Talk:Nikita Khrushchev

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nikita Khrushchev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111231050039/http://www1.media.american.edu/speeches/Kennedy.htm to http://www1.media.american.edu/speeches/Kennedy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk page archived

Into Archive 2 specifically. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Memoirs genuine?

Khrushchev signed a statement that he had not given the materials to any publisher... Upon publication of the memoirs in the West, Izvestia denounced them as a fraud.

Any updated verdict on whether these extensive memoirs were genuine? Valetude (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Вручение орденов ЦИК СССР.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Khrushchev and Stalin's purges

Russian and English versions of this article directly contradict each other regarding Khrushchev's involvement in the purges. The only English article's source that I was able to find was this 2003 book. It is said to be based on historical archives and documentation.
However, Russian Wikipedia clearly states that,

В подписанном Ежовым Приказе НКВД от 30.7.1937 № 00447, фамилия Хрущёва среди входящих в состав тройки по Москве отсутствует. Никакие «расстрельные» документы за подписью Хрущёва в составе «троек» до сих пор в архивах не обнаружены. В своих мемуарах Владимир Семичастный высказал догадку, что по распоряжению Хрущёва органы госбезопасности (во главе с верным тому как действующему Первому секретарю председателем КГБ Иваном Серовым) проводили чистку архивов от компрометирующих Хрущёва документов, однако оговорился, что это лишь его предположение, не подкреплённое фактами[16].

Is there any kind of explanation for such contradictions? (Russian page link) FractalN (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

What sources does the Russian Wikipedia give? There is a section in this article, "Involvement in purges" that says that Khrushchev was required to approve the purges.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said, all citations in this article's section about purges lead to the aforementioned 2003 book, which claims historical documents from that period of USSR history as a source. But Russian Wikipedia claims there are no known papers in the archives which show any affiliation between Khrushchev and the purges, for example no convictions with his signature, no testimonies or anything, no NKVD paper that mentions him in any way. Only hypotheses and speculations, no direct evidence. He was assigned to a Troika in 1937 only to be replaced within 20 days (source), and based on the absence of any evidence he didn't take any part in its work process for that time.FractalN (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

We can certainly add that and omit that from the lede. What is a good source for saying that he had no involvement?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

lede?FractalN (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Where you put the citation needed tag.

He could be involved, but Russian Wikipedia's point is that it's only a speculation. There are many official NKVD papers about arrests, convictions etc. left in the archives, and not a single one says that Nikita Khrushchev was taking part in the process. This article, on the contrary, claims that his involvement is an established, verified historical fact, with the book mentioned previously in this discussion as the single source. I don't know what sources this book relies on, but it contradicts the Russian article.FractalN (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

What I'm trying to get at, is, is there a source that the Russian Wikipedia relies on, that says there is no proof that Khrushchev was involved. Because we do rely on that 2003 book and I'm looking for a source to contradict it. We can't cite the Russian Wikipedia, we need the source they were relying on when they said it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It's simple, it just doesn't meet the Wikipedia|Reliable Source criteria, a 2003 book someone wrote alleging someone was involved in something as serious as murder just CANNOT be quoted without citation to a fairly reliable sources, numerous ones at that actually since it's a biography and we're jurors in his criminal case here, just not in a court but for history, so give it the same weight, would you convict him, let anyone clicking his name see he was involved in mass murder with this russian 2003 book alleging to have an unexisting source? It'd be bad policy for Wikipedia to start doing that! I am sure there's a book/article somewhere convicting me of purging too! Refrain mentioning capital mass murder in anyone's biography until you have a source to cite, that'd be a good idea!Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

A paragraph praising Beria

This edit tells: "Beria launched a lengthy series of reforms which rivalled those of Khrushchev during his period of power and even those of Mikhail Gorbachev a third of a century later.". This nonsense is written in WP voice. I doubt this appears in the cited source. Any link? And even if it does appear, this is only a personal view by author (needs an attribution); there are different views that can be cited. "One proposal, which was adopted, was an amnesty which eventually led to the freeing of over a million prisoners". Yes, he did release the prisoners, but only criminal convicts, this should be made clear, even if we keep the paragraph. What had actually happen is much better described in this section of page about Beria. My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think this should be reworded.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The text in Taubman is as follows:

(page 245)With power and authority distributed for the time being, new domestic and foreign policies followed. All leaders formally approved the changes (and some probably even believed in them), but Beria, even more than Malenkov, was the prime mover. Beria was not a closet liberal; he played the role of reformer just because he was drenched in blood. The way to improve his reputation and taint that of others was to incriminate Stalin, whose orders all of them had carried out. As police chief, Beria knew how bad the Soviet situation really was. Unparalleled in his cyni- cism, he didn't let ideology stand in his way. Had he prevailed, he would almost certainly have exterminated his colleagues, if only to prevent them from liquidating him. In the meantime, however, his burst of reforms rivaled Khrushchev's and in some ways even Gorbachev's thirty five years later.37 .

(246)On the day of Stalin's funeral, which also happened to be Molotov's birthday, Beria personally delivered Polina Zhemchuzhina from a labor camp to her husband, doubtless with an eye on a future alliance with the foreign minister.38 Between March 10 and 13 he ordered state security groups to reexamine falsified cases, including the doctors' plot, and to report their findings "to me." On March 17 he proposed transferring a large part of the MVD's industrial and construction empire to ordinary economic ministries, and three days later he suggested halting construction projects carried out with forced labor. On March 26 he informed the Presidium that 2,526,401 political and nonpolitical prisoners (including 438,788 women, 35,505 of them with children and 62,886 pregnant) were then in prisons and labor camps; lamented that imprisonment "placed the condemned, their relatives, and others close to them in an extremely difficult situation that often destroyed their families and negatively affected the rest of their lives"; and proposed a mass amnesty that eventually released 1,181,264 nonpoliticals serving terms of five years or less. On March 28 Beria urged transferring corrective labor camps from the MVD to the Ministry of Justice. On April 2 he informed Malenkov that the famous Jewish actor Solomon Mikhoels had been murdered in 1948 on Stalin's orders. Two days later Beria announced publicly that the doctors' plot case had been fabricated. The same day he ordered an end to "cruel beatings of those arrested, round-the-clock handcuffing with arms behind their backs which sometimes lasted several months, long periods of sleep deprivation, leaving prisoners naked in isolation cells, etc."3" Several days after the imprisoned doctors were released, Central Committee members were invited to examine case documents. According to Simonov, who spent three or four long sessions scrutinizing them, they established Stalin's personal involvement, including his demand that prisoners be tortured to extract confessions. The fact that the documents came from the MVD suggested that it was Beria's personal idea to display them.40

The Georgian Mikhail Chiaureli's sycophantic films about Stalin had earned him a role as the dictator's drinking companion. Since Beria had been part of the same company, the filmmaker naturally showed Beria a scenario glorifying his former master. "Forget about that son of a bitch!" Reria swore as he flung down the manuscript. "Stalin was a scoundrel, a savage, a tyrant! He held us all in fear, the bloodsucker. And the people too. That's where all his power came from. Fortunately we're now rid of him. Let the snake rot in hell!"41

Sorry about any typos, I'm copying and pasting from a pdf of Taubman's book. There's more about what Beria did on the following pages.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and this is probably an excellent book! All of that can obviously be used, but the source actually tells that "Beria was not a closet liberal; he played the role of reformer just because he was drenched in blood." This is true, and very different from saying, as a matter of fact, that he "launched a lengthy series of reforms which rivalled those of Khrushchev during his period of power and even those of Mikhail Gorbachev". In fact, he did not launched any actual reforms, but just "played the role", freed a large number of prisoners (mostly "non-politicals"), condemned Stain in a few personal conversations (of course, because Stalin was going to execute him and some others), made a few actions to dismantle cases started by Stalin to dismiss him personally, like the Doctor's Plot, etc. as the source tells. My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"Even before Stalin had been laid to rest, Beria launched..." This is also misleading. Not before, according to the quotation above. My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I've toned it down somewhat.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Beria did what has been described on page 246 of your source and we could include it. However, those are obviously not "reforms rivaled Khrushchev's and in some ways even Gorbachev's thirty five years later". Why should we place such extraordinary personal opinion instead of simply saying or summarizing what he actually did? My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

It is supported by a footnote in the book.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Which exactly "reforms" did he do? Those described above (your citation)? Yes, they can be noted, but I wonder how they could be summarized as anything rivaled Gorbachev's reforms. Not everything published somewhere should be cited. We need to understand the subject and summarize what multiple RS say on the subject accordingly. My very best wishes (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

What about if we were to leave Khrushchev and skip Gorbachev? Would that satisfy you?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with me. This is about properly describing well known facts on the page. For example, Khrushev made his famous public (for members of CPSU) speech about at least some of the crimes by Stalin, i.e. On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences. Did Beria do anything even remotely similar? No. He only said to someone privately "Stalin was a scoundrel, a savage, a tyrant! He held us all in fear, the bloodsucker." (as cited above). That can be noted, but it is something entirely different. Is it even a reform? No. Beria said: "Fortunately we're now rid of him.". Yes, this is great quotation. One can reasonably argue (as a number of sources say) that Beria played a great role in history by poisoning Stalin. But "reforms"? Yes, sure - those which were listed above. My very best wishes (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

So, I can quickly fix it. We simply should not make any sweeping and questionable claims like that Beria was a great reformer when very next phrase contradicts such statement. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

this is better, but the whole page heavily relies on a single source, the book by Taubman. This is obviously a good scholarly source, but I think we should generally avoid citing personal opinions by the author (as was correctly acknowedged in your edit), and especially when they are disputable. For example, the release of a million of "non-political" criminals was viewed in many sources as not a reform at all, but an attempt to destabilize the situation by unleashing the wave of crime in the country, as actually happened. My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably a good thing not to hold petty criminals in the gulag either. We don't quote much from Taubman, so it's not a huge problem, and during the parts of the article dealing with K's premiership, we do use more specialized sources as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

OK then. I realize that such citation makes this article more interesting. My very best wishes (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Glad we could agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

POV trash

The Cold Warrior flavour of this "piece" is unmistakable. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:1C93:CAEE:755C:C6BC (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

For or against the Russians?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Why remove "work"?

talk: Why remove "* Anatomy of terror by Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev (Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1965)"? - Aboudaqn (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn't apparently a book by him, but an English translation of the Secret Speech.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

talk: Oh, an English translation, is it? Thank you! Now, why remove it, when it establishes at least one date when a translation of the secret speech became available in English... Sounds reasonably important – important enough to leave on the page, yes? Please restore - Aboudaqn (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I actually show a 1956 publication date for this, which is the date of the speech. And the year it was reprinted in The New York Times among other places. Not to mention non-English translations. I'm very dubious about this.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

"Vladimir Khrushchev" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Vladimir Khrushchev. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 3#Vladimir Khrushchev until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Ryazan Miracle

Please, link the Ryazan miracle article. It's important milestone in Khruschev career which led him to fall from favor of his country's party and people. Thanks. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

"during which millions of people were executed"

Per revision of my edit [1], I'm reading page 98 of Khrushchev: The Man and His Era, and I'm not seeing anything about millions executed and imprisoned. Can you cite the specific text in the book you're referring to, please? @Wehwalt: Stix1776 (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The FAC version of the article, from 2009 doesn't appear to mention it, therefore someone added it along the line. I've removed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Possible error

I guess in the fourth paragraph of the Early life section, it should be tank mines instead of ten mines. Mission Mao (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

No, ten mines.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a wonderful article!

I thought I knew about Nikita Khrushchev but this article is a thorough overview of this man's incredible life. Thank you! Krok6kola (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

"However, he did not suffer the deadly fate of previous Soviet power struggles and was pensioned off with an apartment in Moscow and a dacha in the countryside."

This is from the lede, written in WP voice. How can this not be considered POV??? 142.198.135.33 (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

What's POV about it?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see the problem.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• NikitaNina.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Effect of U-2 incident on his popularity

In the lede it says this: 'Khrushchev enjoyed strong support during the 1950s thanks to major victories like the Suez Crisis, the launching of Sputnik, the Syrian Crisis of 1957, and the 1960 U-2 incident.' However, in the article on the incident itself, we get this: 'According to American broadcast journalist Walter Cronkite, Khrushchev would go on to say that this incident was the beginning of his decline in power as party chairman, perhaps because he seemed unable to negotiate the international arena and the communist hardliners at home.'

So which is it? LastDodo (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

"In 1962, a special summer school was established in Novosibirsk to prepare students for Siberian math and science Olympiad."

I found this sentence to be unclear and confusing, and believe it to have been miswritten. I do not have the relevant information to make an edit on my own, so I am hoping this is the proper place to point out such a thing. Apologies if this is not appropriate for this forum, I am new to using Wikipedia in this way and am still learning. Hyyacinthee (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added a "the", but apart from that I can't see anything wrong with it.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

СталинИосифВиссарионович Ass;assinated!

interesting facts + march 05 ass;assination, Katyń facts

wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin_and_antisemitism&diff=prev&oldid=1217705053#External_links

en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Stalin&diff=2841289&oldid=2776394 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.224.22 (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.44.117.9 (talk)