By NINA KHRUSHCHEVA
My great-grandfather, Nikita Khrushchev, has been on my mind recently. I suppose it was the 50th anniversary of the "kitchen debate," which he held with Richard Nixon that first triggered my memories.
NIXON
This house can be bought for $14,000, and most American [veterans from World War II] can buy a home in the bracket of $10,000 to $15,000. Let me give you an example that you can appreciate. Our steel workers as you know, are now on strike. But any steel worker could buy this house. They earn $3 an hour. This house costs about $100 a month to buy on a contract running 25 to 30 years.
KHRUSHCHEV
We have steel workers and peasants who can afford to spend $14,000 for a house. Your American houses are built to last only 20 years so builders could sell new houses at the end. We build firmly. We build for our children and grandchildren.
NIXON
American houses last for more than 20 years, but, even so, after twenty years, many Americans want a new house or a new kitchen. Their kitchen is obsolete by that time....The American system is designed to take advantage of new inventions and new techniques.
KHRUSHCHEV
This theory does not hold water. Some things never get out of date--houses,for instance, and furniture, furnishings--perhaps--but not houses. I have read much about America and American houses, and I do not think that this is exhibit and what you say is strictly accurate.
But the funeral the week before last in Budapest for Gen. Bela Kiraly, who commanded the Hungarian Revolution's freedom fighters in 1956, and last week's funeral in Warsaw for philosopher Leszek Kolakowski, whose break with Stalinism that year inspired many intellectuals (in Poland and elsewhere) to abandon communism, made me reconsider my grandfather's legacy. I'm not really familiar with Kolakowski. From what I know of him from a very few people who knew him, Kiraly was a genuine hero. The world is a colder, more insipid place without him.
The year 1956 was the best of times and the worst of times for Khrushchev. His "secret speech" that year laid bare the monumentality of Stalin's crimes. Soon, the gulag was virtually emptied; a political thaw began, spurring whispers of freedom that could not be contained. In Poland and Hungary, in particular, an underground tide burst forth demanding change. I can remember a brief flood of "Hunkies" arriving while I was still in grade school. Some new faces at school, later some stories from the grown-ups...
Hungary, of course, had its short and glorious revolution. That first war among socialist states shattered the myth of inviolable "fraternal" bonds between the Soviet Union and the captive nations of Eastern Europe. But Khrushchev never envisioned the Soviet breakup as part of his thaw. So the Red Army invaded Hungary -- on a scale larger than the Allies' D-Day invasion of Europe in 1944. "Oh, dear! It's terrible!" quoth what would become today's liberalism at the time. "But we can't get involved, of course!"
Bela Kiraly, released from a sentence of life in prison (one of four death sentences he received from the Communists having been commuted) was offered the job of commander of the Hungarian National Guard and the defense of Budapest. His task was to knock the ragtag freedom fighters into an army, but there wasn't time to stop the Soviet advance. So, after a week of heroism he and a few thousand of his men crossed the border into Austria and exile. The revolt began as a student demonstration. The Hungarian version of the basij fired on them, and the revolt spread like wildfire, with the freedom fighters taking control of the country. The Sovs announced that they were willing to discuss withdrawing troops. Instead, they invaded. 2,500 Hungarians and 700 Russers were killed in the conflict, and 200,000 Hungarians fled as refugees. Kids my age played at taking out tanks with Molotov cocktails.
Over the years, a mutual friend often tried to introduce me to Gen. Kiraly, but, to my regret, that meeting never happened. Any man who would frame the four death sentences he had received (one signed by Khrushchev, another by Yuri Andropov, the Soviet ambassador in Budapest in 1956) and hang them in his drawing room has the sort of quirky humor I relish. I'm not sure how he walked, the size of the testicles he was lugging around...
And from what I know of the man and his history, particularly his work in Hungary after 1989, I can only wish that my great-grandfather could have met him. I don't think they'd have gotten along. In fact, I'm sure they didn't.
Certainly, Kiraly would not have hesitated to meet the man who ordered the invasion. After all, when he learned that one of the Russian generals who had led the invasion was still alive in 2006, Kiraly invited him to Budapest to join the 50th anniversary celebrations. When Gen. Yevgeni Malashenko declined in fear that he might be arrested, the 94-year-old Kiraly flew to Moscow, where he spent a long weekend reminiscing and going to a banya for retired Red Army generals. Ghosts tend to be still after 50 years. I doubt he'd have wanted to get together with him on the fifth anniversary. Maybe if the freedom fighters had won, but not otherwise...
Kolakowski, on the other hand, was someone I knew. We frequently met at conferences, where it was always a delight to hear him speak Russian -- a Russian that had the accent and elegance of Tolstoi and Pushkin, not the degraded Russian bark of Vladimir Putin. Brezhnev, at least in his later years, sounded like he was drunk when he spoke. I think it was a combination of his stroke and the amount of alcohol he actually consumed, which was not inconsiderable...
Like Kiraly, in 1956, Kolakowski turned against the Communist Party he had once joined in the hope, formed in the charnel house that the Nazis had wrought in Poland, that it would build a better world. If you actually bring a mind to the event, you won't get much out of joining a party that provides all the answers unless you get a seat by the fire. Once there, you still might not like what you find.
Kolakowski, modern Poland's most acclaimed philosopher, quickly learned that mendacity was the true building block of Communism, and he withdrew from it in horror. Nothing more cynical than a congress of idealists when they don't think they're being watched...
By 1968, the Polish regime could no longer tolerate his presence. He was expelled from his post at Warsaw University and, when he went to teach abroad, the government forced him into exile by never allowing him to return. Given the time, the place, and the regime, he got off easy...
The question for me is how these three men with such different backgrounds and trajectories -- Khrushchev, a Russian peasant turned proletarian who became general secretary of the Soviet Communist Party; Kiraly, a Magyar soldier of old world Europe, steeped in aristocratic traditions; and Kolakowski, a gentleman scholar from Warsaw more attuned to Jansenist heresies than the perverse logic of Leninist dialectics -- could ultimately contribute to the same goal: the resurrection of liberty in Europe. Intentionally or un-...
Khrushchev did not really know anything other than communism. He tried to humanize it and undo the cruelty of Stalinist orthodoxy, but never doubted that the Leninist system was the way of the future.
Everyone who rejoices in the successes achieved in our country, the victories of our party led by the great Stalin, will find only one word suitable for the mercenary, fascist dogs of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite gang. That word is execution.
Kiraly, who subscribed to the old codes of military honor (he would be named a Righteous Gentile at Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust memorial, for the hundreds of Jews he saved by keeping them with his army during World War II), saw that very system as the enemy of his country and its liberty.
The objectives of the Revolution were most clearly formulated in the sixteen points proposed by the youth of the university, often misinterpreted. These included the following:
national independence and a democratic bill of rights;
in order to eliminate the Communist terror, a review of political trials, rehabilitation, and the return of war prisoners still in the Soviet Union, and the bringing of Matyas Rakosi and Mihaly Farkas to justice;
the restoration of national symbols and holidays: the restoration of the Kossuth coat-of-arms, the declaration of March 15 as a national holiday and a Hungarian uniform for the soldiers;
for the sake of a democratic government, it demanded Imre Nagy in the cabinet and the removal of the Stalinists;
demanded to overcome the colonial status of Hungary, and for a review of Hungarian-Soviet and Hungarian-Yugoslav agreements, non-intervention in domestic affairs, and a settlement of the issue of access to uranium.
What was not demanded in the sixteen points? It did not demand the elimination of the Communist regime: its future would depend on the results of the elections to be held. Although it did not demand the immediate elimination of socialism, it did ask for a review of economic plans, the industrial productivity quotas, the system of requisitions and mandatory contributions. All this does not mean that the authors sympathized with either the communist method of leadership or the socialist organization of society. They asked for quick reforms, but left the future of the country up to the popular will.
But today Khrushchev is remembered mostly for his contribution to the demise of Stalinism and -- via Mikhail Gorbachev whose hero he was -- ultimately for helping to bring about communism's demise. Kiraly and Kolakowski became voices of moderation and reconciliation in the Hungary and Poland that emerged out of communism's darkness at noon. Khrushchev was, I think, an under-appreciated figure. He was the supreme apparatchik during the Stalin years, the master of intrigue in the three years immediately following Stalin's death. By rights, Beria should have had him disposed of on his march to becoming Stalin II. Instead, Beria's picture ended up getting erased from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, to general amusement around the world. The Secret Speech in 1956 could have represented a turning point, but you can take the boy to the top of the apparatus, but you can't take the apparatus out of the boy. Virgin Lands was more than just more of the Soviet same -- Brezhnev was the guy in charge. It was an absolute flop, complete with press gangs rounding up "volunteers." The Cuban missile crisis was crude brinksmanship. The space program was his major accomplishment, which was pretty monumental. But he'll be remembered for banging his shoe on his desk at the UN and for his boasting:
This is what America is capable of, and how long has she existed? 300 years? 150 years of independence and this is her level. We haven't quite reached 42 years, and in another 7 years, we'll be at the level of America, and after that we'll go farther. As we pass you by, we'll wave "hi" to you, and then if you want, we'll stop and say, "please come along behind us." ... If you want to live under capitalism, go ahead, that's your question, an internal matter, it doesn't concern us. We can feel sorry for you, but really, you wouldn't understand. We've already seen how you understand things.
After Khrushchev's removal he was replaced by Brezhnev, initially in tandem with Kosygin. Brezhnev locked onto power the way Khrushchev never had, and held on for year after dreary, barely changing year. As Leonard lapsed further and further into actual senility, so did the Soviet Union. The men who immediately succeeded him -- Andropov and Chernenko -- were not only aged but they were averse to change for either better or worse. By the time Gorbachev arrived on the scene the system required much more than perestroika. And the August Revolutionaries made sure in the end that even such perestroika as may have worked was replaced by something else entirely. Nina Khrushcheva, author of "Imagining Nabokov: Russia Between Art and Politics," teaches international affairs at The New School and is senior fellow at the World Policy Institute in New York.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/02/2009 11:59 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
Nikita K. also played a valuable (if political) role at Stalingrad. As a child, I always thought of him as a colorful chap - I'll never forget the UN shoepounding act - trulyof peasant stock and proud of it. Finally, remember the good "Twilight Zone" episode with a kicker ending featuring Nikita?
#1
"People without food or work tend to riot. To keep that from happening, the government is more than willing to artificially stimulate the economy, in the hopes of buying time until the global system stabilizes. It's literally forcing banks to lend -- which will create a huge pile of horrible loans on top of the ones they've originated over the last decade."
Are you sure he's talking about China?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/02/2009 18:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I was in the huge Cabela's Sporting goods off of I-435 in KC this afternoon. I walked completely through the mens's clothing and shoes sections, picking up and examining at least 20 items without finding anything made in the USA. With the exception of the excellent firearms department, nearly everything in the store was made in China. No, at nearly $1300, I didn't buy the pristeen Model 99 Savage. Be advised, they are nearly sold out of .22 ammo.
From the way they are hitting/playing I wouldn't be surprised if the ROYALS bats were made in China too. And as for Herm Edwards, I think he'd make a good sweatshop manager/coach for cheap NFL football knockoffs.
#4
I just read a thread over at Belmont Club about the "cash for clunkers" program where a commenter theorized that 'clash for clunkers' is a way to saddle purchasers of new automobiles with impossible-to-pay auto loans... which the gov't will be pressured to take over the institutions which instituted those bad loans is threatened. Ordinarily, I am reluctant to attribute to malice (aforethought or otherwise) that which can easily be attributed to simple incompetence ... but in this case I might be persuaded. Another commenter suggested that the long-term goal might be that of removing car ownership as an option to everyone but the upper-middle class and above, therefore throwing all those below that line onto public transportation or bicycles...
I have never owned a totally new car. Nor has anyone in my immediate family. It's always been used cars, most of them good, all of them runnable and affordable.
Something to make you think, anyway.
#5
Good on ya Sgt. Mom. I purchase a new American made car for Mrs. Besoeker every 10 years or so whether she needs it or not. I drive a very old Chevy truck to and from Home Depot and Loews, etc, and a newer, small Ford for in-and-around town. It was a one year old "program car" which had 22k miles at the time of purchase. I would recommend program cars to anyone. I've found them to be a good bargains. Cars and trucks can be bargains, but seldom are they good investments. BP and the Southeren Co. are investments, they pay nice dividends.
#6
At some point India is going to realize that the bulk of garbage made in China could easily be made in India, they'll clear out some of the nonsense internal laws that slow development and their economy will skyrocket at China's expense.
At some point the Mexicans might realize the same thing, with their proximity and NAFTA...
It's a delicate balance. Moreoever, it's one whose likely outcome, at present, would present Indian strategic planners with a small number of extremely high-value targets, at least so long as Pakistan maintains its forces in a low state of alert. And here lies the core of the security dilemma facing Pakistan. The Arihant's missiles, assuming India can engineer a 150kg warhead or boost their range slightly, offer Indian planners an opportunity for a 'splendid first strike' if they can acquire intelligence on the current location of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal. While this may not (and probably wouldn't) be a tempting option during times of low tension, as tension begins to ratchet upwards for whatever reason, Indian planners may - no, I'll say will - begin to consider that a strategic first strike might be able to minimize their danger. It's their job. Whether or not policymakers act on this option is a completely different question - but at the very least, it gives India a potential option at an early phase of a crisis which Pakistan's only real defense against is to actively deploy and/or disperse its arsenal. That action, in turn, reduces Pakistan's nuclear force security against internal threat, and depending on the state of Pakistani Command and Control, may force Pakistan to delegate release authority to remote actors - with all the risk that that entails (those who are curious about that risk are encouraged to read Bruce Blair's classic "Strategic Command and Control" for operational risk, or Scott D. Sagan's "The LImits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents and Nuclear Weapons" for organizational risk).
#1
On Sunday, reporters were shown the PWR built on a beachhead at Kalpakkam. The reactor, built under a highly secretive project called Plutonium Recyling Project (PRP), has been operating from September 2006. The non-descript PRP building has the display of a sculpture of a dolphin outside.
A BEGINNING: The 80 MWe indigenous PWR at Kalpakkam. In the foreground is the pressure hull and behind is the shield tank that contains water and the reactor.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/02/2009 16:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Posted by: john frum ||
08/02/2009 19:00 Comments ||
Top||
#3
OTOH BHARAT RAKSHAK > [India]MAOISTS PLAN TO EXPAND GUERILLA WAR INTO NEW AREAS; + PAKISTAN PUTS TALIBAN WAR ON HOLD AMID SECRET TALKS [Pakis Army negotiating wid BMehsud]???
#1
although I would like to support the People's Mujahideen of Iran, I can't. They aren't much better than assholes in the IRGC or Supreme Council. Just another brand of lunacy with some communism thrown in, IIUC
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/02/2009 15:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Yep, Frank G, they're quite a bunch. Of course the ideal outcome would be to pit them directly against the IRGC, while hoping for maximum damage to both, but these muj are not particularly capable.
Kinda hot out there in Santee these days? Heading to south Mission to cool off ....
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
