Soviet propaganda at the end of Stalinism and the Khrushchev era. Press and de-Stalinization
Article in Pravda about Khrushchev's meeting with Kennedy
1945 was the peak year in the development of Soviet propaganda. The victory in the war was of great moral significance, millions of people not only in the USSR, but also in Western Europe and even in the USA began to sympathize with communist ideas. Communist parties in the capitalist countries have never been as strong as they were in the early post-war years. This means that Soviet propaganda at that time was indeed strong and convincing. Of course, this by no means means that she was more truthful at that time than at other periods. However, the peak of the persuasiveness of propaganda did not last long, and soon its slow but steady degradation began.
We continue the series of articles on Soviet propaganda, and today we will talk about the period from 1946 to 1964.
Common Features of Propaganda in 1946-1964
Soviet propaganda in the last years of Stalin's rule differed little from what it was in the 1930s. The differences were that absolutely all the “nuts” that could only be tightened were now “twisted”, and everyone who openly expressed doubts about the correctness of the propaganda postulates was now either dead, either in the Gulag, or at best in emigration. Of course, there were those who disagreed with the regime, but the instinct of self-preservation prompted them to keep their mouths shut. And all this in the aggregate could not but give rise to the events that occurred shortly after Stalin's death.
The situation was drastically changed by the 1956th Congress of the CPSU that followed in XNUMX and the official condemnation of Stalin's personality cult and some of his repressions. Dissenters have now ceased to be silent, they began to be called dissidents, which, translated from Latin, means "dissenters, dissenters."
Interestingly, in the first wave of dissidents, surprisingly, there were many ideological Marxists for whom Lenin was the political ideal. They spoke mainly against Stalinism, which, in their opinion, deviated significantly from the "true" Leninist path. All this suggests that the impact of official propaganda was enormous. And even the XNUMXth Congress only loosened some of the "nuts", but did not shake the basic tenets.
As before, Soviet propaganda was devoid of any competition. However, the complete absence of competition brought benefits to the regime only in the short term. In the long term, it was the lack of competition that led to the inevitable degradation of propaganda. If we draw an analogy, we can compare this with an athlete who has been running alone on a treadmill for many years. He understands well that no matter how he runs, he will still come to the finish line first and only. And he starts running at full speed. And soon he gets used to running like that. But as soon as at least one competitor appears on the treadmill, the leader of the race immediately changes: the athlete accustomed to running slowly remains far behind. With Soviet propaganda, this is exactly what happened in the end.
Press reviews
The press in this period continued to play the role of one of the main mouthpieces of propaganda. It was still completely controlled by the state and covered almost the entire population of the country. Since newspapers were produced in huge circulations and were very cheap, they could be found even in the most remote villages of the country.
At the end of Stalin's rule, the ideologization of newspapers reached its peak. The headlines of articles and notes looked like slogans, the materials themselves continued to pour streams of flattery against the country's leadership and violent attacks against enemies. As in the 1930s, the newspapers did not write about any real problems of the country: only victories and only achievements, often very exaggerated. Therefore, it is not surprising that in any Soviet newspaper of 1946-1953 you will not find any mention of hunger, or rampant banditry, or many other topics unpleasant for the authorities.
After Stalin's death, the situation gradually began to change. Censorship was somewhat weakened, in particular, after the XX Congress, the first mention of those illegally repressed in the 1930s appeared. The fact that one of the perpetrators of these repressions was Khrushchev himself, of course, was modestly kept silent.
Very limited criticism of individual economic miscalculations on the ground was also allowed, if it was sanctioned from above. Criticism of the regime's political decisions was still out of the question. In the same way, under Khrushchev, criticism of ideological dogmas was not allowed, they were still "the only true ones." Naturally, all the decisions of the authorities were “only correct”.
And yet, if we compare the press of the Khrushchev era with the Stalin era in general, it should be noted that it has become an order of magnitude closer to real life, less aggressive, a little less biased. Propagandists now could not be afraid to end up in a concentration camp just because they did not scold enough those who were ordered to scold.
The changes also affected magazines. So, in the "New World" in 1962, with the knowledge of Khrushchev, Alexander Solzhenitsyn's story "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" was published, which brought its author world fame and for the first time sharply raised the topic of political prisoners in the USSR. The following year, this story was published as a separate book.
However, these limited improvements did not last long. Already after the removal of Khrushchev, and especially after the entry of Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia, control over Soviet propaganda was again strengthened.
Izvestia, April 18, 1961
De-Stalinization in propaganda
After the XNUMXth Congress of the CPSU condemned Stalin's personality cult, de-Stalinization became a new topic in Soviet propaganda. If a year before the congress, all Soviet textbooks, newspapers, magazines and books said that Stalin was the greatest figure of our time, “a great leader and teacher”, now for the first time they began to mention the victims of his rule, illegal repressions, deviations from “ the only correct" Leninist teaching.
Even during his lifetime, thousands of monuments were erected to Stalin, many cities, enterprises and streets were named in his honor. Now mass renaming began: Stalingrad became Volgograd, Stalino - Donetsk, Stalinabad - Dushanbe, etc. All the monuments were soon demolished, and in 1961 the remains of Stalin himself were taken out of the mausoleum and buried near the Kremlin wall.
From the mid-1920s to the early 1950s, Stalin's name was mentioned in a positive context in many films, books, songs and other works. Now it has been removed from everywhere. Fragments were cut out of films, couplets were cut out of songs. So, the mention of Stalin was removed from the Soviet anthem, and from the well-known song “Broad is my native country” the verse was removed, where there were lines:
“In golden letters we write the nationwide Stalinist law.”
So, in practice, the well-known phrase of George Orwell from the novel "1984" that
"Who owns the present, he also owns the past."
The head of the demolished monument to Stalin during the Hungarian uprising of 1956
It must also be said that the vast majority of Soviet propagandists, who until recently praised Stalin and poured streams of flattery on him, happily accepted de-Stalinization and now insisted that in reality Stalin was a criminal, and it is unacceptable to praise him. Thus, Ilya Ehrenburg, who in the 1940s was considered by many to be Stalin's close propagandist, not only supported the de-Stalinization in 1956, but also openly opposed the rehabilitation of Stalin 10 years later, signing an open letter from thirteen figures of Soviet science, literature and art to the Central Committee Presidium CPSU. This letter contained the following lines:
"Stalin's rehabilitation in any form would be a disaster for our country and for the whole cause of communism."
By the way, Ehrenburg himself denied in his memoirs that he was close to Stalin in the 1940s:
“In the eyes of millions of readers, I was a writer who could go to Stalin and tell him that I did not agree with him about something. In fact, I was the same "wheel" and "cog" as my readers."
Ilya Ehrenburg
De-Stalinization was also supported by the famous poet Alexander Tvardovsky, who in the 1930s sang collectivization in the poem "Country Ant". It must be said that the poet had good reasons not to like Stalin: in the 1930s, his parents and brothers were dispossessed and exiled during the same collectivization. Nevertheless, Tvardovsky decided to openly speak out against Stalinism after the death of the dictator.
Alexander Twardowski
As you can see, yesterday's Stalinists, when the political situation changed, sharply became anti-Stalinists. Such "changing shoes" of propagandists is not uncommon, but rather a regularity. The next time mass “changing shoes” will take place in the early 1990s, when the recent communists suddenly become democrats.
Information