Molotov Remembers: Inside Kremlin Politics

by Vyacheslav Molotov, Albert Resis (Editor), Felix Chuev (Editor)

During the seventy years of Soviet communism, after Lenin and Stalin no person occupied a higher position over a longer period of time than V. M. Molotov. Lenin and Stalin left no memoirs; now we have Molotov Remembers . These memoirs, in the form of conversations with the poet-biographer Felix Chuev over seventeen years before Molotov's death in 1986, offer an incomparable view of the politics of Soviet society and the nature of Kremlin leadership under communism. Beginning with his early revolutionary activities, Molotov recounts his comradeship with Lenin, the Bolshevik seizure of power, and the perilous years of Soviet rule. First at Lenin's then at Stalin's right hand, premier and then foreign minister, he offers startling insights into the New Economic Policy; the collectivization of peasant farms and the liquidation of the kulaks; the repression of "counterrevolutionaries" in the late 1930s; the making of the Nazi-Soviet pact; World War II diplomacy with the Allies; the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe; and the rise and fall of Khrushchev. His portraits of an indomitable Lenin; a crafty, brutal, and ultimately paranoiac Stalin; and a host of other Soviet leaders are indelibly drawn from firsthand experience. Molotov Remembers is not only a major publishing event but a historical source of the highest order, throwing fight on the politics and psychology of the most influential episode of the twentieth century.

Genres: History, Russia, Nonfiction, Biography, Soviet Union, Politics

463 pages, Hardcover

First published August 25, 1993

About the author

Molotov, né Skryabin, was a Soviet politician, diplomat, and revolutionary who was a leading figure in the government of the Soviet Union from the 1920s to the 1950s, as one of Joseph Stalin's closest allies. Molotov served as Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars (head of government) from 1930 to 1941, and as Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1939 to 1949 during the era of the Second World War, and again from 1953 to 1956.

Reviews

[Otto]

again, selective editing by reactionaries presents unbalanced and heavily biased image. Still of some value, perhaps unintentionally. A learned reader can understand more than the publisher.

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

"A person who never sympathized with either Stalin or Molotov persistently asked me to arrange a meeting with Molotov. I made a strenuous effort to arrange it and finally succeeded. The conversation lasted about four hours, during which the most burning questions were raised and not a single one left unaswered. As we walked to the railroad station after the meeting, Molotov's interlocutor remarked, "Visiting with Molotov is like traveling abroad for the first time. If one were anti-Soviet one would grow more anti-Soviet after meeting with him; if one were pro-Soviet one would grow firmer in their convictions. I haven't started liking him, but I've definitely been struck by his reasoning powers and responsiveness. Those men are not to be trifled with! I wonder what kind of person Stalin was if he had a man like Molotov working for him?""

[Helen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having now finished the book, it is impressive inasmuch as Molotov's comments up until the end of his long life reveal that he remained optimistic about socialism - despite the country's decline in the decade prior to his death in 1986.

Molotov was involved in crimes - the repressions/terror and the removal of grain from various regions, which led to famine - but continued to believe in the rationales or justifications for what must be considered the most odious actions: The Soviet leadership couldn't countenance anti-Soviet plots, and top Soviet leaders, especially Stalin, became increasingly paranoid, seeing plots everywhere. The repressions began to take on a life of their own with various regional leaders probably attempting to prove their loyalty (& thus avoid repression) by repressing thousands; meanwhile people were encouraged to denounce neighbors, children parents, and so forth. This must have been the most horrific aspect of the 80 years of Soviet power - the destruction of the social fabric of the country, a catastrophe that obviously made it that much easier for the leadership to rule.

Molotov in a couple of comments admits that Russia is a petit bourgeois country and that socialism wasn't popular. Obviously, the initial phase must have been popular, otherwise the coup d'etat/revolution would have failed. It was obviously popular to allow the peasants in the countryside to take land from landowners. Then they felt rich or at least that they had something. However, collectivization was later imposed - it was resisted, and in my opinion, the famine was deliberately imposed by the Soviet leadership to break the resistance in the areas that resisted. There were also repressions in those areas, but each action - repression, removal of grain, creation of famine - was intended to break opposition to unpopular Soviet policies. Therefore, the Soviet government didn't have popular support in at least some of its policies - and the lack of support must have led to a vicious cycle of repressions because of paranoia, which led to even less support, and then more repression. The problem was - other than at the beginning when everyone could agree that tsarism must at least change if not end, and there should be some sort of land redistribution, and the state was acting on behalf of the workers in nationalizing industry etc. - other aspects such as forced collectivization of the transformation of society weren't popular at all. Molotov notes at one point that Russians didn't work well - that must have been their way of resisting, or expressing disgust.

There may have been democracy within the single party state - but the state was based on the theory of communism as an infallible system, almost a religious doctrine of infallibility, and thus, there was no need to get the peoples' consent or advice on policies. There were many councils at all levels of government of course - and they acted democratically but it was democracy within the socialist state, there was probably no alternative other than to agree with the general policies handed down from on high. Maybe I'm wrong and there was at least some feedback/input from the grassroots. But it must have only been allowed from the party members, who already would have agreed with the general party policies in order to have become party members.

The leadership had built a watertight political construct designed to shield them from dissent or a real opposition. In the end, most people disliked it - they may have studied the theories but despite the social benefits (education, medical care, education) most people couldn't go on with it, with striving toward communism and so forth. They probably also wanted to dissociate themselves from the murderous legacy of prior Soviet leadership - given the social consequences.

Molotov was critical of the leadership since Stalin (obviously) but never wavered in his faith in the communist movement - the theories, and the hope that the world would one day see things Marx's way. Although this never happened - Molotov remained un disillusioned. He remained proud of having been a key revolutionary and having helped to overthrow tsarism. Little did he know that five years after his death in 1986, the USSR and the Communist Party he had been a member of for 80 years, would be no more...

This book contains the very interesting memories of a top Soviet official - decades after he was removed from his official positions by Khrushchev - after he and others had tried to oust Khrushchev.

The book does offer a lot of insight at least into Molotov's mind-set - which remained that of a dedicated communist, loyal to the ideals espoused by Lenin/Marx.

Interestingly, he didn't amass wealth despite having served in some of the highest offices of the USSR for decades, and thus, when he was finally pensioned off, he really did have to survive on a small pension for the remaining decades of his life. He lived his anti-bourgeois principles in real life. It seems that many of these revolutionaries -- obviously feared and despised in the West -- actually didn't use political power to enrich themselves personally. The theory that the entire world would go communist didn't pan out, and so Khrushchev and his successor Brezhnev had to settle for a doctrine of "peaceful coexistence" rather than risk a mutually catastrophic nuclear war with the West. Since the rather millennial-sounding prediction of communism that all nations would eventually become communist never did occur, it was undoubtedly this lack of a worldwide revolution - among other things, to be sure - that must have shattered the "believers'" or adherents' "faith" in the inevitability of worldwide revolution, and by extension, the entire theory. Perhaps the shattering of this "faith" was analogous to the general secularization of society - as fewer and fewer people attend church and so forth, perhaps likewise losing "faith" in religion etc.

There was something "miraculous" about the revolutionary prescription for social ills: The state seizes control of the means of production, or coops are set up. It also becomes the one "landlord" and banker. The idea would be that if the state is acting on behalf of the people, everything should work out fine. Income inequality is eliminated, and people are incentivized to excel in altruism rather than be successful by amassing money. Getting rich is no longer the point of life. This is all idealistic but assumes that everyone will simultaneously think the same way and support the new system - it does not allow for differences of opinion, disagreements, and so forth. It doesn't recognize that there will always be opposing points of view. The system would be "perfect" if everyone thought the same way, altruistically, but not everyone does.

An example of a "perfect" "socio-economic" system is perhaps that of bees - with the workers, who are all sisters, working without question for the common good - the food/shelter of the hive, including the implementation of a division of labor (specialization). Workers serve/protect the queen bee, whose task is to simply create new workers by laying eggs (another specialization) and actually could not work as the other bees even if she wanted to (is more or less immobilized within the hive). The hive is a sort of "super-organism" wherein all work for the common good selflessly - the workers have all given up the chance to reproduce, perhaps not an issue with them since the successive generations of workers could be regarded as their "children" which they diligently care for (although they are actually simply additional siblings). Were the bees to try to survive individually they would no doubt fail. Thus, they have created an efficient colony - the bee hive -wherein all somehow manage to survive by everyone working hard for the common good. To transpose such a "perfect" system onto man would only be possible if everyone's mind was as single-minded, altruistic, selfless, as that of bees - who regard the hive as the organism and their own lives as perhaps "expendable" as long as the hive/swarm survives.

Most people though are selfish, greedy, and individualistic - and opinionated - thinking for themselves (even if they were bees, they probably would not give up all to keep the hive going). They are more independent - every man for himself etc. Thus the theory of cooperating in order for all to survive, so that everyone could have something rather than continue with extreme income inequality or poverty - would be a difficult concept to sell to even the poor, who would have the most to benefit from such a scheme of selfless cooperation. People would rather take their chances in the casino of life. They always imagine they will get a lucky break, and get rich, or get a nice apartment, or somehow "make it." The glittering goal of self-improvement, social "triumph" constantly provides the incentive for event the lowliest (it seems). Mankind is always fighting off perils of the forest - as in fairy tales - in hopes of emerging victorious in some climactic struggle and getting the keys to the kingdom one day. This is probably the myth that motivates so many: They may be struggling today, but there is always the prospect that they will realize their dreams tomorrow. Were they to give up the struggle and instead selflessly cooperate, they would have absolutely no chance of realizing any of the above-listed dreams. Of course, neither would anyone else - and so, having little would not equal "failure." This psychological or "mythic" aspect of consciousness (in general) was the factor that was not taken into account by the theoreticians of socialism. A downtrodden worker today would certainly appreciate better pay and everything that socialism has to offer - but who is to say that the same worker once they have acquired the wherewithal to compete or create (education/capital) may not want to start a business of their own tomorrow? The theory doesn't account for mankind's tendency to want to try new things, try and fail even, be discoverers, adventurers, etc.

Neither capitalism nor socialism were the perfect systems - although in theory, we could say that socialism insofar as the social safety net is concerned, is certainly the more humane system. The most successful economies on Earth today include elements of both systems. Unfortunately, in many societies that have gone through revolutions, political polarization prevents the introduction of reforms - until it is too late and a revolution breaks out. At the time of the Russian Revolution approximately half of the population was illiterate. Illiteracy was eliminated by the communists and numerous other improvements were instituted as well (health care, transportation, etc.). Those who ran the gov in the USSR then thought that everyone would think the same way and have the same goals in life - as if the state were a hive and the citizenry identical "?mindless bees." This was one of the weaknesses of the Soviet system - Lenin knew his gov was teetering and it was by means of luck and violence that the gov survived. The faith that many at first had eventually evaporated. I'm not going to discuss in this review why the Soviet gov eventually disintegrated; however, I do think this book, as repetitious as it may be at times, does offer an interesting insight into the thinking of the leadership over several decades.

Molotov was born in 1890, was involved in revolutionary activity prior to the Russian Revolution, and survived until 1986 - having seen and participated in the Revolution from its birth to the era of its eventual dissolution (since he died when the USSR was ruled by Gorbachev).

Quotes from the book:

From the Preface (by Chuev):

"[Molotov] ... worked with Lenin, was a member of a military Revolutionary Committee that prepared the October armed uprising in Petrograd (Saint Petersburg) and deputy chairman of the State Committee of Defense during the Great Patriotic War (World War II)."

"What you noticed at once was his modesty, meticulousness,and thrift. He saw that nothing would be wasted -- for instance, the light would never be on for no reason in other rooms. He wore clothes for years -- in the same hat and coat he appears in official government pictures over years' time. At home, a thick brown shirt, on a holiday, a grey suit, a dark tie. He had an excellent memory until the end of his life."

""I am a man of the nineteenth century," Molotov said."

"He died at age ninety-six on November 8, 1986, on the day when exactly sixty-nine years earlier he had stood beside Lenin as he was proclaiming Soviet power. Molotov's will was opened. There was a savings book in an envelope: 50 rubles for the funeral -- that was all of his savings."

From the Introduction (by Albert Resis):

"Because secrecy enabled officials at all levels to camouflage malfeasance or falsify affairs, even Soviet leaders could not know with any degree of certainty the true state of the union."

"...Molotov...immediately condemned the newly created Provisional Government as a counterrevolutionary combination of capitalists and landlords."

"On Lenin's return to Russia in April he succeeded in persuading the party to reverse itself and adopt his line: no support whatever to the Provisional Government -- "All power to the Soviets!""

"...Molotov disagreed with Stalin over some questions of theory posed in drafting the new constitution then under discussion."

"In foreign affairs, how effective was Molotov? He saw his main task as foreign minister "to extend the frontier of the Fatherland to the maximum.""

"Finally we come to Molotov and the basic institutions of Soviet agriculture. One must bear in mind that the Revolution, by abolishing private property in land and turning over former privately owned estates to the peasants, extended and consolidated the traditional system of peasant agriculture in Russia. This was based on communal land tenure with periodic re partition of land allotments. In other words, the villages owned the land and the peasants had use rights to equal shares of it. Every so often the assignment of plots was adjusted to reflect changes in the size of families."

[Willy Marz Thiessam · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a historian and archivist this is a nightmare. It's not an oral history but a disorganized mess of random statements taken out of context. That said there is enough here to give secondary detail to what can be best described authoritatively elsewhere. The accuracy and clarity to the original transcript is lacking but the work is essentially a well put together poetic mashup that is a work of art in itself. Reads more like gothic horror with psychedelic distortions than a professionally edited transcript. Well worth the read.

[M · Rating 5 out of 5]

haunting dream about stalin in ruins of a city, what color were his eyes

some kind of haunting nostalgia/tragedy of the failing ussr and dreams of youth

[Joshua · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good insight into Molotov’s thinking and the peasant question

[Jayden gonzalez · Rating 5 out of 5]

rest in piece v.m. molotov (1890-1986)

[mark eden · Rating 4 out of 5]

In which Soviet Foreign Minister under Joesph Stalin Vyacheslav Molotov tires to explain himself for future generations.

[Alex Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a lengthy series of interviews with the famous Soviet foreign minister - and top Stalin crony - who gave his name to the infamous treaty that divided Europe into Nazi and Soviet spheres of influence. Molotov may have been a dull figure (by his own admission he had no time for much of a personal life and talked little about himself in these interviews), but his political life was anything but: he personally knew or met with Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Mao Zedong, Winston Churchill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Charles de Gaulle, and Adolf Hitler. He witnessed Lenin step off the famous sealed train to Russia in 1917, saw the Bolsheviks proclaim power over Petrograd months later in Red October, witnessed Stalin's ruthless consolidation of power in the 20s and 30s, and travelled the world on behalf of his boss in high stakes diplomatic efforts during World War II and the Cold War. Reading the personal anecdotage of these meetings and events, I felt like I was getting a first-hand account of a significant chunk of 20th century history.

Molotov the man was unironically a devout Marxist who fervently believed every action taken by both him and the regime he served took the world one step closer to communist utopia. He disingenuously justified the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact by arguing that he always anticipated a war with Nazi Germany and the pact bought the Soviet Union valuable time to prepare for war. While not totally false, it ignored the very cynical bargain that was struck with the Nazis (he denied the existence of the secret protocol that divided Eastern Europe between the two regimes, later unearthed with the opening of the Soviet archives). He justified Stalin's murderous purges with the depraved argument that mass violence was necessary to eliminate "fifth columnists" before the inevitable war came. He bluntly admitted to signing every arrest and execution list presented to him, which, he coldly said, "made a lot of people suffer." He admitted that "grave mistakes and excesses were committed," but on the whole, "the terror of the late 1930s was necessary" because "it was the best of all possible alternatives." He also talked at length about his decades-long relationship with Stalin. He has hardly anything bad to say about the man, even though Stalin had his wife arrested and, by Molotov's own admission, ".... I might not have remained in one piece had he lived on." In between these reminiscences of great events, Molotov provides trite observations of the great contemporaries he rubbed shoulders with: Hitler came across as perfectly normal; Mao confessed to him that he never read Das Kapital; Lenin sometimes grabbed people by the neck when he was angry with them. Molotov also engaged with his interviewer about the finer details of Marxism, which he shows much more contemplation towards than any of his mountains of victims.

And that's probably the best way to summarize the man himself. For people like him, the cause means everything, and individuals mean nothing. In that sense, he was the perfect cog for the Soviet system.

[Matthew O'Brien · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book about a fantastic man. the book is filled with so much important information on lenin, Stalin, khrushchev and more. One of the last lines of the book says Molotov was born under Tsar Alexander III and died under Gorbachev which goes to show the important times he lived through and for a good few decades of his life he was right in the center of those important times. The only reason the book isnt a 5 is because the editor doesn't help readers at all. I am grateful that i already know a decent amount of Soviet history but for someone with little knowledge the book isn't as helpful as there is no proper explanation as to who certain people are which is a shame. If there is ever a reprint of this book I think it should certainly have a small index at the end of the book that gives a paragraph or 2 to each person mentioned in the book.

Overall it is a very good book about a man who (retrospectively) was a Bolshevik from 1906 until his death in 1986

[Sinan Öner]

One of the most important leaders of Soviet Union during the 2. World War was Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich Molotov! Molotov worked with the Soviet President Joseph Stalin, President Nikita Kruschev, President Leonid Brezhnev in Moscow. Molotov played role in the 2. World War, then in the contracts between the Soviet Union, the USA, the Great Britain, others after the war in 1945-1946. Molotov's interviews are very important sources for the studying on the 2. World War, the history of Soviet Union, and the socio-political experiences in Moscow after 2. World War. Molotov was an international official who worked with a lot of governors in the world - not only with President Joseph Stalin!-, in the United Nations, in the Warsaw Pact with NATO, other international communities for the progress in the peaceful relations in the world politics.

[Jan Kubiznak · Rating 1 out of 5]

Po první třiceti stranách jsem měl velkou chuť knihu odložit. Tvrdí dnes evidentně prokázané lži, upravuje si realitu. Historická vypovídací hodnota je minimální, jestli o něčem, tak jde o výpověď bolševického masového vraha. Naprostá neschopnost sebereflexe, zatvrzelost, brutalita od psacího stolu, zlo v čisté podobě. Ani se mi tomu nechtělo věřit. Možná má cenu si knihu přečíst, aby si člověk uvědomil, že něco takového je možné. "Nikdy jsem nelitoval a nikdy nebudu litovat, že jsme jednali velmi krutě."

Četl jsem zkrácený český překlad z roku 1996.

[Sebastian Forsberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ett måste för alla som är intresserad av 1900-talshistoria i allmänhet och Sovjetunionen i synnerhet. Boken ger en väldigt sällsynt inblick i de beslut som togs under ryska revolutionen och Sovjetunionens fortsatta utveckling, inklusive andra världskriget.

[Sarp · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's an invaluable insight into the realities of domestic and external affairs in the Soviet Union.

The only downside is the editor, who is clearly hostile to both the writer and to Molotov. As long as you can ignore his idiotic comments you will benefit from this book.

[Liam Conway · Rating 5 out of 5]

An indispensable resource for any study of Soviet history.

[Ovidiu Ivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

As an Eastern European I read this with a biased contempt for Molotov and his contribution to plundering of my country, the effects still visibile today. The killings, the destroyed lives, the absurd social engineering. However, there is tremendous historical value in the fact that these interviews exist, as the closest we can get to the rationale behind some of those decisions. Molotov was at times second to Stalin in terms of power and influence and one of the very few who was at the top party leadership in the October revolution and survived throughout.

Curiosity absorbed me into his mind and the simplicity of his rationale convinced me the book should be recognized as an indispensable research instrument for the Soviet era.

Molotov's personality is defining to Arendt's idea of the "banality of evil". The famine? Something others experienced, he only felt hunger in exile, before taking power. The reshaping of Eastern European borders with Hitler's Germany? Blame it on his bad historical geography skills. The purges? Had to be done for the greater good.

Must read for anyone.

[Stanislav Fedorov · Rating 5 out of 5]

На протяжении последних пятнадцати лет жизни Молотова одним из его друзей и собеседников был писатель Феликс Чуев. Книга представляет собой выдержки из ста сорока их бесед. На даче, на празднике, на прогулке, в компании или в уединении. Да, если кто не помнит, Вячеслав Молотов - это советский премьер и министр иностранных дел в 1930-50-х годах.

Умерший в 1986 году в возрасте 96 лет, он очень долго сохранял ясность ума и его рассказы являются совершенно исключительным источником по эпохе 20-50-х. Источником по вопросам, которые обыкновенно не имели письменной фиксации.

Здесь нет каких-то откровений или сенсаций. Молотов просто пересказывает случаи из жизн��, зачастую какие-то совершенно банальные на его взгляд суждения. И это, безусловно, потрясающая по силе вещь. По-моему, еще у Николя Верта была мысль о том, что советскую историю нужно объяснять не с помощью политики или экономики, а в основном с помощью психологии. Читая Молотова, лишний раз убеждаешься в том, насколько был прав француз. Казалось бы, Молотов принадлежал к очень близкой нам эпохе, ведь еще и ста лет не прошло с установления Советской власти. Однако оценка его с точки зрения современных представлений о нравственности и морали, подобная оценка его действий во времена, например, Большого террора, не дает нам вменяемых результатов. Мы попадаем в ловушку, считая, что раз это недавние события, значит и менталитет тогдашних деятелей не сильно отличался от нашего и мы можем получить объяснения всех событий, не отходя от позиции сегодняшнего дня. В итоге мы просто разводим руками и говорим что-то невнятное о планомерной борьбе с оппозицией, заговорах или сумасшедшем Сталине. А всё проще и одновременно сложнее. По нынешним понятиям Молотов - ультрарадикал, ортодоксальный фундаменталист и в известном смысле маньяк. Нет никаких оснований предполагать, что и другие представители сталинского руководства, и сам Сталин от него сильно отличались. Совершенно невероятные и шокирующие нас вещи имеют для Молотова очевидное и прозаическое объяснение.

[Mika · Rating 5 out of 5]

Heavy and rewarding. Requires background information and Wikipedia.

Unique conversational style is based on interviews conducted by Felix Chuev between 1969-1986, while Molotov (b. 1890) was involuntarily retired in his dacha in Zhukovka.

Molotov's interviews give the most honest view of the Soviet political system. Inherently unpredictable, the system collapsed a few years after Molotov, his generation, and the last of the younger old guard, had passed away.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Not everything has happened as we thought it would." I don't need to elaborate on what an understatement this is. That said, scarcely a page goes by in this book without something utterly fascinating.