In the autumn of 1952, Moscow hosted the 19th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union – the last “Stalinist” congress. Evgeny Spitsyn, a historian and adviser to the rector of Moscow State University, told “Komsomolskaya Pravda” radio what was remarkable about Stalin’s speech and why it is still relevant today.
WORLD EVIL – “WARMONGERS”
What was Iosef Vissarionovich talking about?
“This was the first post-war party congress. The previous one was held in 1939 – during the war there was no time for congresses. Stalin wanted to convene it in 1947, but for some reason refused this idea – and gathered it in October 1952.
The congress was the only one in the Stalin era where it was not he who made the report of the Central Committee. There were several key ones: Malenkov’s speech – the report of the Central Committee. The second – about the new five-year plan for the development of the national economy – was made by Maksim Saburov, head of the State Planning Committee of the USSR. Nikita Khrushchev reported on the change in the name of the party and the change in its charter. Stalin gave a short speech of 12 minutes on the last day of the congress – October 14th.
Malenkov’s report began with an assessment of the international situation and the development of the leading bourgeois powers: it was then that the Korean war was underway. In form – a war between the two Koreas, but in fact – the first tough confrontation between the United States and the USSR.
And Stalin devoted his speech, among other things, to the problems of war and peace. And at the end he threw a phrase into the hall: ‘Down with the warmongers!’ And with his hand, he made it look as if he’d brushed them off the table. This speech was previously underestimated in our country. It was not very clear the meaning of it, or why Stalin made it. But now Stalin’s words are more than relevant again.”
Which ones? About what?
“Two main ideas. Firstly, the banner of bourgeois-democratic liberties – freedom of speech, press, processions, and assembly, which the national bourgeoisie always raised on its shield – was thrown overboard. And now it is the workers, the communist parties, who must raise this banner. And the second important Stalinist message: before the bourgeoisie was the leader of the nation, fighting for its interests, and now the banner of the struggle for national sovereignty is also thrown out. And the bourgeoisie sells itself for dollars. Stalin stated: the postulates that we now call the ideas of globalism have become the dominant factor.”
Was Stalin the first in our country to call for fighting against globalisation? We can see the threat this poses. And now there are words in Europe that you can’t betray your national interests. Separatist movements in Catalonia, Scotland – are they primarily against the dictates of globalism?
“In fact, yes. The danger of globalism in western, i.e. bourgeois, packaging was noted by Lenin in the early 20th century.”
United States of Europe?
“Yes, his famous article ‘On the slogan of the United States of Europe’. He said that in the context of the crisis of this colonial system, when Germany also began to show increased interest in the already divided pie, projects of the United States of Europe are emerging. This is like a new form of colonial expansion of the advanced European powers. In particular, against the European countries themselves, which, from the point of view of the ideologists of globalism or mondialism, were second-class, if not third-class countries.
The European Union is a de facto implementation of the century – old slogan of the United States of Europe, where the dominant role is played by Germany, maybe a little France, and until recently – Great Britain. And all the countries of the southern underbelly (Romania, Greece, Bulgaria) or the Baltic states are purely semi-colonial countries, sources of cheap labour and raw materials.”
COSMOPOLITANS – THE WEAPON OF THE GLOBALISTS
Lenin justified it theoretically, but Stalin was the first to fight the practical danger when it became a reality?
“Stalin read all the documents and books with a pencil in his hands. And he made clear, precise notes. Reading the draft of the new party program prepared by the working group of Andrey Zhdanov in 1947, in one place he directly wrote that it is necessary to fight globalism. When we talk about the last Stalinist period, i.e., the post-war period, we focus on the struggle against ‘rootless cosmopolitans’. And they present the case as if it was completely directed against the Jews. This simplifies its content and essence. In fact, the struggle against cosmopolitans is a struggle against the carriers of the idea of globalisation or mondialism, who spoke from the position of denying sovereignty and creating a world government. These ideas were expressed during the war by Winston Churchill, the head of the British Foreign Ministry, Ernest Bevin. Even Albert Einstein. Our physicists, Pyotr Kapitsa, Nikolay Semyonov, and Abram Joffe, gave him an answer to his message to them, where they rejected the ideas of globalism developed by the famous physicist as not meeting the interests of the development of human civilisation. Stalin saw perfectly well that they carried the threat of the existence of national states and the emergence of a new war. But in this case, we were talking about the fact that the United States was at the head of this movement as the most powerful country that became the leader of the western world during the war.”
But the idea that this is a manifestation of anti-Semitism at the highest state level was based on something?
“It so happened that first of all the representatives of the Jewish intelligentsia were the bearers of the ideas of globalism. At the same time, Stalin was not a zoological anti-Semite. He even told the Central Committee member and editor-in-chief of ‘Pravda’, Pyotr Pospelov, when the campaign against cosmopolitanism was ending: Pospelov, it is not necessary to fight against specific characters. You have to fight the ideas in the minds of these characters. We are fighting on an ideological level, not on the level of seeking out Jews or half-Jews. To assume that Stalin was a narrow-minded nationalist is to substitute the essence of the issue.”
But the heads were flying!
“I repeat: the fight against cosmopolitanism grew out of the aggressively imposed ideas of globalism, the creation of world management structures: a world parliament, a world government, world controlling and regulating bodies. Gorbachev, who in fact is the main culprit of the collapse of the USSR, failed to cope with this. He thought we would live in a single European home. But he was tricked. No one was going to let Russia into a single European home. It was in the plans of the globalists was a place on the margins.
By the way, on the eve of the congress, Stalin’s last theoretical work was published – ‘Economic problems of socialism in the USSR’. In it, he paid quite a lot of attention not only to assessing the state of the economy of western powers, but also to whether there is an inevitability of wars under imperialism in the nuclear age. And he concluded that Lenin’s doctrine of the inevitability of war remains the most alive. This is in defiance of academician Varga and those members of the Politburo of the Central Committee who believed that the coming nuclear age, especially after the USSR created the atomic and then the hydrogen bomb in 1949, makes war impossible. They actually denied the Leninist attitude and said that the countries of capital and the countries of socialism can get along within the framework of a system of peaceful coexistence. This will be accepted by Khrushchev at the 20th Congress in 1956, and this was actually a mistake.”
How? After all, there was back then a policy of detente, and we all believed that this was the right policy.
“It was enveloping through the ideas of Eurocommunism, and then the convergence of the two systems. We succumbed to it, and the result was the collapse of the USSR. And now we see that imperialism, as a system not only economic, but also political, legal, and moral, is spewing out the lava of an inevitable war like the mouth of a volcano. The only deterrent is the presence of nuclear weapons.”
PARTY, LET ME STEER!
If we take into account that after the collapse of the USSR for the last 25 years, the United States has been waging endless wars against countries that do not have nuclear weapons, drawing Europe into them, it turns out that comrade Stalin was right?
“That’s why his last speech ended with the words: ‘Down with the warmongers!’ He warned against complacency, and gave Molotov and Mikoyan a dressing-down at the Central Committee’s organizational forum, which was held at the end of the Congress. They were not even included in the Bureau of the Central Committee Presidium.”
“There were no transcripts of that plenum. And what happened there is known mainly from the short fragmentary memoirs of Konstantin Simonov. Already a seriously ill man, he wrote the famous memoir ‘Through the eyes of a man of my generation’ in the hospital. Molotov, as Simonov wrote, was severely beaten by Stalin because Vyacheslav Mikhailovich behaved too frivolously towards our former allies. First of all, in relation to the US and the UK. Stalin didn’t like this. He believed that here Molotov lost the nose of a staunch Bolshevik who stands guard over the interests and supporters of the fight against imperialism; that Molotov gives them slack, promises them some relief, including from the point of view of propaganda of their ideas on the territory of the USSR. Molotov gave a second reason for Stalin’s displeasure by telling his wife about Politburo meetings and details of discussions of political information. She shared this information with her talkative friends, and the secret information reached the ears that were not intended for this. In particular, to the Israeli Ambassador to the Soviet Union Golda Meir. As for Mikoyan, the main complaint against him was his attempt to please the layman. Stalin accused him of right-wing bias, which was once preached by Nikolay Bukharin and his team.
Therefore, these two characters were taken out of the real political process. What would have been the fate of Molotov and Mikoyan, we can only guess. A little over four months later, Stalin died. And this probably saved them from much more serious consequences.”
Stalin’s death saved many people from much more serious consequences — he proposed to take away the steering wheel of the country from the party?
“Since the pre-war 18th party congress, Stalin significantly revised the role of the party and its governing bodies in the system of government of the country. The turn of Stalin’s famous managerial reform began. There was a redistribution of power levers from the central party organisations to the then Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR. The next step on this path was the decisions taken in 1946. When the branch departments within the entire party apparatus were eliminated, including in the Central Committee, only the agitation and Propaganda Department and the Personnel Department were left. Stalin believed that the party should be left with two things – agitation and propaganda, and the selection and placement of personnel. And specific areas are the business of specialists, techies, and technocrats. And this should be handled by the Council of Ministers of the USSR. It still sometimes was led by the party apparatus. Such fluctuations went all the second half of the 40s. Then there will be some restoration of the role of party departments. But in 1952, Stalin would put the party back in its place.
He will rotate the staff. He will say that the minister’s job is a peasant’s job. Here you need to plow, be a professional in your field. Stalin explained that we are now forced to conduct such a serious rotation of senior personnel and put at the head of ministries – and their number has grown significantly – people who have proven themselves in concrete practical work on managing entire industries. He said that we had to remove many distinguished comrades, in particular – Kaganovich, Voroshilov, and others – from specific jobs and appoint them to the posts of wedding generals, deputy chairmen of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. And Stalin put it in a peculiar way: I don’t even know how many deputies I have now.”
If we see what exactly Stalin did in the autumn of 1952, and just a little over four months later he suddenly died, does this not lead to certain thoughts?
“There are many publications that say that Stalin did not die a natural death. Although he was a sick man. He’s already had several strokes. But even the fact of vomiting blood suggests that just as a result of a normal stroke, such vomiting would be impossible.
We must also understand that after the end of the plenum of the Central Committee and the 19th party congress in early November, a fundamental decision was made that in the event of a vacation or illness of comrade Stalin, his duties in the government, as Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, are performed by Georgy Malenkov. And the duties of the party Secretary of the Central Committee – Lavrentiy Beria. Here’s the question. After all, Beria is a person who was not a Secretary of the Central Committee. Beria, as first deputy head of government, was then in charge of the nuclear project. But in fact, in November 1952, the two main heirs of Stalin’s power were identified – Beria and Malenkov.
Many professional historians do not exclude the fact that Stalin was actually poisoned. But the fact is that we still cannot study in detail the history of Stalin’s illness. The issue needs further study. And the most important thing is to find out who was really behind this whole operation.”
Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.