5 ms·
The hypocrisy was obvious at that time, and Khrushchev had to redirect the country to keep it together. Apocryphal anecdote: Following Stalin's death, Nikita
by ptaipale 7y ago
The hypocrisy was obvious at that time, and Khrushchev had to redirect the country to keep it together.
Apocryphal anecdote:
Following Stalin's death, Nikita Khrushchev gave a speech to the Politburo denouncing Stalin's policies. A few minutes into Khrushchev's diatribe, somebody shouted out, "Why didn't you challenge him then, the way you are now?"
The room fell silent, as Khrushchev angrily swept the audience with his glare. "Who said that?" he asked in a reasoned voice. Silence.
"Who said that?" Khrushchev demanded, leaning forward. Silence.
Pounding his fist on the podium to accent each word, he screamed, "Who - said - that?" Still no answer.
Finally, after a long and strained silence, the elected politicians in the room fearful to even cough, a corner of Khrushchev's mouth lifted into a smile.
"Now you know," he said with a chuckle, "why I did not speak up against Stalin when I sat where you now sit."
[I can't find the link to this just now, due to company's whitelist approach to deciding which web sites are safe]
- arethuza 7y agoMy 'favourite' Khrushchev story was he apparently got drunk with the British ambassador and the latter gamely try to argue down the number of H-bombs it would take to destroy the UK whereas Khrushchev was arguing the number up. In case anyone is interested - the actual number the UK government estimated it would take was 3, the Soviets targetted many hundreds of them.
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoOne takes out 20% of England's population, if it's London.
- arethuza 7y agoI believe the UK estimates were based on the damage required before complete societal breakdown happens rather than simple headcount of immediate casualties. The UK government always was rather realistic about what would happen in the event of a 'general war', even if they didn't make that information widely known.
- arethuza 7y agoSpeaking of the effects of a nuclear weapon on London, here is an excellent BBC documentary from the early 1980s on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GJttnC8PoA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GJttnC8PoA In best British tradition it does even manage a bit of exceedingly dark humour.
- davidwtbuxton 7y agoAlso Threads, from the same era, incredibly bleak depiction of British society in the aftermath of a nuclear attack. https://youtu.be/vgT4Y30DkaA https://youtu.be/vgT4Y30DkaA (For those who haven't seen it, it is grim, but gripping.)
- atombender 7y agoThe director, Mick Jackson, later made Threads [1], which is one of the bleakest, most depressing films ever made. Highly recommended, though not for the easily disturbed. It's filmed like a documentary, not too different from A Guide To Armageddon. He also made Connections [2] with James Burke, which is a fantastic documentary series about the history of science. (His later, very commercial Hollywood work is less interesting, though Steve Martin's L.A. Story is great.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series)
- pmoriarty 7y agoIt's ironic, but these days such a totalitarian leader wouldn't need to ask. There'd be a recording showing who the culprit was. So there's even more incentive these days to stay silent about one's non-conformist opinions.