Nikita
Khrushchev approved the publication of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s One Day in the Life
of Ivan Denisovich in 1962, forging a connection between the
Soviet Premier and the novel. The links between the two become more apparent
after examining Khrushchev’s Secret Speech, because both the speech and the
novel explore similar ideas including “anti-Soviet” traitors, the way the war
and Five Year Plans was portrayed, and the role of the Soviet artist. While the
two men discuss similar topics, they offer vastly different interpretations.
For one, Khrushchev indicts the cult of the individual surrounding Stalin,
while Solzhenitsyn attacks Stalinism as a whole. Moreover, Solzhenitsyn is
vastly more willing to unveil the past that Khrushchev. While One Day in the Life
of Ivan Denisovich and the Secret Speech explore similar topics,
two writers have different
analyses of the situation.
The
two men offer similar assessments of the presence of “anti-Soviet” traitors in
Gulag. Following World War II,
Stalin imprisoned many military commanders who had fought against the Nazis in
the war. Stalin slandered these soldiers, arguing they had been contaminated by
the German forces and were now enemies of the state. Solzhenitsyn’s fictional
Ivan Denisovich is one of these soldiers. Solzhenitsyn writes,
“So the Germans rounded them up a few at a time in the forest.
Shukhov was a prisoner…then he and four others escaped…If they'd had any sense
they'd have said they'd got lost in the forest, and nothing would have happened
to them. But they came out in the open: yes, we were taken prisoner,
we've escaped from the Germans. Escaped prisoners, eh? Like fuck
you are! Nazi spies, more like! Behind bars is where you belong.[1]"
This was a common occurrence throughout 1937-1941. Khrushchev attacks it as an extension of
Stalin’s paranoia. He argues forcefully throughout his speech that Stalin
routinely acted in his own interest, rather than in the interest of the country
as a whole. In this particular instance, he contends that Stalin was convinced
successful military commanders would turn against him and threaten his job and
power. Khrushchev stated in his speech, “Very grievous consequences, especially
in reference to the beginning of the war, followed Stalin’s annihilation of
many military commanders and political workers during 1937-1941 because of his
suspiciousness and through slanderous accusations.[2]”
Stalin put them in labor camps in order to ensure he had no competition. Khrushchev
clearly calls out Stalin, blaming him and his paranoia for this phenomenon. Solzhenitsyn,
unlike Khrushchev, avoids placing specific blame on Stalin. Rather, he implies
the entire Stalinist system is to blame, writing about unnamed interrogators
and “them.”
Just
as both writers come down on these false accusations, Solzhenitsyn and
Khrushchev both condemn the “official” heroic story of the Great Fatherland
War. Both writers argue that Russia was woefully underprepared for the war.
Again, Solzhenitsyn is vague in who he blames. His narrator states, “But what am I here for? Because they weren't
ready for the war in '41 — is that the reason? Was that my fault?[3]”
Solzhenitsyn is careful to make clear that ordinary Russians are not to blame
for Russian’s under preparedness, pointing out the absurdity that his narrator
could possibly be held responsible for Russia’s failures. Again, the reader
grasps a vague indictment of the Stalinist system. Khrushchev, however, rips
Stalin to pieces. He holds Stalin was unfit to lead the Red Army and routinely
made erratic, poorly thought-out decisions He said, “The Soviet Army, on the
basis of a strategic plan prepared by Stalin long before, used the tactics of
so-called “active defense” i.e the tactics which, as we know allowed the
Germans to come up to Moscow and Stalingrad.[4]”
Beyond that, he blasts Stalin for not mobilizing industry to prepare for war. Khrushchev
sarcastically alludes multiple times to Stalin’s “genius.” He asserts that had
Stalin not been so sure of himself and his military genius that the war would
have been fought in a better, less devastating manner. Stalin’s “genius” is to
blame for the Russian losses during World War II.
Like
the “Great Fatherland War,” the Five Year Plans had an official story
surrounding them. When discussing this official stories, the difference between
the two writers grow more stark. Khrushchev
argued the Five Year plans were not only necessary, but also heroic. However,
he maintains that collectivization and industrialization were successful in
spite of, not because of, Stalin. He praises the progress made throughout the
Soviet Union, particularly in Georgia where industrial production was 27 times
what it had been prior to the revolution[5],
but attacks Stalin for not visiting villages. He said, “Stalin separated
himself from the people and never went anywhere. This lasted ten years. The
last time he visited a village was in January 1928…How then could he have known
the situation in the provinces?[6]”Stalin,
Khrushchev argued, was out of touch with the industrialization and
collectivization movements. They happened without his knowledge and assistance.
Khrushchev was careful to hold up the Russian people as the true heroes of the industrialization
and collectivization, stating, “The
Socialist Revolution was attained by the working class and by the poor
peasantry with the partial support of middle-class peasants.” This marks a
major difference between the two writers because Solzhenitsyn’s novel argues industrialization
was accomplished by workers in Gulag. They served as slave labor for Stalin and
the party[7].
The characters in One Day
in the Life of Ivan Denisovich spend their day building
a power plant. They are of use to society while serving their sentences in
labor camps. Khrushchev, however, refuses to acknowledge the role slave labor
played in industrialization. He was not willing to uncover this piece of the past.
This
difference is also evidenced by how the two perceive the role of the artist in
Soviet society. Solzhenitsyn believes the most important role of the artist is
to tell the truth. In one scene in the novel, two prisoners, Kh-123 and Tsezar,
discuss the film Ivan the Terrible. While
Tsezar argues the film is a work of genius because of its camera angles and
artistic beauty. When Kh-123 says it’s a piece of propaganda, Tsezar responds
it’s the only way it would have gotten past the censors. Kh-123 retorts, “Let
through, you say? Then don’t call him a genius! Call him a toady. Say he
carried out orders like a dog. A genius doesn’t adapt his treatment to the
taste of tyrants![8]” Artists are
not supposed to conform to the wills of politicians in order to get their works
approved; they are supposed to be the truth-tellers. Khrushchev, while leading
the thaw, still believed in limited party control over art. This is evidenced
by the simple fact that Khrushchev needed to approve Solzhenitsyn’s work.
Their
views on the role of artists are indicative of a more significant difference
between the two writers. Solzhenitsyn’s desire for the truth drove him to attempt
to unveil the truth about the Stalinist years, in his novel. Khrushchev, in contrast, felt, “We
should not wash out dirty linen before their eyes.[9]”
Solzhenitsyn’s novel is, in some ways, a response to this idea presented.[10]
While Khrushchev exposed the extent of Stalin’s purges within the party, he
neglected to discuss the terror or forced labor camps. Solzhenitsyn’s novel is
call for Khrushchev to release it all, and to uncover the past.
Their
desire for differing levels of historic transparency is the most considerable
difference between the two men. It is evidenced by their contrasting views on
the labor camps and the role of Soviet artists. The other difference between
the two writers is how responsible they held Stalin personally for the terrible
things that went on during his reign. Khrushchev holds Stalin personally
responsible for the party purge and placing military commanders in labor camps,
while Solzhenitsyn holds the administration as a whole accountable.
[1] Alexander Solzhenitsyn, One Day in the Life
of Ivan Denisovich, page 54
[2] Nikita Khrushchev, “Khrushchev’s
De-Stalinization Speech, February 24-25, 1956,” USSR: A Concise History, ed. Basil Dmytryshyn, page 549
[3] Solzhenitsyn, page 141
[4] Khrushchev, page 546
[5] Khrushchev, page 555
[6] Khrushchev, page 563
[7] Linda Gerstein, Class Lecture, December
3, 2009
[8] Solzhenitsyn, page 67
[9] Khrushchev, page 568
[10] Linda Gerstein, Class Lecture, December
3
No comments:
Post a Comment