8 ms·

Comments on the Change in Soviet Leadership (1955) [pdf]

63 points by droptablemain 5y ago

sudosysgen 5y ago
Note : this is about the PRC under Mao and the USSR under Stalin. Arguably Mao's China was more of a dictatorship that Stalin's USSR. You also shouldn't take this report too literally, some predictions such as the food situation not improving didn't actually come to pass. So take it with a grain of salt.
- fsckboy 5y ago
  > Mao's China was more of a dictatorship that Stalin's USSR Mao's China probably better described as a "cult of personality", perhaps closer to Lenin than Stalin as a starting place to draw distinctions.
  - avrionov 5y ago
    The cult of personality reached its height in USSR during Stalin's rule.
- refenestrator 5y ago
  Mao was sidelined after the great leap forward and had to instigate the cultural revolution to take back the driver's seat. I was under the impression Stalin never faced any real threat of losing power?
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Stalin indeed never faced any real threat, but he also didn't rule as long as Mao nor as unilaterally. Stalin always made sure that most of his decisions were popular with a fairly large segment of the population.
    - refenestrator 5y ago
      Yeah, I think it turns into apples and oranges the more detail one goes into. Mao was definitely more reckless, Stalin more paranoid, and it makes sense that Stalin's position would be more secure barring an assassination or something.
mistralefob 5y ago
Nice. I was always thinking that western idea about dictators is stupid. People are the same around the globe. Only difference is amount of resources available at given point on earth.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  While in general dictators aren't as definitive as it seems, communist system this report is talking about is quite different, historically many dictators had much more unilateral power and were much less reliant on their peers for support That is evidenced by the fact that the USSR had many, many more peaceful transfers of power than any dictatorship I can think of, and military/security service coups were always very unsuccessful. Ultimately this all comes from decentralization of power.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > military/security service coups were always very unsuccessful Until ultimately a KGB agent took over and has been in power ever since.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      He didn't take over the USSR, he took over the Russian Federation, which is very different. He overthrew a "democracy" as the US called it as part of the FSB.
      - holoduke 5y ago
        I would advise to watch some content with Putin speaking. A hell more intelligent and constructive than most US presidents. Russia is very power fragile country. It requires a very strict setup to hold stability. Lots of western countries (specially the US) are trying to break the stability by supporting lunatics which we in the west call the opposition. Those lunatics have one single mission and that is to destabilise or sabotage the Russian society. I will never say it's right to simply murder your opponents. But currently the country is very stable, safe and economically made enormous steps last 20 years. Leadership in Russia is very strong. It has still many issues to resolve. But please can the west stop enforcing their so called 'freedom' setup in non democratic countries.
jsrcout 5y ago
The book On Stalin's Team by Sheila Fitzpatrick [0] is an excellent account of how Stalin and his inner circle operated, particularly the decision making process and the balance of power within the group over time. [0] https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691145334/on-stalins-team https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691145334/on...
- rurban 5y ago
  But the best book about Stalin is from his secretary Boris Bašanov, who deflected as soon as he saw Stalin's insanity. Not in English, but the Google translation is good. The CIA and the Nazis knew about this book. The Nazis ignored it and this lost the eastern front.
  - guythedudebro 5y ago
    If you admit the last sentence is hyperbole I'll be a lot more likely to take your recommendation
    - rurban 5y ago
      Read his book and you'll see. History would have been extremely different.
      - guythedudebro 5y ago
        Alright, and read more than one book on the subject and realize that's an oversimplification
bawolff 5y ago
I feel like the most interesting part is that a bit at the end was redacted. I guess im curious what could possibly need to still be secret 53 years later about a country that hadn't existed for 17 years.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Well, the latter point also does concern the PRC, which still exists, I'd guess that's why.
- icegreentea2 5y ago
  My guess is that the redacted section contains leading commentary on Soviet reactions to potential western actions and policies. The unredacted section reads are pretty neutral analysis, but you can see the section building. It opens with identifying that things are in flux, and a statement that western policy can likely influence soviet actions. I'd expect that to naturally lead into more detailed examinations, and open-ended but leading suggestions as to beneficial actions.
dimitar 5y ago
Stalin ruled for almost 30 years, it was always collective, however in the 1930s the cult of personality was at its height and the rest of the Politburo and the Central Military Commission (the really important subset of the Politburo) were entirely under his control. De-Stalinization was real and felt by the party
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dang 5y ago
Submitted title was "The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated", which is presumably something the document says.
- beepbooptheory 5y ago
  You don't have to read too much to find it! Why 'presumably'?
  - dang 5y ago
    Because I didn't look.
throwawaymanbot 5y ago
"De-Stalinization" was not just getting rid of him as Dictator, but also the removal of the culture/mindset he was the Primary figurehead/sustainer of). Which is ultimately what Dictators are?
someonewhocar3s 5y ago
I find it interesting that there's stuff redacted from 7 and the header, and that the references are also blanked. The numbers (without further metadata) are not really tells on their own (close enough I guess). It's just a straightforward statement. Don't overestimate it - there's a guy, he's on top, he's human, there's a team. EOM. 3 still holds relevance. "grave outside menace" isn't specified :"), but might refer to civil unrest being avoided (the situation tolerated) due to risk of ''. (edit: 2 may also still be relevant)

63 points by droptablemain 5y ago

Note : this is about the PRC under Mao and the USSR under Stalin. Arguably Mao's China was more of a dictatorship that Stalin's USSR. You also shouldn't take this report too literally, some predictions such as the food situation not improving didn't actually come to pass. So take it with a grain of salt.

fsckboy 5y ago
> Mao's China was more of a dictatorship that Stalin's USSR Mao's China probably better described as a "cult of personality", perhaps closer to Lenin than Stalin as a starting place to draw distinctions.
- avrionov 5y ago
  The cult of personality reached its height in USSR during Stalin's rule.
refenestrator 5y ago
Mao was sidelined after the great leap forward and had to instigate the cultural revolution to take back the driver's seat. I was under the impression Stalin never faced any real threat of losing power?
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Stalin indeed never faced any real threat, but he also didn't rule as long as Mao nor as unilaterally. Stalin always made sure that most of his decisions were popular with a fairly large segment of the population.
  - refenestrator 5y ago
    Yeah, I think it turns into apples and oranges the more detail one goes into. Mao was definitely more reckless, Stalin more paranoid, and it makes sense that Stalin's position would be more secure barring an assassination or something.

mistralefob 5y ago

Nice. I was always thinking that western idea about dictators is stupid. People are the same around the globe. Only difference is amount of resources available at given point on earth.

sudosysgen 5y ago
While in general dictators aren't as definitive as it seems, communist system this report is talking about is quite different, historically many dictators had much more unilateral power and were much less reliant on their peers for support That is evidenced by the fact that the USSR had many, many more peaceful transfers of power than any dictatorship I can think of, and military/security service coups were always very unsuccessful. Ultimately this all comes from decentralization of power.
- zepto 5y ago
  > military/security service coups were always very unsuccessful Until ultimately a KGB agent took over and has been in power ever since.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    He didn't take over the USSR, he took over the Russian Federation, which is very different. He overthrew a "democracy" as the US called it as part of the FSB.
    - holoduke 5y ago
      I would advise to watch some content with Putin speaking. A hell more intelligent and constructive than most US presidents. Russia is very power fragile country. It requires a very strict setup to hold stability. Lots of western countries (specially the US) are trying to break the stability by supporting lunatics which we in the west call the opposition. Those lunatics have one single mission and that is to destabilise or sabotage the Russian society. I will never say it's right to simply murder your opponents. But currently the country is very stable, safe and economically made enormous steps last 20 years. Leadership in Russia is very strong. It has still many issues to resolve. But please can the west stop enforcing their so called 'freedom' setup in non democratic countries.

jsrcout 5y ago

The book On Stalin's Team by Sheila Fitzpatrick [0] is an excellent account of how Stalin and his inner circle operated, particularly the decision making process and the balance of power within the group over time. [0] https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691145334/on-stalins-team https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691145334/on...

rurban 5y ago
But the best book about Stalin is from his secretary Boris Bašanov, who deflected as soon as he saw Stalin's insanity. Not in English, but the Google translation is good. The CIA and the Nazis knew about this book. The Nazis ignored it and this lost the eastern front.
- guythedudebro 5y ago
  If you admit the last sentence is hyperbole I'll be a lot more likely to take your recommendation
  - rurban 5y ago
    Read his book and you'll see. History would have been extremely different.
    - guythedudebro 5y ago
      Alright, and read more than one book on the subject and realize that's an oversimplification

bawolff 5y ago

I feel like the most interesting part is that a bit at the end was redacted. I guess im curious what could possibly need to still be secret 53 years later about a country that hadn't existed for 17 years.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Well, the latter point also does concern the PRC, which still exists, I'd guess that's why.
icegreentea2 5y ago
My guess is that the redacted section contains leading commentary on Soviet reactions to potential western actions and policies. The unredacted section reads are pretty neutral analysis, but you can see the section building. It opens with identifying that things are in flux, and a statement that western policy can likely influence soviet actions. I'd expect that to naturally lead into more detailed examinations, and open-ended but leading suggestions as to beneficial actions.

dimitar 5y ago

Stalin ruled for almost 30 years, it was always collective, however in the 1930s the cult of personality was at its height and the rest of the Politburo and the Central Military Commission (the really important subset of the Politburo) were entirely under his control. De-Stalinization was real and felt by the party

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dang 5y ago

Submitted title was "The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated", which is presumably something the document says.

beepbooptheory 5y ago
You don't have to read too much to find it! Why 'presumably'?
- dang 5y ago
  Because I didn't look.

throwawaymanbot 5y ago

"De-Stalinization" was not just getting rid of him as Dictator, but also the removal of the culture/mindset he was the Primary figurehead/sustainer of). Which is ultimately what Dictators are?

someonewhocar3s 5y ago

I find it interesting that there's stuff redacted from 7 and the header, and that the references are also blanked. The numbers (without further metadata) are not really tells on their own (close enough I guess). It's just a straightforward statement. Don't overestimate it - there's a guy, he's on top, he's human, there's a team. EOM. 3 still holds relevance. "grave outside menace" isn't specified :"), but might refer to civil unrest being avoided (the situation tolerated) due to risk of ''. (edit: 2 may also still be relevant)