Moscow 1956: The Silenced Spring

by Kathleen E. Smith

Joseph Stalin had been dead for three years when his successor, Nikita Khrushchev, stunned a closed gathering of Communist officials with a litany of his predecessor’s abuses. Meant to clear the way for reform from above, Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech” of February 25, 1956, shattered the myth of Stalin’s infallibility. In a bid to rejuvenate the Party, Khrushchev had his report read out loud to members across the Soviet Union that spring. However, its message sparked popular demands for more information and greater freedom to debate.

Moscow 1956: The Silenced Spring brings this first brief season of thaw into fresh focus. Drawing on newly declassified Russian archives, Kathleen Smith offers a month-by-month reconstruction of events as the official process of de-Stalinization unfolded and political and cultural experimentation flourished. Smith looks at writers, students, scientists, former gulag prisoners, and free-thinkers who took Khrushchev’s promise of liberalization seriously, testing the limits of a more open Soviet system.

But when anti-Stalin sentiment morphed into calls for democratic reform and eventually erupted in dissent within the Soviet bloc―notably in the Hungarian uprising―the Party balked and attacked critics. Yet Khrushchev had irreversibly opened his compatriots’ eyes to the flaws of monopolistic rule. Citizens took the Secret Speech as inspiration and permission to opine on how to restore justice and build a better society, and the new crackdown only reinforced their discontent. The events of 1956 set in motion a cycle of reform and retrenchment that would recur until the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Russia, Russian History, Politics, Soviet History

400 pages, Hardcover

First published April 17, 2017

Reviews

[Jovan Autonomašević · Rating 5 out of 5]

An unusual book, that I was given as a present. It presents Hruščev's faltering and ultimately withdrawn "thaw" of state repression in 1956, in 12 chapters that focus on individual stories in the months of that year. I was aware of this shift in Soviet policy, but the way it is presented in the book allows its effects on real lives to be appreciated, something rare in the otherwise monolithic approach to Soviet history. But most importantly for me, the book provides a profound insight into the mentality of "middle class" (for want of a better word) Soviet citizens at this time. For the individual stories are not those of ordinary working men and women, but of intellectuals and students, people who were connected to the elite. One things that struck me is how those people remained attached to the dogma that the Party was competent to tell them how to think, even as they accepted the worst excesses of Stalin's rule as abuse. In other words, it was not the system that was at fault, a power structure based on total domination, but the fact that that system had fallen into the hands of an individual. Questions arose as to how they are to instruct their workers/students now, ie not that they should pursue the promise of open and honest debate, but rather what official line they are now to peddle. Notwithstanding, there was also a surge in public criticism of party bureaucrats, career middle-managers who brought nothing to the table but feathered their own nests. So much so that Hruščev got cold feet and quickly back-peddled, not least because of unrest in Poland and Hungary (where the Red Army responded with military force). It should not be forgotten that it was not until the 1980s that Soviet citizens were released from the oppressive yoke of central government; and that modern Russia is, behind a veneer of democracy and liberalism, still largely governed in the same way.

[Liviu · Rating 5 out of 5]

excellent month by month (with both past and future interludes about many of the characters portrayed) of 1956 in the Soviet Union; lots of interesting tidbits and despite the multitude of people that appear,, a fairly easy and quite absorbing read

[Marren]

DNF about 20% in. This is well-researched and probably best for someone thoroughly examining the effects of Khrushchev's secret speech on the political structures of the Soviet Union.

[John Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Khrushchev's 1956 "secret speech" denouncing Stalin's "cult of personality" was world renowned once it was printed in the NYT’s but the detailed, powerful stories of the impact on Russians that were published in this book were more fascinating than the surprising speech. Smith does a good job sharing how Russia, under Khrushchev sent signals that the nation was relaxing restrictions and moving in a different direction but tightened up restrictions again when there were surprising uprisings in Poland and Hungry. The stories of early freedom fighters, the tightening of journalistic rights, and continual use of prison sentences for those opposing the government were powerful and well stated. It was fascinating how people who were targeted by the system still believed in their government.

It had been three years since Stalin’s death when the speech that was first printed in full by the NYT before it was read to the Soviet Writers Union. Some reformers took risks after the death of the dictator, but most were cautious. As one of Stalin’s top lieutenants, Khrushchev knew that Stalin was brutal, sending friends off to death and turning on people quickly. Despite seeing testimony of confessions, Khruschev had the writer mentioned that he didn’t believe Stalin.

Stalin’s portrait continued to hang everywhere in the country even years after his death. Khrushchev worked to repair conditions with communist nations of China and Yugoslavia. He spoke about battling the capitalist countries by repairing his economy and cultural competition instead of military might. He accepted an invitation by England and later other countries to reach out in a way that Russia never did. The author reminds readers that Khrushchev had very limited travel prior to assuming the top position, even to other communist nations.

Khrushchev’s speech was given in a closed session at the end of Khrushchev’s first Congress. It looked like business like usual with all slate candidates for the Central Committee elected. For four hours, the new Soviet leader spoke about the evils of Stalin and his “cult of personality.” This was the man who built the new leaders career and was idealized by most of the nation. The speech was followed by meetings throughout the nation but it raised more questions, but no answers were given. But the speech did set off some limited reforms including shutting down the gulag system, limiting political trials, limiting political punishments to prison rather than executions, and allowing a novel Not by Bread Alone be published.

Not by Bread Alone was a novel that raised questions about a better government. Vladimir Dubintsev wrote as tory about a fictional Soviet industrial town where the central street was named after Stalin and the big boss of the factory held ultimate power in the little town. The factory worker came up with an invention that would save the factory money, but the system would not allow him to test out his invention. The book illustrated the problem with the Soviet system – and it came up right time. It became a best seller and moved Soviets to action. Russians put considerable stock on novels since writers could push the system more with fiction and Soviets had few escapes – no cafes, beaches or travel for most people. Everything changed when there was unrest in Poland and Hungarian students started to protest the system in November. Pressure built when students in the Soviet campuses were pushing for change. Leadership felt that their allowance of discord went too far and pushed back. Limited control continued until leadership worried that it went too far.

Khushchev set a panel to investigate those convicted of political crimes. By October 1956, the traveling commissions reviewed 81,027 political cases and 50,945 were liberated. The author points out that while Khrushchev named a panel to review the gulag system, he did not ask for a report of what his delegates doing the research learned. At the end of the book, the author reports that his daughter stated that he read the report during his retirement.

Political prisoners were released as “rehabilitated,” which meant they received their pension, better accommodations that they were used to receiving, allowed to publish their memories, but they were not placed back in their former positions. The author included many powerful, sad stories about how formerly powerful people who had been imprisoned were treated when they were released.

As the Soviets were testing new freedoms, citizens of Poland and Hungry were pushing for new rights. Without any discussion with their Soviet allies, the communists in Poland picked a leader who had just been released from prison as a result of a political purge in the earlier 1950’s. Wladislaw Gomulka and his partners were moving with some reforms without enough involvement of the Soviets. Journalists were given new freedoms and students were engaged. Khushchev took a surprise visit to Poland without an invitation and checked out what was happening himself. He was disturbed that there was unrest and the Polish army cracked down on their own people, resulting with scores of citizens killed and hundreds injured. Showing the role of their satellite nation, the Soviets moved their own troops to just outside the capital to intimidate the Polish population – and leader.

Fresh from his visit to Poland to lecture that nation on their independent decisions, Khrushchev turned to Hungry whose leader had unexpectedly died from natural causes. While, unlike Poland, he had his handpicked leader in charge, there was a movement within leadership to prosecute Stalin era crimes. Over 6,000 citizens engaged in an organized discussion on returning a free press. Leadership change could not stop citizens from taking over their government. Students led a demonstration in Budapest on October 23 and chanted “Russians go home” when thousands rallied in front of the Hungarian parliament. Again, Khrushchev sent Soviet tanks to the city to use force to push back against the Hungarian citizens.

There were also signs that Soviet students were engaging for change. They watched as their nation put down other protests. By November 1956, Soviet students were confused with the conflict of their desire for free speech and their fear of repercussions by their own government. Authorities also seemed confused and, even more so, worried that the actions of the students could not be trusted; the communist party was worried that those pushing for change were counter-revolutionists rather than simply trying to reform a system still broken. By December, there was a full fledge crackdown on free speech. But with the allowance of additional freedoms, there was no way to turn back the clock; reformers understood the “power of words” on moving the population and putting pressure on the government. It was the start of the end of Soviet rule – at least for a while.
There was infighting continued in the upper levels of the Soviet government/party. The author points out that reform did happen since citizens were no longer executed, far less went to prison for political purposes, and there was some lessening of restrictions on the press. She also reported that Khrushchev zigzagged and spoke glowingly about Stalin with a couple of major speeches, students were sent to prison for producing leaflets at protests during the brief window of change, and there was even a crackdown on a Picasso exhibit that had a political element to it.

The most powerful portion of this book were detailed stories of Russians whose lives were uprooted by the Soviet government but continued to support their government system. Consider:
• Robert Eikhe wrote to Stalin from prison for his political “crimes,” stating: “There is no more bitter sorrow than to sit in jail under the system for which you always fought.”
• Aleksei Snegov was a veteran party member that was victim of a purge under Stalin and suffered 17 years in a miserable gulag. He was tortured in prison and moved to a draconian prison in another part of Russia. Like many others, he wrote to the new leader, and had it secretly delivered to Khrushchev, someone he knew well before his own fall. He was one of the first gulag survivors that was allowed to return to the capital. Snegov testified against one of Stalin’s hitmen and when the Stalin chief saw him he asked, “What, you are still alive?” Snegov retorted “Your organization didn’t do it’s job properly.” Unlike most returning citizens, Snegov was returned by Khrushchev to the Ministry of Internal Affairs where he worked until retirement.
• Anna Pankrotova was a party activist who took breaks from her academic work to support the party. Yet, her husband was sent to prison. When she visited him, he asked the man she loved to repent and show full support of Stalin; when he resisted, she stopped visiting or communicating with him and, a few years later, refused to let him talk to his daughter. Yet, later she came in conflict with the government and had to work to gain back the party’s faith. She had a nervous breakdown but still supported others who had been victims of purges. As a historian, she was troubled by her role to evaluate history fairly and truthfully. Like other historians, she demonstrated the dance needed to be honest to history and avoid being sent to a political prison. Historians raised the pressing question that if Stalin was so horrendous, “Why did he remain in leadership for 30 years while people only praised him and no one corrected his mistakes in the Party spirit or removed him from his position in a timely way?”
• Ksenia Chudinova was a fighter for the communist party but caught in one of the internal crackdowns. Authorities ransacked her apartment and arrested her in front of her children. She spent eight years in prison and labor camps then an equal amount of time in exile. Her husband and ex-husband were executed in similar purges by Stalin. Yet, she stayed a loyalist and ended up back in Congress, hearing the secret speech first-hand. She was one who was responsible for reducing the use of the gulag and restoring a fairer court system.
• Polina Zhemchuzhina was the target of anti-Semitic attacks by Stalin. In the late 1940’s, the party leader was stripped of her post of foreign minister and placed in a Moscow prison after being exiled in Siberia. She was brought back for a trial and surprised when she was allowed to bathe and enjoyed a real meal. She was given back her own clothes and undergarments and given a new blanket to keep her warm. She thought it was her last night – that she would be executed the following day. What she did not know is that Stalin died and she was one of the first to be treated differently. Still, she was not returned to her former position.
• Sarra Lavarishek complained to Stalin in 1955 that while she was free for three years through an amnesty program, she was still denied her rights as a former leader in the party. At 55, she used her other connections until she was able to negotiate her way through the system. Even the best connected were often disappointed that their lives were not restored to their former levels.
• Aleksandr Mil’chakow also was caught up with Stalin’s political assault and spent years in prison and worked hard to use every connection to again have his former life back. He even snubbed those he befriended in prison with hopes to have a stellar life again. Finally, he was able to secure a position – with the traveling delegation looking at the political prison system under Stalin. But the environment remained a “hostile environment for a former political prisoner.”
• Olga Shatunovskaia put her life on the line for the communists, barely escaping execution in 1918 but while working for the Moscow Party Committee – and a friend of Khrushchev – she was sent to prison as a “counter-revolutionary” in 1937. She was sentenced to eight years of hard labor in a far-away gulag. When released, she had to live illegally in Moscow since she had a passport that did not legally allow her within 100 miles of her former home. While trying to buy forged documents, she was again arrested and this time sent to Sieria. Desperate, she wrote to Khrushchev begging for his assistance when he took control of the government; he responded, resulting in a three-hour meeting. She was placed on the committee that disciplined party members. Yet, she was an out-cast and struggled to stay in the position. The KPK targeted her, monitoring her phone and intercepting her mail.
• Anna Barkova’s case was one of the most interesting. She was an author with a sarcastic streak that got her into trouble. When placed in prison, it was so bad she appealed to a friend in power to be executed. Instead, she was shipped off to a labor camp in Kazakhstan. Soon after being released, she was again imprisoned. This time, while in weak health, she fell in love with another woman prisoner. When released this time, she was on her own and struggled until arrested again for “anti-Soviet propaganda.” She again struggled when released with the red tape to even secure housing and live legally in a Soviet city since she lacked a stamp on her passport. Reading about her struggle with Soviet bureaucracy was even frustrating to this reader no less to a homeless person. She finally settled down in Ukraine without restoring her previous life.
• Varlam Shalamov was also a victim and said, “There was not a single family in Russia that wasn’t affected by arrests between 1937 and 1953.” He was a writer of short stories and poetry that caused him to be arrested and inprisoned for 16 years. He didn’t see his daughter for that entire time and had gone four years without any reading material at all. When released in 1953, it was the first time he was able to see his wife for over a decade. She had divorced him when he was in prison to show she broke ties to him but continued to raise their daughter as a supporter of the Soviet system.
• Vladimir Dubintsev, author of Not by Bread Alone, had one of the most fascinating stories that demonstrated how the Soviet’s controlled expression. While his book came out at the right time to be widely published, earning him considerable wealth, it was short lived. When the government worried about the resistance, they cracked down on anything voicing dissent. But, the government did not want to be labeled as censoring, so they gave him permission for another edition but limited how many copies were printed to both restrict how their citizens were able to access critical thought and to put him – and his large family – in financial constraints. The government also stopped him from receiving payment for the foreign rights. Dubintsev had to sell of expensive furniture then, later, accept support from friends. Ironically, three decades later, under Gorbachev’s reform, he sold his second novel and restored his earlier life.
• Even Mikhail Gorbachev’s, born in 1931, family was subjected to Stalin’s attack. His grandfather was arrested and sentenced to execution but somehow was released. Gorbachev did not blame Stalin but pointed to local leaders.
Moscow 1956 was a complicated book, even for one who reads considerably about world affairs. 1956 was a complicated year, bringing earlier push and pulls with the Soviet system. It was a precursor to Gorbachev’s years.

The author pointed out that while Khrushchev used the silent speech as a way to signal governmental scrutiny, he backed away when satellite countries took the lead. Instead of continuing to be a reformer, he brought tanks into two different countries and put pressure on those in his own country who took his signal of reform. By tracking against his own citizen, he also brought distrust to western nations who might have been willing to re-set their relationship with the Soviets and thawed the cold war. That important development was almost lost in this fairly complicated book.

The book also raises questions that are relevant to events occurring in our own country – a national leader who has a cult following, attacking journalism, making threats (although not nearly as severe) and making enemies from within.

[Ted Haussman · Rating 5 out of 5]

First rate. The author adeptly tells the story of "the thaw" that began in February 1956 with Kruschev's Secret Speech at the Central Committee Congress, criticizing the "cult of personality" that grew around Stalin and which enable him to pursue rampant, paranoid purges and mass murder. Although designed to strengthen the Communist party and acknowledge mistakes of the past, it was the "threshold" the author argued of wider reaching impacts, essentially the beginning of the end of the Soviet state and the Iron Curtain.

The author explores the unintended (for Soviet leadership) consequences of the Secret Speech on the smaller scale (more internal debate about the history of the Soviet state and students/younger people feeling emboldened to write, speak out, or act with great openness) and the larger (unrest in Poland and Hungary). By the end of 1956, Soviet leadership had taken one step back for the two steps forward of the Secret Speech by cracking down on the most vociferous of the new agitators. And yet, as the author adeptly details, the Secret Speech was the first hairline crack that would widen into glasnost, perestroika and the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Fascinating read.

[Martin Weigand · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of those books I had always wished that someone would write. Thankfully, someone did. This enlightening book sheds much needed light on Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" in 1956. (Which wasn't very "secret" even by Soviet standards of information control. The book goes into depth about not just the speech itself, but its effects on Soviet society and the "blowback" that the speech caused.
Each chapter is a month, or snapshot in 1956, making 12 chapters in total: each one examining a possible "thaw" or "freeze" in Soviet totalitarianism and how the speech coincided with, or produced various "thaws" within the larger Soviet society. Of particular interest is the examination of the novel "Not By Bread Alone" by Vladimir Dudintsev. I found out that this book was more influential than I had previously believed.
I highly recommend this book if you have an interest in Russian/Soviet history and you desire a more in-depth examination of events in Moscow and Leningrad in 1956.

[Marshall · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book shows the rise and decline of Khrushchev's attempt to reform the Soviet Union and the Soviet world. The "secret speech" and subsequent events presented the government with a variety of threats to its societal hegemony. While I would question attempts to make a direct link between uprisings in Poland and Hungary, communism and Russian rule were not appealing futures, nor even in the Soviet Union. The failure of Khrushchev to realize this, like Putin's today, was a major failure in objectivity. Then as now, the Americans were blamed in an attempt to turn back reform. What begin with the 20th Party Congress, ended with the invasion the invasion of Hungary.

Professor Katherine Smith makes use of a variety of sources, to include youth oriented literature, KGB file information and interviews. Together these sources create a mosaic of a critical moment in Russian history.

[Alexandra · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extremely refreshing yet thoroughly researched and insightful account of 1956 - essential reading for any interested in soviet history

[Michael Samerdyke · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books on Russian history I've read in a while.

What Smith does is look at reaction to Khrushchev's "secret speech" denouncing Stalin's "cult of personality" inside the USSR in 1956. (Typically, writers leap from the speech to unrest in Poland and Hungary and the role the speech played in the Sino-Soviet split.)

Smith shows how the speech roiled the historical profession and the study of science. She also examines its impact on college students and youth in the USSR, how returning political prisoners were treated, and the first Soviet tourists to Western Europe. Another thing she does is fit the turmoil about the "secret speech" into the controversy about the novel "Not By Bread Alone" which was published in late 1956.

What makes the book special is that Smith has a knack for focusing on individuals who exemplify the various topics. They come from across the spectrum and are outside the power struggles in the Presidium.

Smith's style is graceful and avoids jargon. A must-read for those interested in the USSR.

[Baris · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall a well written book on how 1956 was felt "from the below." But after superb introductory chapters, it makes a swift "cultural turn" mostly ignoring the political and social history of that crucial year.

[Andy Holdcroft · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating read