American foreign policy analyst who served as a Deputy Secretary of State, while I do not challenge his credentials as an analyst, I do question his skill at translating KHR’s reminiscences.
The books structure is odd and disconcerting to this reviewer. Each chapter is introduced by Crankshaw and he warns the reader about KHR’s coming missteps. Then we read the supposed KHR’s perspective on events, followed by footnotes from Talbott pointing out what KHR has omitted or falsified. Finally, this reader applies his own historical background to described events and all of this virtually eradicates KHR’s viewpoint and creditability.
KHR words appear moderate in the commentary yet, they are spoken by a hardline communist. The phasing and use of American slang terms like (the plot was thickening) tells me that Talbott did a poor job in translating the words of KHR. I don’t trust this book to be the thoughts of KHR.
One of the best features that this book offers is a close look at the madness of Stalin. It is interesting that the governing inner circle of the USSR were scared to death of Stalin. One slip of the tongue, one careless remark overheard by Stalin could mean death. As the world knows, Stalin killed millions of Russians with the complicity of these thugs, yet, in Stalin’s presence they were little boys. There was a movie called “The Death of Stalin”, it was a British comedy and, yet, in the words of KHR as he described the death of Stalin, I saw this movie. These murderers, such as, Beria were afraid to go into the bedroom to check on Stalin for fear he would wake up and have them killed, so they waited and eventually sent in an old chamber maid to check and see if he was alive. Subsequently, a doctor was summoned and in fear for his life, he was afraid to touch the body. In this case, the drama of his death mirrored the British comedy.
The conventual history of WWII is that Hitler surprised Stalin with his attack on Mother Russia. According to this history, Stalin knew all along that Hitler could not be trusted and would eventually attack. KHR says that Stalin was only buying time when he entered a treaty with Hitler. Is this history being revised? Another interesting factoid was that a German defector told the Russian the time of the attack, June 22, 1941 at 3:00 AM, I have never heard this in any other study.
KHR, the man is of interest to this reviewer. Certainly, his interaction with our President’s provide drama, such as his kitchen meeting with Nixon, the pounding the table with his shoe and remarks about destroying the USA. During the Cuban missile crisis he displayed wisdom while working covertly with both Robert and John Kennedy and making the right decision by pulling back from a nuclear holocaust. Unfortunately, this book does not provide the thorough research needed to unravel his contradictions and complexities.
What we know of KHR is he was born in a remote village on the border of the Ukraine. He had a practical nature and a passion for getting things done. He started out as a laborer working in the coal mines. He must have had a high degree of native intelligence and political acumen because he moved rapidly up the political ladder of the Communism Party and left those mines far behind. His rise eventually got him into Stalin’s inner circle where he survived while all around him others were being killed off by the mad man. The how of this is never fully explained. He was considered a fix it man, and in the narrative of this book when he was given a major task like the Moscow Subway construction, he had the wisdom to bring in the right people to support him and get the job done. Stalin never looked at KHR as a threat and even sent him off to govern the Ukraine while he killed off others.
What is left unsaid in this book was how ruthless was he? How many died on his say so? A nice guy could not have survived awfully long in the cesspool created by Stalin, so his survival alone says a lot. When Stalin starved the people of the Ukraine and millions died, KHR says he was out of the loop!? When Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia were invaded by Russia, KHR states that he was only protecting the good citizens of those Countries and he was supporting their desire to remain good Socialist. During the World War, special squads were stationed behind the troops to shot anyone retreating, KHR was a commissar and probably directed those special squads, this book never mentions it. Russia’s presence in Cuba was not altruistic, the opportunity to place missiles 90 miles away from the US would have made the world extremely dangerous, yet, that was his goal, and he denies it in this book.
Some chapters provided interest, for instance, his work with Egypt. KHR seemed to want to help with no political motive. and he provided manpower and knowledge to build the Aswan dam. He personally gave the Egyptian's good advice in areas such as agriculture and mining. His interaction with Korea and China is also touched on in this publication but not at a desirable depth.
If you are searching for answers to these questions and a better understanding of Khrushchev, I would search elsewhere for the answers, they are not to be found in this book.

[David Crow · Rating 5 out of 5]

Khruschchev writes movingly about his life and journey into the inner sanctum of the Soviet leadership. From Minister of Agriculture to the inside of Stalin's insane circle, he writes with passion and vision. This book was impossible to put down. Such honesty, humility, and yet such a threat to the US. Thought this book is history at its purest it reads like fiction as he takes the reader into the insanity that was Josef Staling.

[Danil Filonov · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit below expectations. When I was buying the book I wanted to get answers to 3 questions: how he made it from rags to reaches; how he won against everyone after Stalin’s death and how the decision process looked like during the Cold War. I was disappointed :)
I missed an immersion to the hard-pressed situation Khrushchev has been through. The book is written more like a history textbook. Maybe it is just because back then they didn’t have all those ghostwriters to make a book sound cooler :)

However, the book is a must have for everyone interested in Russian history as it provides some explanation to decisions made in domestic politics and Khrushchev vision of the USSR situation in the middle of the century.

[Amin · Rating 5 out of 5]

کتاب فوق العاده ایی بود
ازون کتاب ها بود که واقعا منو به تامل برانگیخت
شباهت های حکومت کمونیستی شوروی با حکومت جمهوری اسلامی کشورمون بسیار برایم هایلایت شد
حمایت و حق دخالتی که شوروی برای خودش در کشورهایی که حکومت هایشون سوسیالیست نیست یا در خلاف جهت شورویه مشروع میدونست
جروبحث خروشچف و شاه سر مسئله پیمان سنتو و طرفداری شاه از کاپیتالیسم بی دلیل نیست برای شوروی تا این حقو برای خودش قائل شه که تو باعث و بانی انقلاب ۵۷ ایران شه...
وای اگه این واقعیت داشته باشه که شوروی هم مثل کودتا ۲۸ مرداد باعث ی کودتا دیگه در کشور ما شده باشه حس بدبختی به آدم میدهد..
کتاب داغون کرد افکارمو

[Grace Best-Page · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating! What I particularly noted were two things: 1. Khrushchev kept conflicting ideas in his head seemingly without effort (he was a staunch communist, but he also knew that the way to motivate workers was to pay them more). 2. The Soviets had no more intention of using their nuclear arsenal than we did, but just as we thought they were crazy enough to use theirs, they thought we were crazy enough to use ours. Good thing neither side was that crazy!

[Vheissu · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an indispensable book for those who want to understand Soviet politics and relations with the West.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my favorite history books.

[Al Friedman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really neat first-hand account of politics in the USSR, the Cuban missile crisis and other historic events. A shame that it's currently out of print.

[John Lesmeister · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this to be an interesting account, valuable for its unique view of the Soviet system and the Marxist-Leninist world “from the summit”. Its literary merits are not great, and there are more insightful memoirs of 20th century revolutions out there (Serge, Goldman, etc.). The whole time I was wondering whether it was real or a forgery, and any evidence I could find in the text was ambiguous; Khrushchev’s narrative frequently contradicts itself, for example in his account of the Hungarian Revolt of 1956, in which he asserts that the “working class took no part”, but also lets slip that “the people put up a stubborn resistance” in Budapest—who being “the people” if not the working class? This could be the work of a sloppy imitator or of Khrushchev’s own absent-mindedness.

I found the footnotes and commentary annoying, written as they are by an obvious anti-communist. Sometimes they supplied valuable information but I also found myself rolling my eyes a lot at material that was not factual, but merely polemical.

For those who find this period of world history interesting.

[Peter Sprunger · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an incredibly interesting book. The style was very informal so it was actually a pretty easy read, long, but easy. It will be enjoyed by any history buff, and a must read for anyone studying Russian history or US-Russia relations. It covered the topics of the rise of communism/socialism, Stalin, the world wars, internal fighting and succession after Stalin's death, the Cuban missile crisis, and more.
The book gives a positive take on socialism, which I found somewhat refreshing after only reading pro-capitalist material my entire life. However, while it was being pro-socialism, it also time and time again indirectly alluded to how much better off the United States was compared to the USSR.
Another excellent aspect of this book are the footnotes done by the editor. They were just the right amount, would point out when Khrushchev was correct, and when he would completely ignore the facts.

[M · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting alternative perspective. Also interesting historically as the world hasn't really ended up as he thought it would.

[Steve Higgins · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book has a remarkable history. Khrushchev was ousted from the Soviet leadership in 1964 in favour of Brezhnev and he was retired to a small dacha with a pension. There Khrushchev fell into a deep depression but his son suggested he record his memoirs on audio tape which he did. The KGB kept an eye on Khrushchev and demanded he turn the tapes over to them which he also did. His son however had copies secretly smuggled into the west and they were published in the form of this book. My copy is quite an old one and has a commentary by Edward Crankshaw putting Khrushchev's memories into perspective.

The book is a fascinating read and the author takes us through his early life and we see him move ever closer to the centre of power which in Khrushchev's early years meant closer to Stalin. Khrushchev in some ways thinks of Stalin as a good comrade and communist but in others as what he really was, a ruthless dictator. Khrushchev survives the years of Stalin's purges when many disappeared after a knock on the door in the middle of the night. Khrushchev defends the Nazi-Soviet pact saying the Soviets knew it would never last but that it gave them time to build up defences against Hitler. Hitler finally attacked Russia with Operation Barbarossa in 1941 and for a time Stalin disappeared from view. He was finally urged into action by his generals and I have read elsewhere that when they first approached him he asked 'have you come to arrest me?'

It would have probably been better for the Soviets if they had but they rallied around their leader and went on to defeat Hitler, and Stalin consolidated even more power. Stalin died in 1953 and he was left lying on the floor for a day as his staff were too scared to approach him. Beria, head of Stalin's secret police initially grabbed power but Khrushchev was able to overcome him and have him arrested by the military.

In 1964 it was time for Brezhnev to snatch power himself. Khrushchev did not resist. His contribution he said, was the smooth change of power without murders or arrests.

'Could anyone have dreamed of telling Stalin that he didn't suit us anymore and suggesting he retire? Not even a wet spot would have remained where we had been standing. Now everything is different. The fear is gone, and we can talk as equals. That's my contribution. I won't put up a fight.'

Brezhnev reversed many of Khrushchev's reforms and the world and the Soviets had to wait for Gorbachev for more enlightened leadership. To sum up, this was a great read and very interesting but one in which I was glad of the commentary to put the author's views in perspective.

[GreyAtlas · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm finally done. Thank the lord. This book was a struggle. I wanted to learn more about Khrushchev, and I did, but this was also just downright depressing. The first half of the book showed an extreme insight into Stalin. I do not understand how Khrushchev managed to be so close to him, and yet never eliminated. I also was not aware of how downright evil, paranoid and vengeful Stalin was. Damn.

Would I recommend this book? Only if you are a die-hard history fanatic. It's okay, I wouldn't read it again myself, but it's very insightful. If it was like, 200 pages instead of 500, I probably would have liked it more. But it's a memoir, so.

[Hesam Mousavi · Rating 3 out of 5]

اول از همه باید بگم اگر می‌خوایید کتابی که می‌خونید دید کاملآ بی طرفانه داشته باشه پس هیچ وقت این کتاب رو بخونید!



کتاب روایتی خود نوشت یا بهتر بگم خاطرات روزنامه نیکیتا خروشچف رهبر اتحاد جماهیر شوروی سوسیالیستی هستش که شخصیت خود نویسنده در تمام کتاب خیلی قهرمانانه توصیف شده!

درواقع خروشچف در خاطراتش تلاش کرده تا جای ممکن خودش رو قهرمان اصلی نشون بده و تاکید کنه که در بیشتر مواقع فردی بوده که میدونسته کار درست چیه.

اما فارغ از اینها میشه گفت کتاب خوبیه و واقعا در نوع خودش یکی از کارهای خاص محسوب میشه. خاطرات رهبر یکی از بزرگترین کشور های دنیا که فرماندهی بلوک شرق رو به عهده داشت و حتی در زمان رهبری اون شوروی تا نزدیکی درگیری اتمی با آمریکا هم پیش رفت.

اثری جالب و نسبتا بیطرف!

[Jessica Fyffe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting getting a real account of history from the perspective of a societ leader. I found it fascinating how insecure Stalin was to the point he couldn't ever be alone with himself. What was also very fascinating was reading about the Cuban missile crisis and how the US Flared up over that when they had atomic bombs in Turkey aimed at the Soviet Union. Some of the Wests hypocrisy is unreal and its interesting to read it from our 'adversary' 's perspective

[Thavakumar Kandiahpillai · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Secret Speech alone makes this book worth reading. I will never know how accurate and nuanced the translation is but as auto-biographies go, this is brutally frank and hard hitting, even if understandably, it is also self serving to a great extent

A totally unexpected book that is a must-read.

[Neal Fandek · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting read, if somewhat self-serving. Nikita glosses over the atrocities, shortfalls, and terror of the system again and again, all the while denouncing it. Meaning Stalin and Stalinism, which got him to where he was. As a historical document, limited value. I suspect this book is more for serious student of the USSR and 20th century geopolitics than a casual reader like me.

[Hancock · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting. This book covers many of the big events of my lifetime. It provides a perspective from the other side of the 'iron curtain.' The translator's Western-centricity is as entertaining as Khrushchev's Soviet-centric views.

[Lee Scoresby · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very revealing historical document. I didn't give it four stars as a compliment to Khrushchev, but to recognize its importance. It's to Breshnev's credit that he left Khrushchev alive after his ouster.

[Iqra Tasmiae]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?stor...

[David Celley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Khrushchev's autobiography. Very good reading especially if you grew up during the Cold War.

[Burk · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent insight into the people and thoughts of the former Soviet Union.

[Jordan Maloney · Rating 3 out of 5]

An important read for those curious about the Soviet Union or communism in general. Khrushchev's style of prose is stilted and bland, but he does haul back the curtain ever so slightly.