Khrushchev's "de-stalinization" in Robert Conquest's interpretation

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to clarify the scientific and historical interpretation of M. Khrushchev's “de-Stalinization” by the American scholar Robert Conquest. The methodology is based on an interdisciplinary combination of historical and historiographical approaches. Chronological, comparative historical, linguistic textological analysis of social events and phenomena are core components. The scientific novelty is caused by the lack of articles and monographs on the historiographical contribution of R. Conquest to the coverage of the so-called “Khrushchev thaw”. For the first time, the terminology that the scholar used to reveal the political and ideological components of the process of “de-Stalinization” during the years of “Khrushchev's rule” was elucidated. His author's interpretation of concepts and phenomena appears, the difference between them in the context of the era itself. The Conclusions. R. Conquest does not idealize the historical figure of M. Khrushchev and his political activity, it emphasizes his “uncompromising extremism” in the implementation of the USSR foreign policy doctrine. R. Conquest believed that Khrushchev's “anti-Stalinism” had political gains in the struggle for one-man leadership. Criticism of Stalin's “personality cult”, the beginning of rehabilitation, recognition of the fact of mass terror – had a positive impact on the society. The concepts and phenomena of “thaw” and relative “liberalization” made sense when compared to the terrible consequences of Stalin's political terror. The scholar notes that the “young Stalinist” Khrushchev debunked the “cult of personality”, but avoided reforming the authoritarian political system. In 1953 – 1963, the political struggle for power in the Kremlin continued, and the tactics chosen by M. Khrushchev proved to be the most effective. He chose moderate criticism of Stalinism as the main factor in overcoming the resistance of fanatical Stalinists. Rehabilitation freed political prisoners from the camps, and also deterred direct participants in the repressions from attacks. Under such circumstances, it was “illogical and partial”, and “liberalization” turned out to be managed and controlled by M. Khrushchev.