Gromyko A.A.
"Stalin at conferences"
Andrei Andrey Andreyevich GROMYKO (1909-89), Soviet politician.
In 1943-46 USSR Ambassador to the USA, in 1946-49 Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, simultaneously in 1946-48 USSR Permanent Representative to the UN Security Council, in 1949-52, 1953-57 1st Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR. In 1952-53 USSR Ambassador to Great Britain. In 1957-85 Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR. In 1983-85 simultaneously 1st Deputy Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers. In 1985-88 Chairman of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet. Member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee in 1973-88.
At the Crimean and later Potsdam conferences I had the opportunity to work with and be close to Stalin. A short story about him, perhaps, deserves attention. A story about some of the features of his character, his behavior, some of the methods of communication with people - primarily through the prism of conferences.
In the days of the Yalta Conference Roosevelt took ill. Stalin wanted to visit the sick. He invited the People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs VM Molotov and me to accompany him during the visit.
That day, the meeting of the conference was canceled, and we went to the President's quarters, where the Tsarina once rested. They were located here, on the second floor of the Livadia Palace. From the window there was an excellent view of the sea, and the picture caressed the eye.
The President was lying in bed and rejoiced when he saw the guests. We said hello. He looked tired, as they say in such cases: he had no face. A severe illness was sapping the man's strength. Roosevelt, of course, suffered, but tried not to show it. It was not necessary to be a psychologist to notice all this.
We sat by him for a while. Apparently, about twenty minutes. Stalin exchanged polite phrases about health, the weather and the beauty of the Crimea. I watched the president closely and thought, looking at him, that Roosevelt has a kind of detached look. It was as if he saw all of us and at the same time looked somewhere far away.
We left his room and began to descend the narrow staircase. Stalin suddenly stopped, took a pipe out of his pocket, leisurely filled it with tobacco and quietly, as if to himself, but so that Molotov and I could hear, said:
-Say, why is this man feeling worse than others, why did nature punish him?
After we went down to the first floor, Stalin asked me a question:
-Is it true what they say that the president is not of English descent?
As if thinking aloud, he continued:
-But in his behavior and manner of expressing his thoughts, he is more like an Englishman than Churchill. The latter is somehow less in control of his emotions. Roosevelt, on the contrary, the very reasonableness and few words.
I felt that Stalin did not mind to hear what I know about the pedigree of Roosevelt. I said:
-The American president's ancestors were of Dutch origin. That's been established for sure. But the average American somehow does not show much interest in this topic. And the literature on the subject is sparse.
The next day Roosevelt was already in uniform, and the conference sessions resumed. But fatigue, which was clearly visible on the face of the president, did not leave him until the end of the Yalta meeting.
Roosevelt had only about two months to live.
Frankly speaking, - I have already repeated this thought - Stalin sympathized with Roosevelt as a man, and he made this clear to us when discussing the President's illness. It is not often Stalin gave sympathy to figures of another social world, and even more rarely said so.
There were other instances of Stalin expressing his feelings toward certain people. For example, Stalin during the Potsdam Conference at all participants kissed violinist Barinova and pianist Gilels, who performed well after the official dinner.
Despite the rigidity of character, Stalin gave an outlet and positive human emotions, but it happened very rarely.
Perhaps it is appropriate to say more about Stalin - both as a figure and as a person - on the basis of what has survived in my memory. All that is said here about him - impressions from meetings, generalization of personal observations during meetings, when I had to report on certain issues, episodes that remained in my memory, which took place during conferences, during conversations during the stay in the Soviet Union of foreign statesmen - all this, taken together, later developed into a kind of image of the man as I perceived him at that time.
I did not, of course, set myself the goal of studying who Stalin was, what he was. I simply observed him while engaged in the concrete work of performing my official duties. Postponed impressions of him-this is a by-product, and I do not want to present it as an undeniable truth.
Military know-it used to be so in battles - they land two paratroopers: one main, and the other additional, secondary, distracting. Combat operations develop, and suddenly this secondary one becomes significant, and sometimes important and, finally, the main one. It happens not only during the war, but also in ordinary days of peaceful life: you do two things at once - your own, everyday and, in addition, something incidental. And look, what you considered something personal, if you want, intimate, after a while becomes special, significant, necessary for people. And now it seems to me that the story about the non-standard figure of Stalin, which will be addressed many times by historians, is of interest, especially if it is remembered by people who communicated with him.
It is quite possible that some of my impressions may not coincide with what has been said, written and probably will be written by others. It is a fact that his inherent traits manifested themselves differently in different circumstances and in different encounters. It is even a certainty that this was the case. But in the end, any original is always richer than a copy, especially when it comes to a personality of such magnitude and such dramatic distiny as Stalin.
Of course, everyone who surrounded Stalin or was close to him at least at times, and especially us, then relatively young people, always watched him closely. In fact, his every word, every gesture was caught by everyone present. No one saw nothing surprising in this. After all, the more imposing a storm cloud looks, the more wary a person looks at it.
For his contemporaries already staying close to Stalin, especially a conversation with him or further presence in the conversation, the opportunity to hear his statements in a narrow circle seemed something special. After all, a witness to what Stalin said and did, realized that in front of him is a man whose will depends on much in the fate of the country and the people, and in the fate of the world.
This does not contradict the scientific, Marxist view of the role of the individual in history. Outstanding personalities are the product of the conditions of a certain specific time. But, on the other hand, these people can and do influence the development of events, the development of society. Marx, Engels, and then Lenin deeply substantiated this in their philosophical works.
What strikes the eye at the first sight of Stalin? Wherever I saw him, the first thing that drew my attention was that he was a man of thought. I never noticed that what he said did not express his definite attitude to the matter under discussion. He did not like introductory words, long sentences, or expressive statements. He was burdened if someone spoke a lot of words and it was impossible to catch the thought, to understand what the person wants. At the same time, Stalin could tolerate, moreover, condescend to people who because of their level of development had difficulty in that clearly formulated, the thought.
Looking at Stalin, when he expressed his thoughts, I always noted to myself that he says even his face. Especially expressive were his eyes, he squinted them at times. This made his gaze even sharper. But this look concealed a thousand mysteries.
Stalin's face was a little overweight. I happened, and more than once, after Stalin's death to hear and read that, say, neyu visible traces of smallpox. I do not remember this, although many times at close range looked at him. Well, if these traces were present, then, probably, so insignificant that I, looking at this face, did not notice anything of the kind.
Stalin was in the habit, speaking, say, with a reproach to a foreign figure or in a polemic with him, stare at him intently, without taking his eyes off for some time. And it must be said that the object of his attention felt uncomfortable at these moments. The thorns of this gaze penetrated.
When Stalin spoke sitting, he could slightly change position, leaning to one side or the other, sometimes he could lightly move his hand to emphasize the thought that he wanted to emphasize, although in general for gestures was very sparing. On rare occasions he raised his voice. He generally spoke quietly, evenly, as if muffled. Where he spoke or spoke, however, there was always absolute silence, no matter how many people were present. This helped him to be himself.
Stalin's speeches were characterized by a peculiar manner. He took accuracy in the formulation of thoughts and, most importantly, unconventional thinking.
As for foreign figures, it should be added that Stalin did not particularly spoil them with his attention. For this reason alone to see and hear Stalin was considered a major event for them.
In the movements of Stalin always showed leisurely. I have never seen that he, say, noticeably added a step, somewhere in a hurry. Sometimes it was assumed that, given the situation, Stalin must hurry to hold this or that meeting, speak faster or hurry others to save time. But this never happened before my eyes. It seemed that time itself stops running as long as this man is busy doing business.
Very often at meetings with a small number of participants, which were sometimes also attended by comrades who had been summoned for a report, Stalin would slowly walk around the office. Walked and simultaneously listened to the speakers or expressed his thoughts. Walked a few steps, paused, looked at the speaker, at those present, sometimes approached them, trying to catch their reaction, and again began to walk.
Then he would go to the table, sit down on the chair. He would sit down for a few minutes. There were moments like that. There would be a pause. This meant that he was waiting to see how the participants would be impressed by what was being said. Or he would ask:
- What do you think?
Those present usually spoke briefly, trying to avoid unnecessary words, if possible. Stalin listened attentively. But in the course of speeches, comments of participants, he gave replicas.
In movies made many years after his death, sometimes show meetings of the Politburo, when he stands up and walks, while other participants sit. Yes, that was the case, as long as we are talking about internal meetings.
However, I also saw him at international conferences, when he always sat and listened attentively to the speakers. He would rise from the table only if there was a break or the meeting was already over.
It drew attention to the fact that Stalin never carried with him any folders with papers. This is how he appeared at meetings, at any meetings he held. So came to international meetings during the conferences in Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam. I never saw a pencil or a pen in his hands at such meetings. He kept no notes in plain sight.
Any necessary materials he usually had at hand, in his office. Stalin also worked at night. With night work, he was even friendlier than the daytime.
He came to meetings or international conferences prepared. When the delegation with him went to the meeting, he always knew what he would talk about. He was almost always the only one to speak for the Soviet Union. On foreign affairs, his main support was VM Molotov. If necessary, at a certain point Stalin, leaning over the table, consulted with someone from the delegation and then expressed his opinion.
Remembered such an incident. It occurred during one meeting. I had to report on some international issues related to the consequences of the war. In the course of the discussion it was mentioned how Hitlerites tried to take advantage of the Balkan countries, flirting with their ruling elite and not realizing that the people and the elite are not the same thing.
In particular, it was about Bulgaria, the people of which Hitler's people trembled, considering it backward, but made curtsies to the monarchical circles of the country. Stalin spoke out as follows:
-Hitler's policy towards Bulgaria, calculated to acquire an ally in it, was based, among other things, on Prussian hubris. The Germans believed that the allegedly backward Bulgarians would not be difficult to turn in the right direction for Germany.
At this, Stalin stood up from the table. Then continued:
-Only Prussian arrogance and swagger explain this attitude toward Bulgaria.
He paused and, emphasizing each word, said:
-Historical facts show that the Bulgarian people are in no way inferior to the Germans in the level of their general development. In ancient times, when the ancestors of the Germans still lived in the forests, the Bulgarians already had a high culture.
This statement of Stalin about the Bulgarians was very much appreciated by all those present, who solidarized with him.
Once the conversation turned to the senselessness of the persistence of Hitler's command and the resistance of the Germans at the end of the war, when the cause of fascism was already lost, only the blind could not see it. Several people spoke about it. Stalin listened attentively to everyone, and then, as if summarizing what he had heard on this issue, said himself:
-It's all true. I agree with you. But at the same time, one thing that is characteristic of the Germans, which they have demonstrated in wars many times before, is the resilience, the steadfastness of the German soldier.
Here he also expressed the following thought:
-History says that the most persistent soldier is Russian; the Germans are in the second place in terms of persistence; the Germans are in the third place....
He was silent for a few seconds and added:
- ...Poles, Polish soldiers, yes, Poles.
The comrades participating in the meeting agreed that this characterization was fair. It made a great impression on me personally. The German army, in fact, had already been defeated, suffered a crushing defeat in the war. It would seem that this army of the aggressor, the army of rapists, robbers and executioners, he had to characterize in the harshest terms and in terms of personal qualities of the soldier. Meanwhile, Stalin assessed the German soldier in historical terms, based on facts, leaving emotions aside.
Stalin belonged to the category of people who never let the anxiety caused by one or another failure at the front, overshadow the sober consideration of the situation, faith in the strength and capabilities of the Communist Party, the people, its armed forces. The patriotism of the Soviet people, their sacred anger against the fascist invaders gave the Party, its Central Committee, and Stalin confidence in the ultimate victory over the enemy. Without it, victory would not have been possible.
Later it turned out that the tension and enormous difficulties of wartime could not help but undermine the physical strength of Stalin. And one can only wonder that, despite the work, which, of course, exhausted him. Stalin lived to see the Victory.
And how many major statesmen and military figures undermined their strength, and the war mercilessly mowed them down - no, not at the front, but in the rear! Such was, for example, Boris Mikhailovich Shaposhnikov, Chief of the General Staff of the Red Army during the most difficult time of fighting in July 1941-May 1942, later a major Soviet military commander, our only Marshal, who did not live to see the Victory - he died a few days before it. Such was a major statesman and party figure, the first secretary of the Moscow City Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (b) Alexander Sergeevich Shcherbakov, who left life early - he was only forty-four, and he was already buried in the victorious days....
Did Stalin take care of his health? I, for example, I have never seen that during the Allied conferences of the three powers near him was a doctor. I do not think that on the part of Stalin manifested in this some deliberate bravado. Stalin did not like long walks. That he was at the dacha, went out for a short time in the fresh air, can not be considered a real walk in the sense in which doctors usually recommend them to their patients.
If we talk about his appearance, he was a man of average height. It is incorrect to believe that Stalin was strongly predisposed to obesity. Of course, as a man of non-physical labor, he may have had a tendency to do so, but clearly tried to keep himself in shape. I never observed Stalin at the table diligently using a spoon and fork. You could even say that he ate somehow sluggish.
Strong drinks Stalin did not use, I have not seen it. He drank dry grape wine, and invariably opened the bottle himself. He would approach, scrutinize the label, as if assessing its artistic merits, and then opened the bottle.
It was noticeable that he almost always looked tired outwardly. More than once I saw him walking along the Kremlin corridors. He wore a marshal's uniform, immaculately tailored, and it was felt that he liked it. If he did not wear a military uniform, he wore half-military, half-civilian clothes. Carelessness in clothes, untidiness were not peculiar to him.
Everyone paid attention to the fact that Stalin almost never talked to anyone, including foreigners, about his family-wife, children. Foreigners have told me about it many times. Even asked:
- Why?
Much of the published abroad about Stalin's relationship with his wife, children, relatives is largely a product of speculative fiction.
When talking about Stalin, sometimes ask the question:
-How did he feel about art, literature, especially fiction?
I think hardly anyone will take to give a precise answer to this question. My own impressions are summarized as follows.
Stalin loved music. Concerts, which were organized in the Kremlin, especially with the participation of vocalists, he perceived with great interest, applauded the artists. And he loved strong voices, male and female. He listened to classical music with enthusiasm when our outstanding pianist Emil Gilels was sitting at the piano. He spoke enthusiastically about some of the soloists of the Bolshoi Theater, for example Ivan Semyonovich Kozlovsky.
I remember how during Kozlovsky's performance at one of the concerts, some members of the Politburo began to loudly express the wish that he sang a cheerful folk song. Stalin calmly, but in full voice said:
-Why push Comrade Kozlovsky. Let him perform what he wants. And he wants to perform Lensky's aria from Tchaikovsky's opera “Eugene Onegin”.
Everyone laughed, including Kozlovsky. He immediately sang Lensky's aria. Stalin's humor was perceived by everyone with pleasure.
As for literature, I can definitely say that Stalin read a lot. His reading, erudition was manifested not only in speeches. He knew quite well Russian classical literature. He loved, in particular, the works of Gogol and Saltykov-Shchedrin. It is more difficult for me to speak about his knowledge of foreign literature. But, judging from some of my observations, Stalin was familiar with the books of Shakespeare, Heine, Balzac, Hugo, Guy de Maupassant and the latter praised very much, - as well as with the works of many other Western European writers. Apparently, he read many books on history. His speeches often contained examples that can be cited only if you know the relevant historical source.
In short, Stalin was an educated man, and, apparently, no formal education could not give him as much as the work on himself. The result of such labor was the famous Stalinist language, his ability to simply and popularly formulate a complex thought.
In the manner of Stalin's behavior rightly noted discreet correctness. He did not allow panibration, clapping on the shoulder, on the back, which is sometimes considered a sign of good-naturedness, sociability and condescension. Even in anger - and I had to observe this - Stalin usually did not go beyond what was permissible. He also avoided foul language.
Many times I had to observe Stalin in communication with other Soviet leaders of the time. To each of them he had his own approach. Some manifestations of familiarity with Stalin could afford only Voroshilov and Molotov. This was mainly due to the fact that he knew them better than others, and moreover, long ago - even on the underground work before the revolution.
While at the dinner table, Stalin held freely, regardless of the level of guests or hosts.
During protocol events at conferences, Stalin asked questions to Roosevelt. Churchill and himself willingly answered if asked. Conversations were in addition to political topics and purely everyday life, up to assessing the merits of certain dishes, drinks, to find out their popularity in different countries.
In Yalta, for example, Stalin praised Georgian dry wines, and then asked:
-And do you know Georgian grape vodka-chacha?
Neither Churchill nor Roosevelt had ever heard of chacha. And Stalin continued:
-It is, in my opinion, the best of all kinds of vodka. True, I don't drink it myself. I prefer light dry wines. Churchill was immediately interested in chacha:
- And how to try it?
- I'll try to let you try it.
The next day, Stalin sent both one and the other a bottle of chacha.
It's Fascinating To Watch Trump Supporters Realize They Screwed Up
Man arrested after pointing assault rifle at CHP officer, leading authorities on pursuit in Redding
