Skip to main content

Full text of "Investigation of Communist activities in the Los Angeles, Calif., area. Hearings"

See other formats





Mr. Moulder. All persons in the hearing room heard the announce- 
ment by counsel. ^ „ -^ i 

The Chair repeats that announcement, that all witnesses who were 
^ubpenaed for attendance here today before the committee are re- 
quested to appear here in the hearing room for appearance before the 
committee tomorrow afternoon at 1 : 30 p. m. 

The committee will stand in recess until 9 : 30 a. m. m the morning. 

(Whereupon, at 5 : 25 p. m., Monday, April 16, 1956, the committee 
was recessed, to be reconvened at 9 : 30 a. m., Tuesday, April 17, 1956, 
Representatives Moulder, Doyle, and Scherer being present at the 
taking of the recess.) 











APRIL 17, 1956 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Un-American Activities 

(Index iu Part 10 of This Series) 




l^L n 1956 

77436 WASHINGTON : 1956 

United States House of Representatives 

FRANCIS E. WALTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 


JAMES B. FRAZIER, Jr., Tennessee DONALD L. JACKSON, California 


Richard Arens, Director 





April 17, 1956 : 

Foreward vii 

Testimony of Nikolai Khokhlov 3755 

Appendix 3804 


PuBuc Law 601, 79th Coxgress 

The legislation under which the House Committee on Un-American 
Activities operates is Public Law 601, 79tli Congress (1946), chapter 
753, 2d session, which provides : 

Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, * * * 





17. Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine members. 

Rule XI 


(q) (1) Committee on Un-American Activities. 

(A) Un-American Activities. 

(2) Tlie Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommit- 
tee, is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (i) the extent, 
character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, 
(ii) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propa- 
ganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks 
the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and 
(iii) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any neces- 
sary remedial legislation. 

The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the 
Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such investi- 
gation, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable. 

For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American 
Activities, or any subcommittee thei'eof, is authorized to sit and act at such 
times and places within the United States, whether or not the House is sitting, 
has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance 
of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, and 
to take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpeuas may be issued under 
the signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any 
member designated by any such chairman, and may be served by any person 
designated by any such chairman or member. 


House Resolution 5, January 5, 1955 


Rule X 


1. There shall be elected by the House, at the commencement of each Congress, 
the following standing committees : 

(q) Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine members. 

Rule XI 


17. Committee on Un-American Activities. 

(a) Un-American Activities. 

(b) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommittee, 
is authorized to make from time to time, investigations of (1) the extent, char- 
acter, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, 
(2) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American prop- 
aganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and 
attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitu- 
tion, and (3) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in 
any necessary remedial legislation. 

The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the 
Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such investi- 
gation, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable. 

For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American 
Activities,, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act at such times 
and places within the United States, whether or not the House is sitting, has 
recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance of 
such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, and to 
take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under the 
signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any 
member designated by any such chairman, and may be served by any person 
designated by any such chairman or member. 



Mr. Khokhlov's testimony goes far beyond the important question of 
Communist thought control over art and literature. It also deals 
with the possibility of an internal revolt of the Russian people against 
their Soviet slave masters. Khokhlov shows how the contemporary 
Kremlin display of bravado abroad is motivated by well-founded 
terror of great trouble at home. It would be an irreparable tragedy 
if the free world were to permit itself to be deceived by the smiles, 
handshakes, and false promises of evil men, driven only by fright 
over what may happen within their own country. 

Wlienever the Soviet leaders are prepared to back up their pretense 
of friendship with sincere deeds, the free world should stand ready to 
respond. In the meantime, it must not become addicted to the drug 
of unsupported promises of peaceful coexistence. It can never afford 
to forget what Khrushchev said at the 20th Party Congress (February 
1956) , about the possibility of peaceful coexistence : 

Comrades, I should like to dwell on some fundamental questions concerning 
present-day international develojiment which determine not only the present 
course of events, but also the prospects for the future. 

These questions are the i)eaceful coexistence of the two systems, the possi- 
bility of preventing wars in the present era, and the forms of transition to 
socialism in different countries. 

Let us examine these questions in brief. 

The peaceful coexistence of the two systems. — The Leninist principle of peace- 
ful coexistence of states with different social systems has always been and re- 
mains the general line of our country's foreign policy. 

It has been alleged that the Soviet Union advances the principle of peaceful 
coexistence merely out of tactical considerations, considerations of expediency. 
Yet it is common knowledge that we have always, from the very first years of 
Soviet power, stood with equal firmness for peaceful coexistence. Hence, it is 
not a tactical move, but a fundamental principle of Soviet foreign policy. 
* ***** * 

Leninism teaches us that the ruling classes will not surrender their power 
voluntarily. And the greater or lesser degree of intensity which the struggle 
may assume, the use or the nonuse of violence in the transition to socialism, 
depends on the resistance of the exploiters, on whether the exploiting class itself 
resorts to violence, rather than on the proletariat. 

In this connection the question arises of whether it is possible to go over to 
socialism by using parliamentary means. No such course was open to the Rus- 
sian Bolsheviks, who were the first to effect this transition. Lenin showed us 
another road, that of the establishment of a republic of Soviets, the only correct 
road in those historical conditions. Following that course we achieved a victory 
of world-wide historical significance. 

In the countries where capitalism is still strong and has a huge military and 
police apparatus at its disposal, the reactionary forces will of course inevitably 
offer serious resistance. There the transition to socialism will be attended by a 
sharp class, revolutionary struggle. 

"Whatever the form of transition to socialism, the decisive and indispensable 
factor is the political leadership of the working class headed by its vanguard. 
Without this there can be no transition to socialism. 

It must be strongly emphasized that the more favorable conditions for the 
victory of socialism created in other countries are due to the fact that socialism 
has won in the Soviet Union and is winning in the People's Democracies. Its 
victory in our country would have been impossible had Lenin and the Bolshevik 
Party not upheld revolutionary Marxism in battle against the reformists, who 
broke with Marxism and took the path of opportunism. 




(Investigation of Communist Activities in the Los Angeles, 
Calif., Area— Part 8) 

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1956 

United States House of Representati\t:s, 

subcommit'i'ee of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Los Angeles^ Calif. 

PUBLIC hearing 

A subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met 
at 9 : 40 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 518 of the Federal Building, 
Los Angeles, Calif., Hon. Morgan M. Moulder (chairman of the sub- 
committee) presiding. 

Committee members present : Representatives Morgan M. ]Moulder, 
of Missouri (presiding), Clyde Doyle, of California; Donald L. Jack- 
son, of California ; and Gordon H. Scherer, of Ohio. 

Staif members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel; Courtney 
E. Owens and William A. Wheeler, investigators. 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order. 

The Chair wishes to announce at this time that the members of this 
subcommittee have received instructions to return to Wasliington for 
an important proceeding and a vote to be had in Congress tomorrow. 
The subcommittee will leave tonight. However, instructions have 
also been received directing the subcommittee to reconvene in Los 
Angeles for further inquiry into the matters presently under 

Therefore, and in accordance with such direction, the subcommittee 
will reconvene in this hearing room in the city of Los Angeles on 
Thursday morning, April 19, 9 : 30 a. m., and will proceed with the 
regular order of business established in the Chair's opening remarks, 
made yesterday. 

Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, will you be prepared to proceed 
with the work today for the entire day ? 

Mr. Moulder. Yes ; the committee will be in session the entire day. 

Call your next witness. 

77436—56 — pt. 8 2 



Mr. Tavenner. I would like to call, as the first witness this morning, 
Mr. Nikolai Khokhlov. 

Mr. Moulder. Will you hold up your right hand and be sworn ? 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to 
give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you, God ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. I do. 


Mr. Tavenner. Will you state your name, please, sir ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. My name is Nikolai Khokhlov. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell Nikolai, your first name ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. N-i-k-o-l-a-i. The last name is Khokhlov, 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell your last name again, please. 

Mr. Khokhlov. K-h-o-k-h-l-o-v. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Khokhlov, when did you first arrive in this 
country ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. On the 6th day of May, 1954. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a citizen of the U. S. S. R. ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. I suppose I still am because the legal steps to de- 
prive me of the Soviet citizenship have not as yet been taken by the 
Soviet Government. 

Mr. Tavenner. So far as you know, you still occupy the status of a 
citizen ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Probably. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you at one time an official of the Soviet Union ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. What type of a position did you hold in the Soviet 
Union ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. The last position I occupied in the Soviet Union 
was an officer of Soviet intelligence on the German-Austrian desk. 

Mr. Tavenner. By that, do you mean that matters relating to Ger- 
many passed through your hands ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. This desk was concerned with intelligence opera- 
tions within the territory of Germany and Austria, or operations work- 
ing out of Germany and Austria. 

Mr. Tavenner. I believe you have testified before another congres- 
sional committee; have you not? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. The subject of your testimony before that committee 
related to the method by which you came to the AVest and the circum- 
stances leading up to your decision to come to the West? 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is correct. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. I believe in that testimony you narrated in detail 
the circumstances under which you were assigned to direct the assassi- 
nation of Georgi Okolovich, a leader of the emigi'e movement, then 
residing in West Germany ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is right. 

Mr. Ta\t5NNer. Yon also testified, I believe, before that committee 
that you refused to carry out that assignment? 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is right. 


Mr. Ta^-enner. You testified that, instead of carrying out that as- 
signment, you surrendered to the person who had been marked for 
assassination ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is correct. 

Mr. Ta%t:nner. Now it is not the purpose of this committee to re- 
hash testimony which you have given before another committee. You 
have been subpenaed here because the committee is interested in ob- 
taining from you any knowledge or information that you may have 
rekiting to certain incidents which occurred in the Soviet Union 
between the early 1940's and the present time. 

We will ask you to confine your testimou}^ to those matters rather 
than to go into matters which you have already explained in testimony 
before other committees. 

I would like to begin my questioning by asking you to tell the com- 
mittee, first, what your educational training was in the Soviet Union 
prior to your first employment. 

Mr. Khokiilov. I was born in the Soviet Union and I entered high 
school in Moscow in 1930, from which I graduated in 1940. Then, 
simultaneously with high school, I took special courses of theatrical 
studies. I got my first certificate for directinn; some short stage plays 
in the summer of 1941 in a theater in the suburbs of Moscow. 

Xext, to prepare myself for a career as a movie director, I entered 
as a student in the motion-picture department of a college of fine arts. 

In order to support myself, I worked in several Soviet movies as 
a bit actor. I also served as an apprentice to an assistant movie di- 

At the same time I took part in show business, performing in various 
stage shows, traveling all over the Soviet Union with road shows. 
That was actually my first employment. 

When the Second World War began, my theatrical activities were, 
for the most part, interrupted. 
Mr. Ta\t.nner. During the period which followed, did you still keep 
in touch with the theater and the arts generally '( 

Mr. KiiOKiiLov. Yes. I did it in two ways : First, my job in intelli- 
gence was connected with the use of art for intelligence purposes. 
Secondlv, I maintained many contacts with people in show business, 
movie industry, literature and art, because of my own prior work in 
this field and also because of my personal connections. 

Mr. Tavenxer. Will you tell the committee, please, from your ex- 
perience in the theater and in the field which you have described, and 
from your knowledge of it after the beginning of World War II, what 
part the arts played in the Soviet Union in the support of various 
positions that the Soviet Union took in regard to its own welfare? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Actually, from the experience of my life, art was 
one of the very important methods used by the Soviet State in order 
to survive. 

You see, the power of communism depends upon a struggle for 
thought control. The Soviet State has three main means to mold 
public opinion. One is direct propaganda used in party schools or 
even in public schools, combined with some special courses in politics 
and social sciences. 
The second means is the press. And then, of course, the arts. 


From the beginning, the Soviet rulers used the first two means very 
extensively. Through misuse of these means they lost much of their 
influence. The common people began to be fed up with direct propa- 
ganda and began to realize that the Soviet newspapers were not worth 
anything because they presented only the narrow propaganda line of 
the state. 

So, logically enough, the importance of the arts as an instrument to 
mold public opinion increased enormously. 

The struggle of the Soviet system to survive has always been a 
struggle for the minds and souls of people. At every step in the de- 
velopment of this totalitarian system, the Soviet rulers have paid 
enormous attention to the arts, and always tried to maintain complete 
control of the arts, to use them only for their own purposes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Would you say that the Soviet Government did 
completely control the arts in the Soviet Union? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Not always. They always tried, but sometimes 
they had to retreat. 

Mr. Tavenneu. You have stressed the importance of the arts in the 
ability of the Soviet Union to maintain itself. Now can you give the 
committee more concrete instances or factual information which would 
support what you have to say regarding your conclusion ? 

Mr. ScHERER. May I interrupt a minute, Mr. Tavenner ? I, for one, 
would like to know up to what period of time the witness is testifying ; 
namely, when was the date that he came over to the West ? I think we 
should know at the outset how recent his testimony is and what period 
it covers. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

I believe you testified that you came to the United States in May of 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat was the date of your leaving the Soviet 
Union ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. January 1954. 

Mr. Tavenner. January of 1954 ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is right. That was the last time I was in 

In reply to the question asked by the member of the committee, I 
would like to say that during the past 2 years I have not lost contacts 
with events in the Soviet Union. I receive Soviet newspapers, and 
some information through underground channels. You see, I could 
not lose this contact, because the fight against communism is my fight 
too, to which I have dedicated myself. 

So I would say that my analysis covers the most recent events in 
the Soviet Union. 

Mr. Scherer. Then his testimony, for all practical purposes, is cur- 

Mr. Tavenner. Correct. 

Mr. Scherer. That is what I wanted to know. That makes it so 
much more valuable. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think this witness, in the course of his testimony, 
will make it abundantly clear that he is developing the policies of the 
Soviet Union up to the present time. 


Mr. ScHERER. That is what I wanted to know. 

Mr. Tavenner. But he is basing, as I understand it, his analysis of 
the situation on his full experience within the Soviet Union, as well 
as what is happening at the present moment in the Soviet Union. 

Mr. ScHERER. It is abundantly clear now what he is testifying to. 
At least it carries us up to January 1954, from his own knowledge, and, 
since that date, from information he has received through mider- 
ground channels and through his studies of current publications. 

(Representative Donald L. Jackson left the hearing room at this 

Mr. Tavenner. I called your attention to your conclusion as to the 
importance of the arts to the Soviet Union in maintaining itself. 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes. 

If the committee will permit, I will give a short description of the 
history of the Soviet State and the way it had to handle the problem 
of the arts. 

In 1917, when the Communist Party took over, it knew very well 
that the future of the Soviet State could not be based on older genera- 

(Representative Donald L. Jackson returned to the hearing room at 
this point.) 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. You say older generations? 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is riglit ; on the older generations. The rulers 
knew that the future of the Soviet State could be based only on young 
people, born and raised under the Soviet system. 

It was their hope that the task of indoctrination would bring them 
millions of fanatic supporters of the system, who in never having had 
freedom, wouldn't know what freedom was. And, presumably, they 
would blindly follow the Soviet system. 

By a coincidence, this belief that such a breed of people could be 
created was not a monopoly of the Soviets. It was unfortunately 
accepted by too many people in the West. 

This was actually the beginning of a system of misconceptions about 
the Soviet Union. This is how Russia became a mystery. 

You see, the struggle for the survival of the Soviet system began 
immediately after 1917. 

It is very important for us to remember that the people who followed 
the Communists didn't follow them necessarily for the sake of material 
goods or for the raising of the standard of living. They knew — the 
millions of workers, farmers, the soldiers who followed the system — 
knew that they themselves probably would not get the opportunity to 
live well and rich during their lifetime. They believed in the words of 
the Communists, that "they have to build a better world of tomorrow." 

Thus the idea of a headquarters for an international movement was 
born and accepted by millions of Soviet citizens. 

The fraud behind the pretense that the Communists really would 
fulfill their promises was very quickly understood by the older genera- 
tions. For instance, Navy people, who in their lives and work actu- 
ally had more freedom and more opportunity to build friendships in 
the service and to travel abroad, realized that they were being deceived. 

So in 1921 occurred the first uprising of Navy people against the 
Soviet system. This was a signal for the Government to begin the 
mass extermination of millions of the older generations. 


And later came tlie directive to convert the farms into collective 
farms, which gradually became a mass extermination too. 

Mr. ScHERER. ]\[ay I interrupt ? 

Could you elaborate on your statement as to the time when there was 
an extermination of older groups? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes. 

Mr. ScHERER. Could you elaborate on what took place? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes. 

The Soviet Government then established a so-called special com- 
mittee or an "extraordinarv commission", known bv the name of 
Chekha (Cheka). 

Mr. Tavenner. "Will you spell it? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Chekha. I don't know exactly how to spell it in 
English, but it sounds like ''Cheklia". 

To the uninitiated, the task of this committee was represented as 
defense of State security. But this was not true. In the Soviet Union 
then, it was not necessary to be an open enemy of the system, in order 
to be exiled. It was enough merely to be a liberal. By that, I mean 
an individual inside of the Soviet t'nion who would not speak openly 
against the Soviet system or compromise himself in any way. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. I did not understand. 

Mr. Khokhlov. He would not speak openly against the system, but 
because of his private beliefs would not support the Soviet system. 

Thus, millions of teachers, professors, engineers, doctoi's, artists, 
and other people who had too much intelligence to believe in the Soviet 
system and were smart enough to realize that this was all a fake, were 
arrested by Chekha agents and, without any trial, just sent to Siberia 
or killed. 

I could tell you a fact very well known inside of the Soviet Union, 
that today you will find in the Soviet Union extremely few families 
which were not affected by this system of terror. You will not find 
many families of which a member was not at one time exiled or just 
disappeared or shot. Some of my own family were persecuted too. 

jSIr. ScHERER. Let me get this clear. 

Do I understand then that these older people who were not mentally 
qualified to accept the Soviet system were either exiled or disposed of? 

Mr. Khokihx)v. That is right. 

Mr. ScHERER. Whether or not there was any active opposition to the 
system ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes. 

Mr. ScHERER. Merely because they would not accept it? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes. 

In the early years of the Soviet State, some groups which actively 
opposed the Soviet system, were treated as such. They were arrested, 
brought to trial, and executed. You will remember them as Trot- 
skyites, Zinovievists and Bukharinists, and other so-called deviation- 
ists. This was merely a way for Lenin and Stalin to exterminate their 
political enemies. 

Mr. Scherer. Do you mean execute potential political enemies 
whether they were political enemies at the time or not? 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is right. 

Mr. Scherer. They might be potential enemies because they, as you 
point out, were not mentally or emotionally qualified to accept the 
Soviet system. 


Mr. Khokhlov. That is right. 

Mr. Moulder. "V^Hiat do you mean by mentally qualified? So the 
record may be clear on how you are using that phrase. 

Mr. Jackson. Mentally too ^Yell qualified. 

Mr. Khokhlov. Let's say people ^Yho, for reasons of spiritual in- 
heritance, family traditions, education, or just personal intelligence 
•would be opposed to the Soviet system. 

Mr. Moulder. You mean by that they couldn't mentally adjust their 
understanding or cooperation with the system. Is that what you 
mean by mentally qualified ? 

Mr, ScHERER. I perhaps did not use a good word. 

Let's say their oackgi-ound was such or their previous experience 
was such that they couldn't accept the system. Maybe mentally is 
not a good word. 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is right. 

Behind this terror drive was still another goal — to exterminate not 
only those people who almost certainly would not adjust themselves 
to the system — but also to spread fear and terror among the masses of 
people. The Soviet rulers feared that older people would transfer 
their experience and understanding of events to the younger 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask this question, Mr. Chairman, please? 

Did I understand you to say a minute ago that some members of 
families were exterminated or exiled on account of family traditions? 

Mr. Khokhlov. I would say family traditions. I would say 

Mr. Doyle. Does that go to the point of exterminating present, liv- 
ing people on account of what previous living members of that family 
had done ? 

INIr. Khokhlov. It could be one of the charges. But maybe I did 
not explain too well. 

I would like to repeat that in every family you have some traditions 
of education. In one family, for instance, parents might pay much 
attention to the reading of the old Russian classics and to respect 
for national customs and habits, or for religion as a highly developed 
code of morality and decency. For instance, this was the case with 
my own wife's family. In the free world this is regarded as a virtue, 
but under the Soviet system, it is a very dangerous frame of mind. 

Or a teacher who perhaps would not attack the system, would edu- 
cate his own pupils in the best traditions of Russian history, and give 
them a deep understanding of morality, of decency, and values much 
higher than the Communist doctrine. Thus, his influence over the 
younger generation was a threat to the system. So the Soviet rulers 
tried to form a kind of psychological shell around every individual 
in order to separate everybody from ever3'body, to erect a kind of 
iron curtain between father and son, mother and daughter, brother 
and sister. 

Mr. Moulder. And separate them from independent thought? 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is right. 

They wanted to drive a wedge between the generation wliich knew 
the truth and the generation which had to be indoctrinated. 

Mr. Scherer. We call that brainwashing in this country, 

Mr. Khokhlov. Maybe. 


Mr, ScHERER. So that the younger generation could be more easily 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is right. 

It made possible the brainwashing of the younger generation. 

For instance, I will call to your attention an event which will prove 
to you the importance of separating the younger generation from the 

A Young Pioneer, which means member of the Communist move- 
ment for children, by the name of Pavlik Morozov was a child who 
betrayed his own father to the secret police. His father was a kulak, 
or a rich farmer, who did not want to join a collective farm. 

The father, together with his brother, a peasant also, began to 
make propaganda in order to mobilize other farmers against col- 
lectivization. The son overheard their discussion, went to the secret 
police and reported his father. As a consequence, his father and 
uncle were brought to trial and shot. Later, most of their relatives 
were exiled to Siberia. 

Normally the boy's conduct would be an example of the lack of love 
for family. But the Government made him a kind of national hero. 
And the principal means they used to do this was art. They gave the 
job to a Soviet poet. His name, I guess, was Tschipachov. 

Mr. Tavenner. A Soviet playwright ? Did you say ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Poet. 

He was assigned to write a poem which was used in every school, 
and it was actually a "must" in the repertoire of every concert, and 
every holiday evening in the high schools. 

Mr. Moulder. May I interrupt you to ask one question? I am 
sorry to interrupt your line of thought, but what qualifies a farmer — 
I mean what wealth, property, or resources — qualifies a person to be 
referred to as a rich man in Russia ? I am curious to know that. I 
do not understand what you mean by rich man in Russia. 

Mr. Khokhlov. I used the word "kulak," a completely artificial 
designation introduced at that time by the Soviet rulers. They di- 
vided all the farmers into so-called kulaks, which meant people who 
owned at least a horse or employed other people to work for them. 
Next came the serednyaks, the middle farmer, who usually owned a 
horse, but never employed farm helpers. Then followed the last cate- 
gory of farmers who didn't have anything. They were called bedny- 
aks ; poor people. 

As far as I know, Pavlik's father owned two horses and sometimes 
employed farmhands. 

Now to go back to the psychological drive designed to spread fear 
and artificial isolation among the masses, we see that it was immedi- 
ately combined with an attempt to control the arts, and to use them 
to mold public opinion. 

I oould name two people who actually were instruments of the 
Soviet Government in taking over control of the arts. They were the 
Soviet writer Maxim Gorki, and the Soviet poet Vladimir Maiakovsky. 
In the early thirties, the Soviet Government called a bif^ congress of 
the Union of Soviet Writers, at which, for the first time in Soviet his- 
tory, was raised the principle of so-called Socialist realism. 

(Representative Donald L. Jackson left the hearing room at this 


Mr. Khokhlov. Maxim Gorki then openly declared that art must 
serve the system and its ideology, and that there is no such thing as 
independent art. 

Mr. ScHERER. What kind of art ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Independent art. 

He pointed out that nobody could write or create just for pleasure, 
or for art's sake. Every piece of creative work must serve the system, 
or, as he interpreted it, the building of a better world. 

It is significant that at this time there was generally adopted an 
expression of Stalin, who described writers as "the engineers of human 
souls." Since then, this designation has always been used in connec- 
tion with Soviet literature. 

Mr. Doyle. When you use the term "art" do you include music ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Positively. I will be more specific about that later. 

Mr. Moulder. Pardon me. I am sorry to interrupt your very in- 
teresting and impressive testimony at this point, but I feel it is proper 
to announce that Mr. Laughlin E. Waters, United States District 
Attorney for the Southern District of California, has honored us 
with his presence here in the hearing room to hear your testimony. 

You may proceed. 

(Representative Donald L. Jackson returned to the hearing room 
at this point.) 

Mr. Khokhlov. Now it would be fit to remember that since 1917 
Eussia has ceased to exist. By this I mean that the national feelings 
of the Russian peoples had to be suppressed. 

The Soviet rulers then said that now is the time to build a new 
state in which no citizen would have the right to regard himself as an 
individual, but must regard himself solely as a citizen of a new kind 
of state — Soviet State. 

Thus, one could no longer be a Russian; or any longer praise the 
old Russian classics ; you could no longer imitate Russian folk music, 
Russian customs, Russian habits. And even Russian national holi- 
days were suppressed. 

In this way, the Soviet Government tried to create a new breed 
of man — the Soviet man. 

By the way, this is one of the great differences between Nazi Ger- 
many and the Soviet State. Nazi Germany was a state, based upon 
national feelings, pushed to the extreme. And the Soviet Union was 
built on exactly the reverse principle. To be a Soviet citizen you had 
to cease to be a Russian. 

And this principle was, of course, of tremendous importance to the 
arts. You see, all art had to become Soviet art. 

So one of the main purposes in the 1930's was to create this Soviet 

But it is very difficult to force a man to renounce his nationality. 
It requires much control and much pressure. 

So, the rulers organized a vast system of control and pressure. 

Mr. Moulder. At this point may we take a recess, if it is agreeable 
with the committee ? 

Mr. Scherer. May I ask one question before we lose it ? 

Did I understand you to say, that to be a Soviet citizen, you had to 
cease to be a Russian? 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is correct. 

77436 — 56— pt. 8 3 


Mr. ScHEREK. Is that what you said ? 

Mr. KJHOKHLOv. Positively. 

Mr. ScHERER. Wlien you say a Soviet citizen is that synonymous 
with a Communist? 

Mr. Khokhlov. No. He would be any man permanently residing 
within the borders of the Soviet Union. It doesn't matter if he is 
a member of the Communist Party or not. 

Mr. Doyle. If they ceased to be Russians, if that was the propa- 
ganda and the pressure beginning in 1930, what did they become? 
Citizens of what nation? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Citizens of the nomiational Soviet State. This is 
not always understood in the West. Actually, the Soviet State is not 
a state like other countries such as England, France, or Russia before 
1917. In November 1917, Russia became a state, established as the 
headquarters of an international movement designed as a world con- 
spiracy to supplant the national sentiments of man. 

Therefore, a Communist in the United States is as much a citizen 
of the U. S. S. R. as a man living in the Soviet Union. 

Mr. ScHERER. That is the point I was ti-ying to make. 

Therefore, to be a Communist in the United States, you have to 
cease to be an American. 

Mr. Khokhlov. Positively. The first purpose of the Soviet State 
is to represent itself as the motherland of the so-called workers of 
the entire world. In other words, the followers of the Soviet system. 

Mr. Moulder. At this point the committee will stand in recess for 
a period of 5 minutes, and then you may resume your interesting and 
impressive testimony. 

(Wliereupon, a short recess was taken, Representatives Moulder, 
Doyle, Jackson, and Scherer being present.) 

(At the expiration of the recess, the committee was reconvened, there 
being present Representatives Moulder, Doyle, Jackson, and Scherer.) 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order. 

Will you proceed, Mr. Tavenner ? 

Mr. Ta-\^nner. You were describing to the committee the history of 
the Soviet Union insofar as the arts played a part in the control exer- 
cised by the Government over pi'ojects in which it was interested. 
Will you continue now with your discussion. 

Mr. Khokhlov. The attack of the Soviet system against the national 
feelings of the individual was only a part of its strategy. 

Not less important for them was the drive to convert every indi- 
vidual into a mere tool, a mere instrument in the hands of the Soviet 
State. Here we may find the key to understand the strange problem 
of music in the Soviet Union. At first sight, it seems impossible to 
express social ideas through music. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the witness to repeat that 
statement, please? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes. 

It seems at the first sight that it would be impossible, by means of 
music, to propagandize Coninnmist ideas or to oppose them. But the 
Soviet rulers liad their own idea about that. 

They consider a musician or composer not only as an artist, but also 
as a public figure, as an iudividual who has some social influence, some 
social connections, and occupies an important place in the so-called 
Soviet elite. 


As an individual he had to be put under control. 

For instance, all musicians were forced to work within the frame 
of the so-called Union of Soviet Composers. 

Mr. Doyle. You say they were forced to ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes. 

Don't confuse it with labor unions in the free world. It is a dif- 
ferent kind of union which I will describe later. Well, let us go back 
to the Soviet doctrine that the only art existing within the Soviet 
Union must be Soviet art. 

It means tliat the art was used to mold public opinion and mobilize 
it for the service of the Soviet system. 

Stalin often repeated that art — all branches of art — is an excep- 
tional means to influence the masses and to mobilize them in the fight 
for socialism. 

If the composers in the Soviet Union would be permitted to intro- 
duce in their music some American tunes or some jazz motifs, or would 
compose in the modern way used in the Western World, it would affect 
the integrity of Soviet art, and make the Soviet art depend upon West- 
ern art. That was what the Soviet leaders feared. 

Because of their determination to preserve the integrity of Soviet 
art, the composer Dmitri Shostakovitch, for instance, in 1936 was 
degraded and punished for his opera entitled "Lady Macbeth of the 
Mzensk District." 

Mr. ScHERER. You say he was punished ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes. 

Mr. ScHERER. How was he punished? 

Mr. Khokhlov. I am going to explain. 

In a decision of the Communist Party, Shostakovitch was accused 
of adopting a so-called formalistic approach to music. 

The opera is actually an important item in the field of music. 
Opera not only has music, but it has characters, libretto, action, and 
so on. 

Shostakovitch allegedly did not use the new approach to music re- 
quired from Soviet composers. Thus he became a traitor to Socialist 

Nothing was said about legal punishment. But Shostakovitch was 
immediately removed from his position which he occupied on the 
board of directors of the Union of Soviet Composers. He was de- 
prived of state allowances and of some special privileges such as an 
exclusive Moscow apartment, access to exclusive shops, and so on. 
Moreover, he was subjected to ostracism, to which an artist is always 
very sensitive. 

Mr. Doyle. May I interrupt there ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes. 

Mr. DoYLE. Wliat board or what officials thus punished this musical 
composer? Who did it? Who decided it? 

Mr. Khokhlov. The details were taken care of by the board of 
directors of the Union of Soviet Composers. This union alone decides, 
for instance, to whom will be given financial allowances, as well as 
the distribution of apartments. 

Mr. DoYLE. Was this a labor union, a union of musicians? 

Mr. Khokhlov. No. I especially emphasize that it is not a labor 
union. It is a kind of apparatus especially created by the Soviet State 
to control the musicians. 


Mr. Doyij:. In other words, it is a Soviet State union. 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is right. 

Mr. Doyle. Formed by the Soviet State music in the Soviet Union ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is right. A composer could not publish his 
work or obtain allowances except through the state, because the state 
pays him. There are no private organizations which would buy your 
song. There are no agents. It is only the state, always and only the 

This drive to make individuals serve the state above ever5d:hing else 
was the main reason for a similar drive directed against authors, the- 
atrical writers, movie producers, and even painters. 

Through this psychological pressure and economic blackmail, some- 
times even through exile to Siberia, the Soviet rulers established a 
complete control of the arts, in the late 19o0's. 

Mr. Jackson. I dislike to break your trend of thought, but what 
was Mr. Shostakovitch's reaction to the discipline and the censure of 
the board ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. At that time he could afford to remain silent. 
Later, in 1948, he had to confess his mistakes openly. 

Mr, Jackson. Thank you. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you give the committee any other instances 
of the nature of the control that this government-organized group 
exercised over persons in the arts ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. This control was exercised in many ways, but I 
would like to mention only two of them. First of all, the control of 
the personality of the artist himself. It was done in many ways. 

In order to become an artist, an author, a songwriter, or even a 
pianist, one could go not to a private employer — private employees do 
not exist there. It is true, you could participate in a so-called amateur 
group, but you would never get money for it. In order to become a 
professional, you have to be registered in one of the local branches 
of the AU-Union Organization. 

For instance, suppose you would like to write a book or a novel. 
You could not go to a publisher because there are no private enter- 
prises. There are only the state publishing enterprises. You would 
have to go to the Union of Soviet Writers or one of its branches. 
Tliey have a special section called the Education of Young Writers. 

Mr. Tavenner. May I interrupt you a moment. When you say 
Union of Soviet Writers, are you speaking of unions in the sense of 
a labor union ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. No. This union is not a labor union. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think you should make that clear because our 
understanding in this country of a union is different. 

Mr. Khokhlov. Well, actually there is a labor union, as such, in 
the Soviet Union, which is called the Labor Union of Artists. It is a 
labor union as far as it is actually possible in the Soviet Union. It 
gives you a membership book and it takes care of some of your medical 
expenses, compensations, pensions, and so on. Usually everybody 
who is working in the field of the arts joins this labor union. 

Parallel to this labor union, there are the so-called unions for the 
various arts. For instance, the Union of Soviet Composers, Union 
of Soviet Painters, Union of Soviet Writers, whose unique and only 
function is to exercise control over the artist. 


Mr. ScHERER. Are they really state agencies or bureaus ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is right. 

Mr. ScHERER. As we would know them in this country ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is right. 

But an agent here does not have control over apartments or allow- 
ances, and he would not report you to the secret police if you deviated 
from the state line ; or your agent here cannot psychologically oppress 
you, which a Soviet-controlled union does. So it is a kind of tentacle 
of the state which exercises full control of writers, musicians, and 
even painters. 

Mr. ScHERER. Those unions to which you refer are agencies of the 
state or part of the state? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes. They are agencies of the state, and they 
are part of the state. We could call them "control unions," maybe. 

Mr. DoYLE. Do I undei-stand that if an artist or a painter creates 
a beautiful painting he can sell that to some store? 

Mr. Khokhlov. No. 

Mr. Doyle. Why not? 

Mr. Khokhlov. If he painted something of little artistic value, he 
could sell it for a few rubles in a public market. But that is not the 
way to promote himself as a painter. If he would like to become 
known as a painter he has to organize an exhibition of 2 or 3 of his 
better works, or have them included in an exhibition. Expositions 
or exhibitions are held only by the Union of Painters, that is, the 
state union, not the labor union. They promote some painters and 
exhibit their pictures. 

But you cannot, as an individual, ask the director of exhibitions to 
accept your work. If he will take a look at your work he will never 
tell you whether or not he likes it. He will call your painting to the 
attention of the Union of Soviet Painters, and they will decide its 

Not only your painting will be considered, but your entire back- 
ground will be checked. 

Mr. Doyle. ]May I interrupt? Is that board of directors a state 
agency ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Positively. The board is largely composed of 
party membei^s. 

Mr. Doyle. Then the only market, as I understand it, for a creative 
painting or a work of art is the state. 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes, the only one. 

Mr. Doyle. The Soviet State. 

Mr. Khokhlov. Right. You cannot get money from any individ- 
uals. Well, you could get money from individuals for some old 
painting of already-recognized masters, but not in order to promote 

Mr. Doyle. If I asked you the same question about a musical com- 
position or an opera, would jour answer be the same? 

Mr. Khokhlov. In the musical field, the state control is more com- 
plete than in paintings. A kind of private transactions with paintings 
is practiced, very seldom, but yet it is done. 

In music, that possibility does not exist. I will speak more detailed 
about music later. Now let us return to the control exercised over the 
individuals by these "control unions." It is exercised from the very 


beginning of the artist's career. At the beginning, a young author is 
taken under the wing of some older, more experienced writer who 
theoretically should guide him, but actually is controlling him. In 
time, they give some reports about him to the control union. The 
party org-anization checks him. If he is finally considered as talented 
and reliable, the state union could approve some financial help for 
him in order to give him free time to continue his work. Then, as a 
result of the author's record, or even the political expediency of his 
work, the state will decide to publish it, selecting a publishing house 
for him. 

Mr. ScHERER. You are subsidized by the state. 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is right. 

But should he try to be independent or contradict in any way the 
Communist Party line, it is easy for the control union to cut his allow- 
ance, and cease to promote his work. They just won't publish it and 
he is finished. It is a sort of economic blackmail and a very effective 

As to the composers it works the same way. The composer is under 
the control of the union of composers and is treated the same as the 
writers. This way of control concerns primarily the individual 

But there is another way of control which deals with the work of 
art, itself. 

Books and music works, even popular songs, have to be approved by 
a special state committee, the main task of which constitutes the 
approval of all works of art. The committee puts its stamp of 
approval which has to be on your copy of the work. Without this 
stamp of approval, your work is worthless. 

For instance, suppose you wrote a song, "Oh, My Baby." It has a 
tuneful melody and catching words, but no performer can sing it in 
]3ublic. Even if she likes it, she cannot yet use it. 

You have first to go to the committee for approval. You file three 
copies of your song with the special committee. And it will first 
check to see that it was not stolen. 

Mr. ScHERER. If it is what? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Stolen. That is what they say, but in reality the 
committee does not care much whether it is stolen. JSIany songs and 
many tunes of the best composers in the Soviet Union are sometimes 

What they are checking is to see whether it conforms with the party 
line. And they also check on the man who wrote it: Is he on a good 
list or on a bad list ? 

If everything is all right, they give it a stamp of approval. Only 
then you are permitted to use this song. Then you can sell it to various 
state agencies. 

Besides the Union of Soviet Composers which can pay money for it, 
there are some so-called philharmonics. These philharmonics exist in 
about all the big cities, and control the orchestras, musicians, and 
artists. They put them into groups and arrange concerts for them. 

An artist cannot perform without the approval of the local phil- 
liarmonic. Therefore, lie is merely an emi)lovee of a ])hilharmonic 
which is completely controlled by the party committee. It has its 
board of directors, which establishes a quota — the number of per- 


formances an artist must fulfill in a month. He must fulfill this 
quota, otherwise part of the salary will be taken away and he will be 
subjected to administrative criticism which can lead to his expulsion. 

Mr. Doyle. May I interrupt? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. How can they cut off part of the salary ? Where does 
the salary come from? 

Mr. Khokhlov. You have this quota, a fixed number of perform- 
ances. For instance, when I worked in show business I had to fulfill 
the 16 performances in 1 month assigned to me. I ]:)erformed in the 
Moscow Conservatory, also at clubs and theaters. For these 16 per- 
formances I received a fixed salary of 1,500 rubles. After that I was 
on my own. 

Mr. Doyle. Wlio paid it? 

Mr. Khokhlov. The philharmonic ; and actually, through the phil- 
harmonic, the state. 

For instance, the theater gets mone}^ from tickets, which is turned 
over to the state. 

Part of this money goes to the philharmonics. But the philhar- 
monics actually don't receive money directly from the theater. Both 
theater and the philharmonic have accounts at the state bank, just as 
every institution or enterprise in the Soviet Union. So the philhar- 
monic pays real money to its account, and the pliilharmonics get real 
money for guaranteed salary of the employees from its accounts. 

But in various business transactions between the enterprises them- 
selves, real money is very rarely used. Actually, thousands of institu- 
tions and enterprises inside of the Soviet Union operate with millions 
of rubles without at any time actually having the money. These enter- 
prises just transfer from one account to the other various figures of 
rubles existing only on paper. Tliis exchange of calculation between 
enterprises is called by a special Soviet term— baznalitchnai raschet, 
which means calculation witliout cash. But in order to pay a salary 
to a musician, a member of the j^liilharmonic, a singer or a pianist, 
the philharmonic gets and pays, of course, real money. 

All these control unions and committees of approval serve as an in- 
strument to oppress the arts. It is just a part of the overall system to 
dominate the arts. 

So in going back to the historical aspect, we could recapitulate that 
until tlie beginning of World War II, the only art permitted to exist 
in the Soviet Union was Soviet art. In other words, the artists had to 
serve the system and never art itself. 

At tliat time, one of the biggest mistakes for an artist was to seek 
freedom in art. 

The Soviet art as an instrument to mold public opinion, to indoc- 
trinate tlie minds of the young generation, and to make them believe 
that the highest goal in life is to serve the Soviet system, fulfilled its 
purpose. It succeeded in poisoning the minds of millions of young 
people. Of course, millions of older people saw through this fraud. 

But the power of influence exercised by a book, for instance, is al- 
ways great. As an example, in order to force the peasants to join the 
collective farms, the Soviet Communist Party commissioned in the late 
thirties, a well-known Soviet writer, Mikhail Sholokhov, to produce 
a book on the beauties of collective farming. So the book was written 
and baptized Tilled Virgin Land. 


By the way, this procedure by which a writer is commissioned by 
the state or party to produce a book or a novel, has, in Soviet language, 
a special term ''Socialist order." Even an opera or an anthem and 
even a popular song could be ordered by the state. The artist who 
fulfills such a "Socialist order" is usually very well paid for it. Only 
trusted |)eople are assigned to fulfill such orders. 

In this way, many works of so-called art were created with the sole 
purpose of supporting- a specific political drive. Thus, millions of 
copies of Tillecl Virgin Land were printed and distributed to every 
library, school, and reading room. The book described the alleged 
enthusiasm with which the Soviet peasants accepted the idea of col- 
lectivization. In this way, the people in the cities were partly con- 
fused about the true situation in the country. 

This campaign of indoctrination might have gone on successfully 
for a long time if something very important had not happened in the 
history of the Soviet Union — World War II. 

I suppose that future historians will consider the beginning of 
World War II as the beginning of the end of the Soviet system. 

The outbreak of tlie war brought a great awakening of the Soviet 
people. For the first time in their lives, the Soviet rulers were con- 
fronted with a situation in which they could no longer create history. 
Thereafter they had to follow events. 

Mr. ScHERER. I did not hear what you said. They had already 

Mr. Khokhlov. They had to follow events, to meet them, to defend 
themselves against this turn of events. You see, when millions of 
people were brought together at the front, psychological isolation, dis- 
trust, and fear were broken. 

The people began to speak openly and began to trust one another. 
Very quickly they discovered that the Soviet system was a fake, that 
the Soviet ideology was a fake, and that Soviet art was also a fake. 
The people felt that the so-called Socialist realism, acclaimed by 
Gorki — the writer I quoted — was not realistic at all because it did not 
reflect reality in the country. 

Then a very unusual thing occurred. The Russians at the front 
began to defect in millions to the Nazis. As soon as the people began 
to analyze the reasons behind this mass defection, they understood tliat 
the masses did not like the Soviet system, and didn't want to defend 
the Soviet State. Tlie spiritual contact between the older generation 
and the younger generation was reestablished. When the masses 
understood that the Soviet system was not worth defending, the Nazi 
armies entered the Soviet Union as a knife enters butter, quick and 

The Soviet rulers had only one way to save themselves — allow na- 
tional feelings to be revived again. 

Mr. Tavenner. Which had been the thing they had been attempting 
to destroy ? 

Mr. KiioKiiLov. That is right. 

That was their first general retreat, and one of the most dangerous. 
Here again they used propaganda, the press, and, of course, the arts. 

They now told the Russians to regard themselves as Russians again. 
Suddenly some old Russian classics reappeared, the Russian religious 
holdidays were allowed again, religion could be professed openly. 


Old Eussian military dress, even the traditional Cossack costumes 
were restored; the Russian national heroes were brought out of the 
dust and even some high decorations of the Soviet State began to bear 
the images of some old czarist generals and admirals. And, of course, 
there was a switch in the policy toward the arts. 

For instance, Shostakovitch came back in favor. Now he could 
write a symphony with all his modernistic and formalistic techniques. 

Mr. ScHERER. Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to follow this, and if 
some of the people in the hearing room do not want to listen to this 
testimony — and I can see the reason they don't want to listen to it — I 
think we should have that disturbance stopped, because I can hear 
the overtones. 

Mr. Moulder. The doors will be closed. 

Mr. Jackson. I ask the hall be cleared. 

Mr. Scherer. Let's clear the hall. 

Mr. Jackson. I do not see why we should not have air in the room 
because of the convenience of people who do not want to come in. 
It may be a little painful for some of them to listen, but it might be 
a good idea for them to get some information. 

Mr. Moulder. May I ask how long have you been speaking Eng- 

Mr. Khokhlov. One year and a half. When I testified in the sum- 
mer of 1954, I could not speak English at all, and spoke through an 

Mr. Moulder. You certainly have acquired it in an amazingly short 
time, and very fluently. I think this statement is in order to explain 
sometimes your search for words and your hesitancy in finding the 
proper w^ord. 

Mr. Khokhlov. I am very sorry. 

Mr. Moulder. But you speak very effectively. 

Mr. Khokhlov. Thank you. 

Mr. TAMiNNER. Wluit languages do you speak? 

Mr. Khokhlov. I speak Grerman, French, Rumanian, and Russian, 
of course. 

Mr. Scherer. And English, very well. 

Mr. Khokhlov. Thank you. 

Mr. Ta\t2nner. I intended a little later to ask your age, but I will 
do that while we are waiting for the people to be seated. 

Mr. Khokhlov. I shall be Si in June of this year. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now^ if you will resume, please. 

Mr. Khokhlov. Shostakovitch wrote his symphony about Lenin- 
grad, which was surrounded by the Nazi armies, but which did not 

This symphony dealt with hunger, starvation, sufferings and death, 
and the unbreakable will to exist. He used, in full, all the modern 
means of composition. 

At that time even lyric poetry reappeared. 

You see, it is a very interesting thing that in order to make the 
individual regard himself only as a Soviet citizen, that is, as a soldier 
of the world movement, Soviet rulers for many years tried to eradi- 
cate all tender, human feeling. 

Thus, lyric poety above love, moonlight, serenade, and flowers was 
banned for many years. It was considered decadent and rotten. In 

77436— 56— pt. 8 i 


its place were put the lyrics of Maiakovsky. One of his most known 
poems was a hymn of praise sung by a worker who was moved from 
his former flat to a new apartment in a state house. The worker 
describes the apartment, floors and bathroom, cold and hot water, 
and draws the conclusion that "All this is given to me by the Soviet 
State. This is my system. This is my state. This is my bathroom 
and my luxury which is now allowed to me. I am a worker anfL 
therefore, I am entitled to enjoy all this." 

In other poems, Maiakovsky sang the praises of the Soviet State, 
the Communist Party and, of course, Lenin. One of his most known 
sentences publicized in every corner of the Soviet State, was "I am 
praising the Communist Party and Soviet State, my party, and my 
state." ' 

These were the only kind of lyrics that could be published. Of 
course in high school and college, one studied the lyrics of Alexander 
Block, Vera Inber, and Anna Akmatova. But because their works 
were regarded as decadent and overpessimistic, they were kept out 
of public circulation. Other poets learned how to sacrifice their in- 
tegrity and to combine tender lyric sentiments with crude praise of 
the Soviet State. For instance, one of the greatest Russian lyric poets, 
Sergei Essenin, had to follow this path. Essenin is generally loved 
and admired by the Russian people for his so-called peasant lyrics. 
But in order to get these peasant lyrics published, he had to include 
in his verses some praise of the Soviet State. The finished work 
would look like a painting by Raphael with a party slogan printed 
across the face. 

In my opinion, the conflict between the sentiments of his genuinely 
poetic soul, and the hideous duty to insert the party line in his verses, 
eventually led him to suicide. By the way, Maiakovsky committed 
suicide because of his disillusiomnent with the system which he had 
once so ardently praised. You see, it was almost impossible to write 
lyric poetry before World War II. 

But suddenly, with the beginning of World War II, there emerged 
the poet Constantin Simonov. He emerged not by chance. I assume 
he got a blessing from the Communist Party. His poems dealt with 
the feelings of the soldiers at the front. Tlie popularity of these front 
lyrics was tremendous. One of his poems entitled "Fox Hole" was 
later adapted to music. Everybody sang it. This poem did not con- 
tain anything about the Soviet system or the Communist Party. It 
was a very normal, sad story of a soldier sitting in a fox hole thinking 
about his wife, his family, his beloved. "Between you," he says to 
his wife, "and me, there are a thousand miles. Between me and death 
there are only four steps." 

Thus, the human beings were again allowed to be human. 

What was more, a Russian was again allowed to be a Russian. This 
had its effect. As soon as the people understood they now liad to 
defend their ]iative land, their own soil, their own folk traditions, 
tliey began to fight to the death. Besides, they hoped that this mel- 
lowing of the system would not be something temporary, but Avould 
develop further. 

At this time, the Nazis couunitted one of their biggest mistakes. 
They began to direct their war not against tlie Soviet system, not 
against the Communists, but against the Russians. Nazi propaganda 


said that the Kussians are a barbarian, primitive people, who like to 
be tortured and are used to dictatorship. 

Hence, they must be converted to slaves of the great Nazi empire. 

Because of this, there were no more defections, and the Nazi Army 
was destined to be destroyed. 

During World War II, the Eussians learned two great lessons. 
First, that the Soviet system was not the best system of all. The main 
means of indoctrinating people like me — because I was indoctrinated, 
too— was to keep us in ignorance about realities abroad. Because of 
Soviet paintings, I visualized New York to be a city where streets 
were narrow, dirty, and without light — which they really are. I also 
visualized the streets filled with poor, jobless, starving people. But I 
did not know about prosperity in the United States. Instead I was 
told how horrible fat capitalists throw millions of pounds of coffee 
and rice into the sea in order to keep prices from dropping. 

I thought, "Well, our system is not very good now, but it is still the 
best of all because it is the most just." This illusion was widespread, 
especially among the young people. 

Then the Soviet armies went abroad, and millions of soldiers saw 
with their own eyes what living is like in the so-called capitalistic 
countries. I remember I was told about an incident when a soldier, a 
young man — probably a son of a farmer — entered a home in Germany 
near the border. He saw that this was a house of a worker. He saw 
some overalls and some tools there. And then he saw a living room 
and a porcelain set, unthinkable even for 

Mr. ScHERER. What was that ? I did not get that. 

Mr. Khokhlov. A porcelain set, a set of porcelain. The Germans 
like this kind of thing. 

Then this Soviet soldier took his rifle and destroyed this set with 
sadness. He didn't realize himself that in this very moment he de- 
stroyed the meaning, the illusion j)lanted in his mind by Soviet rulers 
that life under the Soviet system is the best and most justified of all. 

In a similar way millions of us understood that life abroad has 
many things we never dreamed of. I do not mean necessarily Western 
material weath. You see, the system in the Soviet Union is not pri- 
marily based on the lack of material goods. It is based rather on the 
lack of freedom, lack of the right to be an individual, to maintain 
your personal decency and morality of a human being. 

Russian soldiers, in talking with Germans, Poles, Czechoslovakians, 
Rumanians, and Austrians, realized that an individual in the West- 
ern World is much more a human being, more free to preserve his per- 
sonal decency than inside the Soviet Union. 

But that was only the beginning. We got our second lesson in the 
satellite countries. 

Mr. Tavenner. The satellites? 

Mr. Khokhlov. The satellite countries — Bulgaria, Rumania, Hun- 
gary, and others. 

There we saw with our own eyes how countries, only yesterday 
capitalistic, were sovietized in a few months. And we saw with as- 
tonished eyes how some former Fascists, common criminals, some 
cheap bums — people without any human values — hurried to join the 
party. They were after power and they got it. 


I was myself in Kumania then and saw all this. 

There then, for the first time in my life, I thought that if this is the 
kind of people the Communist Party needs, I cannot be associated with 
such an institution. 

And I decided to postpone as far as possible my own entrance into 
the party. 

By the way, I joined the party only in 1953, when I considered it too 
dangerous to stay out any longer. Right there, in Rumania, I under- 
stood that the Soviet system brings too much wrong to other coun- 
tries and I decided I should not serve it any more. 

But millions of people felt the same way. At the same time the 
meaning of our families, parents, relatives, and friends increased in 
our hearts during the war because we missed them and they missed us, 
and we understood what each meant to the other. So when we came 
home as veterans from the front, we told what we had seen, and we 
were listened to, and trusted. 

Thus, our realization that the Soviet system is a fake was spread 
across the whole country through the best means of communication — 

Mr. ScHERER. Through what? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Rumors. 

After the war the majority of people already knew that the Soviet 
system was positively and definitely wrong and it ought to be done 
away with. But we did not know what to do ; besides, we hoped that 
the government would have to retreat even more. We thought that 
things could not return to the way they were before the war. 

This was our opinion. 

But it was not the opinion of Stalin and the Communist Party. 
They wanted us to become again Soviet citizens, and to cease to be 

Mr. Tavenner. You are speaking now as of the conclusion of World 
War II? 

Mr, Khokhlov. Yes. After World War II, we wanted to continue 
to be Russians, as we had been allowed during the war temporarily. 
We wanted to enlarge this freedom and to bring it to a normal way 
of life. And we expected the government to recognize this way. We 
did not realize then that it would be impossible for the Soviet system 
to treat us as Russians and as individuals, because the Soviet system 
can exist only through complete control over individuals, through 
terror, fear, distrust, and oppression. 

Immediately after the end of the war, Stalin and company began to 
organize their campaign to bring us — the millions of Russians — back 
to their obedience. 

Mr. Tavenner. "WTiat means were used by the Soviet Government 
after World War II to restore the discipline and control that the Gov- 
ernment had formerly exercised over the people ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. One of the first means they used were the arts. 
They began to restore complete control again over the books, poetry, 
movies, paintings, and music. In the fall of 1047, there began a series 
of so-called govornniontal decisions which actually were decisions of 
the Communist Party concerning the arts. They began with the de- 
cision about writers and literary magazines. The phantom of So- 
cialist realism was revived. Again the writers were told that the only 


way to create is to create in the Soviet way, to serve the Soviet system, 
and to follow the doctrines. 

By means of the arts, they wanted to bring the people back to obedi- 

The next move was the decision of the Central Committe of the 
Communist Party about the movie industry, then about the theater 
and stage, and, finally, on the 10th of February 1948, they published a 
decision concerning music. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who published that decision? 

Mr. Khokhlov. It was signed by the Central Committee of the 

Mr. Tavenner. Of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes. It was not even signed by the Union of Soviet 
Composers. It w^as not even signed by the department of propaganda 
and arts of the central committee. It Avas signed by the central com- 
mittee itself, which left no doubt who was boss of the arts in the Soviet 

To some people, it seemed very strange how music can be connected 
with ideas. But I would like to repeat once again that the struggle 
by which the Communists tried to control the free world and its own 
people, is a struggle for the minds and souls. Access to the mind and 
the soul of a human being is mainly through art. In the decision of 
February 1948, the party condemned the composer ]\Iuradeli, and his 
opera Great Friendship. But it was not against him alone. Many 
other composers were also named. Again the same poor Shostako- 
vitch and Prokofiev and Khachaturian. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the accusation made by the central com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. The accusation was a very old one — formalism. In 
other words, some composers tried to regard tlieir work as the inde- 
pendent work of an artist. They had the w^rong idea that they were 
free in their creation, that they could use even the Western way of 
composing. They forgot their Soviet status. 

So the party indirectly reminded the composers that they would 
have to be primarily and exclusively Soviet citizens and Soviet artists. 

Mr. Tavenner. May I interrupt you a moment ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you spoke of the decision condemning Mura- 
deli, were you speaking in connection with the opera Great Friend- 
ship ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. I can explain it very briefly. This opera dealt 
with events which happened in south Russia in the last days of the 
czarist rule, and was adapted in November of 1947 at the Bolshoi 
Theater in Moscow, in connection with commemorative holidays of the 
Bolshevik Revolution. 

This theater is the biggest showplace in the Soviet Union. 

Perhaps, because of the publicity that Muradeli's opera received, the 
party especially attacked it in order to prove that even great com- 
posers and great personalities had to follow this line of so-called 
Soviet art. 

Mr. Tavenner. I believe this would be a good place to recess. 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will stand in recess until 1 : 45 p. m. 

(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee was recessed, to be recon- 
vened at 1 : 45 p. m., the same day. Present at the recess were Repre- 
sentatives Moulder, Doyle, Jackson, and Scherer.) 


(The subcommittee reconvened at 1 155 p. m. Present : Kepresenta- 
tives Moulder (presiding), Doyle, and Jackson.) 
Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order. 
Proceed with the examination of the witnes, Mr. Tavenner. 


Mr. Tavenner. The morning session was ended with your descrip- 
tion of certain decisions that were made in 1947 by an agency of the 
Soviet Government relative to the arts. Would you pick it up from 
there and. proceed ? 

Mr. KiiOKHLOv. The decision in February of 1948 concerning the 
music did not specifically mention popular music, jazz, or folk songs. 
But one of the most known jazz conductors of the Soviet Union, 
Leonid Utiosov, who was permitted during World War II to perform 
even American songs, suddenly disappeared from the stage. Many 
songs were again prohibited. For instance, this song which I men- 
tioned — Fox Hole — was completely forbidden. It disappeared from 
the stands, from music libraries, and was taken out of the repertoire 
of show people. 

But evidently the drive against independence in the arts didn't 
succeed quite as w^ell as the Soviet rulers expected. Really, the Rus- 
sian people had learned too much to be easily driven back to the pre- 
war obedience. 

Therefore, the Soviet rulers decided to take more drastic steps. 

In 1949, the so-called Leningrad trial was staged, a trial about which 
much was written in the West. But imfortunately, the true meaning 
of this trial has not yet been emphasized. 

Some party officials actually in between the government and the 
masses were brought to trial on the charge of so-called great Russian 

This is an expression of extreme national feelings. In other words, 
these people were accused of regarding themselves as Russians, not 
primarily as Soviet citizens, of calling the Soviet Union "Russia" 
and of trying to promote Russian customs, habits, and traditions. 

You see, it is not difficult for Westerners to call the Soviet Union 
"Russia" and the Soviet citizens "Russians," but, in the Soviet Union 
such terminology would border on a crime against the state. 

So, some very high top-party officials had to be sacrificed in order 
to reestablish the. priority of the Soviet State and Soviet citizenship 
over the Russian national feelings. Early in 1949 tliey were con- 
demned in Leningrad, exiled, and many of them died in concentration 

Even that evidently was not enough. The people still did not want 
to return to the strait jacket of the prewar Soviet pressure. Not by 
cliance, the people most sensitive to those attempts to exterminate the 
national feelings were Jews. The Jews in the Soviet Union always 
occupied a sj^ecial position. IVIost of them considered Russia as 
their home, but they never forgot Israel, the land of their origin. 

This was one of tlie things which the Soviet system could not accept. 

In view of the drive against nationalistic feelings in 1949, it was 


evident that the Jews would be persecuted, not only because they were 
nationalists, but also because of the large role which the Jews played 
in the arts. 

The anti- Jewish campaign began with purges among Jewish writers, 
artists, and musicians. 

I knew many composers and friends, who were arrested without 
any evidence, and disappeared. One of the best writers in the Soviet 
Union, Bruno Yasenski — a Polish Jew — who had written a very well- 
known book entitled "A Man Changing His Skin," also disappeared 
because he was a Jew. 

A very well-known poet by the name of I^v Kvitko, and many 
others disappeared. And only this year we learned that their post- 
humous works will be published by the state. In other words, for 
the first time it was confirmed that both had died, probably in con- 
centration camps. 

The JeT/ish Theater in Moscow was the first to be closed. But 
the greatest actor of this theater by the name of Mikheols was assassi- 
nated by some agents of the secret police and the murder was blamed 
upon the Zionists. 

After this, the anti-Jewish campaign became worse and more. It 
reached even to general and high intelligence officers. Some of my 
superiors — I was then in intelligence — disappeared. 

And then in late 1952 was staged the high point of the anti-Jewish 
campaign — the so-called doctors' plot. 

But all these extraordinary steps, taken by Stalin to impress the 
people, to destroy their spiritual resistance, had only a superficial 
effect. The flame, the fire of resistance and opposition to the system 
was not at all extinguished. It was smoldering in the hearts and 
souls of the people, and only the Soviet authorities knew how explosive 
the situation was. 

But a hypnosis, a kind of autosuggestion, among the popular masses 
that Stalin is all-powerful and that the secret police are all-present, 
kept the Russian people from action. Actually, we didn't then know 
exactly what we could do. 

About this time I entered Moscow University as a student of modern 

Mr. Jackson. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Khokiilov. Of modern languages, which are called philology 
in Europe. 

I became a student of philology and met hundreds of university 
students of fine arts, mathematics, physics, biology, the people who 
apparently should not have much to do with politics. But once again 
I realized that there are no such things as independent science or 
art in the Soviet Union. All the students had to begin with the study 
of Marxist doctrine and had to pass exams in Soviet social sciences. 

At the same time I learned from private conversations that even 
this young generation knew about the fraud of the Soviet system 
and resented it and wanted to have it changed. I, myself, for the 
first time, heard the expression "Russian Anti-Communist Revolu- 
tion"^hat is, the eventual overthrowing of the Soviet system by the 
Russian people themselves. I was assigned to Berlin in 1952 where 
I was a member of the Soviet Intelligence staff with the rank of 
first lieutenant. For the first time I saw some leaflets and newspapers 


gotten out by the Russian anti- Communist underground inside the 
Soviet Union. This organization operated through many cells, but 
had its headquarters in West Germany. I was astonished when I 
learned about the response of the Russian people to this idea — the 
idea of getting rid of the Soviet system by our own forces, realizing 
that this is actually the only way to end the unsupportable situation in 
our country. 

But I repeat, the inertia and fear were too great. 

Then Stalin's death in March 1953 changed the picture. The Soviet 
rulers knew how bad the internal situation was even while Stalin was 

But after he died they became really scared — scared of their own 
people, and realized that they must immediately make some kind of 
retreat. So they proclaimed a new program, the so-called Malenkov's 
program. Malenkov's government claimed that from then on, the 
people will receive more material goods and personal freedom. A 
new period began in Soviet art which can be called by the title of a 
very well-known novel published at the time. The Thaw, by Ilya 
Ehrenberg. And it was really a kind of "thaw" because suddenly the 
writers and artists received permission to act freely. The lyrics, 
modern music, and relatively free expressions reappeared in novels 
and books, and it helped very much. 

The Soviet rulers did not miss the mark this time. This program 
had its effect on the people, yet the lure of material goods alone would 
not have had such an effect. 

The conflict between the people and government, once again, I 
repeat, was not merely on the basis of material goods, but upon the 
depreciation of human freedoms. 

Thus the granting of some kind of freedom to the arts had its 

Even my wife and I began to hope that perhaps the Soviet system 
can still change itself. We still didn't yet realize that the Soviet 
system is entirely a Communist system, which could not give us the 
changes we hoped for. 

One of the things supporting our hope was the uprising of the East 
Germany workers on the Tth of June, 1953. 

This uprising was not emphasized enough in the West, but it had 
a tremendous influence over the Russian people. 

It is not well known, but the Soviet Army of Occupation in East 
Germany refused to shoot at rebellious German workers. The total 
number of German victims arrested by Soviet authorities in East 
Berlin amounted to about 10. 
^ But in Magdeburg alone, a town in East Germany, some 18 Rus- 
sian soldiers and officers were shot for their refusal to suppress the 
German uprising. I was on the German desk then and knew that at 
the same time about 4,000 Russians were arrested in East Germany 
because of their refusal to serve the Soviet rulers in suppressing the 
uprising. The military jails, as I remember, were overcrowded. 

The East German authorities had to turn over some of their civil 
jails to the Soviet autliorities for the temporary confinement of the 
arrested Soviet soldiers. 

Mr. Jackson. May I ask a question ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes. 


Mr. Jackson. Were you at this time, during this period in Germany, 
a member of the Soviet Intelligence? 

Mr. KnoKHLOv. I was at that time an officer in the Soviet Intel- 
ligence, with a position on the German desk, with headquarters in 
Berlin. I kept traveling back and forth between Moscow and Berlin, 
and one of my temporary assignments was to collect information on 
the background of the June 7 German uprising. 

Mr. Jackson. Did you prepare such reports and submit them ? 
Mr. KiiOKiiLOv. Tliat is right. I received reports from some mem- 
bers of the Central Connnittee of the Communist Party of East Ger- 
many. I learned the reaction of the East German Communists, how 
the uprising was brought about, how it went, and its probable results 
if the West would react in the proper way. But the West didn't. 

And so the first opportunity to destroy the Soviet system by means 
of the enslaved people themselves died. 

But it had a very great influence upon the Russian people, who were 
shocked. I remember I met one of my friends at the university, a 
former Air Force officer. He told me, Avitli a voice of distress, "Who 
are we if we shoot the workers who are uprising for just reasons?" 
I got the same reaction from people on trade missions — even in Intel- 

The Soviet rulers got the idea that the refusal of the Soviet Occupa- 
tion Army to obey them was a result of the Russian anti-Communist 
imderground. They were right, because thousands of soldiers and 
officers were influenced by the leaflets and propaganda material of 
this underground. 

Through the rotation sj'stem, hundreds of thousands of soldiers of 
occupation went back to the Soviet Union, and the truth about the 
uprising was told by eyewitnesses. 

In the summer of 1958, came uprisings in Soviet concentration 
camps. When I was still in the Soviet Union I learned from some 
personal acquaintances in GULAG that the number of inmates in 
concentration camps in the summer of 1953 was about 13 million — 
twice as many as the membership of the Communist Party. 
Mr. Tavenner. Did you say 13 or 30 ? 
Mr. KiioKHLOv. Thirteen. 

In 1953 there were about 7 million official Connnunist Party mem- 
bers. In this way, for every official member of the party who was 
not necessarily a supporter of the system, you had two officnilly recog- 
nized enemies of the Soviet system — Russians — imprisoned in con- 
centration camps. 

But even although these people in concentration camps knew they 
would be killed, they revolted and went against the machineguns. 
Indeed many of them died. 

(Representative Gordon H. Scherer entered the hearing room at 
this point. ) 

Mr. Khokhlov. What is very significant in the concentration camp 
uprisings is that the inmates did not primarily ask for a better diet, 
better clothes, or an extra, piece of bread. No. They wanted to be 
treated as human beings. This reflected in the general feeling of 
the Soviet people in 1953. We wanted to be treated at last with the 
right to personal freedom and the right to maintain one's personal 

77436— 56— pt 8 6 


So imcler this pressure from below, the Soviet rulers had to denounce 
even the secret police. In the West there was much s])ecidation about 
the downfall of Berin.. I was very often asked who o:ot whom: Did 
Malenkov <ret Beria or did Bulo;anin get Beria? And what was 
Khrushchev's role ? 

If it were only a matter of personal revenges, Beria's rivals could 
have liquidated him in secrecy- — by poisoning, or automobile accident, 
as they often did to others. Or Beria could very easily have died from 
influenza in one of the best hospitals of the Soviet Union. But he 
did not. Instead, they openly and publicly dethroned one of the gods 
in the Soviet hierarchy. 

It is an interesting fact that denunciation of Beria was connected 
with the denunciation of Stalin. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is generallj^ not known ? 

Mr. KnoKiiLOv. No, it is not. But the first time Stalin was de- 
nounced in very sharp terms was actually in July of 1*953. Then I 
was already a member of the Communist Party. At that time I had 
to join it. 

Mr. Jackson. In 1953 ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. 1953. Ihadto join it in March of 1953. 

ISIr. Jackson. You haven't much seniority in the Communist Party 
around Los Angeles. 

Mr. Khokhlov. I am not informed about that. But I know that 
thousands, hundreds of thousands, even maybe millions of people 
like me, tried hard for many years to stay out of the Communist 
Party because they already knew that to be associated with the Com- 
munist Party is not a decent thing. 

Mr. ScHERER. Not what ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. A decent thing. 

For instance, in a factory, an engineer could be popular among the 
workers as long as he would not become a member of the party. But 
as soon as he becomes a member of the Communist Party the workers 
usually cease to trust him. He loses much of his popularity and in- 
fluence, because the workers do know who is their principal enemy. 
I mean the party. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me interrupt you a moment. The Communist 
Party in this country boasts of its contention that it is the vanguard of 
the working people. 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is because the Communists here never worked 
in a Soviet factory and they were never forced to take a job they did 
not want. But at every step the ordinary man in the Soviet Union is 
treated as a slave. 

Let me give an example: You are a worker in a plant, you don't 
like your job, but you cannot quit. If you try to leave, the director — 
or I should say the boss assigned by the party, can alwaj^s stop you — 
even arrest you — because you do not have the legal right to leave your 

Or, if you come 20 minutes late on your job, automatically you get a 
25-percent cut in your salary for 6 months. This is a part of the 
labor discipline decree published in 1940 and still maintained in force. 

If you came 20 minutes late a second time, you should be brought to 
trial, carrying a penalty up to 1 year in jail. This usually doesn't 
happen because the director of the plant or factory is interested in 


keeping yon on the job, and, therefore, he just overlooks it. But he 
continues to take the 25 percent of your salary for another 6 months. 
But all this, I think, is widely known. 

I would like to stress another point which maybe is not so widely 
known. All citizens in the Soviet Union have to have a passport. 
In other words, an identification booklet, which you may need at any 
time. If you cross the main sti'eet anywhere not permitted by traffic 
law, the first thing the police will ask for is your passport. In this 
booklet, besides your personal identifications, your civic status, relation 
to military service, have also to be recorded, all your movements 
throughout the country. 

You cannot even move from one house to another without an entry 
being made in the book, and you cannot stay in a town other than 
your own, longer than 24 hours without getting your book stamped. 
EA^erybody in the Soviet Union except the peasants, must have identi- 
fication books. But millions of peasants do not have any identification 

Mr. Tavenner. Does that mean that the Russian peasant does not 
have the right to travel as others? 

Mr. KiioKiiLOv. Yes. lie cannot move from his farm. If he leaves, 
for instance, to sell potatoes in a nearby city, he usually gets a tem- 
porary leave signed by the head of the collective farm, which allows 
him to stay 2 or 3 days in the city without molestation, but then he 
has to go back. For a peasant to obtain permanent registration in a 
city is almost unthinkable. 

There are various other things which botlier the Soviet people. I 
can recall while lecturing at Yale University that I was asked a tricky 
question by one of the professors, who apparently was a liberal. He 
probably never had been in the Soviet Union and asked me in a rather 
sarcastic tone : "Well, Mr. Khokhlov, is it not true that a college stu- 
dent in the Soviet Union gets a job immediately after graduation?" 
I re])lied : "Oh, yes, this is true, he gets a job all right." 

Mr. SciiERER. Pardon me, where did the professor ask you this? 

Mr. KuoKHLov. At Yale, in New Haven. 

Mr. ScHERER. I can understand that. 

Mr. Khokhlov. Then I asked him, "All right, he gets it ; but aren't 
you interested in knowing what happens to the student if he doesn't 
take the job?" 

He was not interested. 

But I can tell you what ha])pens to such a student. 

LfCgally he must be brought: to trial. His family problems, and the 
fact whether or not this job is acceptable to him, are disregarded. 
For example, one of m}' friends, a doctor, who graduated from a med- 
ical school, was sent to a very remote district. His wife, a teacher of 
the French language in a Moscow school, had just had a baby. Ac- 
tually, his whole family plans were threatened with ruin. For many 
months he tried hard to get this decision postponed, or even canceled, 
because he had a place to stay in Moscow, and connections to find a 
job there. But despite all his efforts, he had to leave in the summer 
of 1953, and I know it was a great tragedy. 

Mr. ScHERER. You mean that Yale professor was not interested 
in this explanation of what happens to a student Avho refuses a job? 

Mr. Khokhlov. No ; he wasn't. He told me, "I don't want to hear 


I guess he didn't want to hear the truth. 

Mr. ScHERER. He didn't want propaganda? 

(Representative Morgan M. Moulder left the hearing room at this 

Mr. Khokiilov. He said "I already know it is bad there." 

Mr. Doyle (presiding). May I interrupt? "Wlio offered that job 
to the student? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Nobody offered it to him. 

Mr. D0YI.E. Who directs him to take the job? 

Mr. Khokhlov. The Department of Labor Reserves sends the uni- 
versity board a quota of desired personnel— where they are needed, 
how they are needed, and what kind of professions are needed there. 
The students are arbitrarily assigned to different places by a panel 
composed of university people, party and Komsomol officials. It's like 
a subpena. A student must go before the factory board which will 
tell him where to work and where to stay. 

Of course you can sometimes choose between being sent to 
Kazaklistan — about 1,000 miles from Moscow, or to Turkestan — about 
1,500 miles from Moscow. Sometimes the university asks you where 
you prefer to go. 

Mr. Doyle. Why couldn't that graduating student get a job of his 
own choice? He has graduated from school. Wliy couldn't he go and 
get a job? 

Mr. Khokhlov. This regulation originated at the time that students 
didn't have to pay tuition. They were educated at state expense. 
So they had to go wliere the state sent them. But. in 1940 a directive 
was introduced requiring all students to pay their own tuition. After 
the war this tuition became pretty high, but still not so high as in the 
West. In the West, however, a student can earn real money. But 
in the Soviet Union he must work very hard to feed himself, to buy 
his clothes. He has a very hard time getting by even with the help 
of a supplementary job. A ffw of the best students get state grants — 
Stalin grant, or honor student grants. The basis for these grants is 
not only the student's marks, but especially his political correctness. 

It is true that the university authorities help you to get a part-time 
job. As soon as you are registered at a university, you can contact a 
special assignment man who gets you the job. 

You see, it is a very interesting thing that for many years the ex- 
pression "to buy" has not been used in the Russian language. We 
use instead the word "to get," because even if you have money you 
cannot always buy what you need. Either you have to go to the black 
market and pay exorbitant prices, or to keep hunting in the state 
stores and trusting to luck. 

To give you a picture of how people live in the Soviet Union. One 
of my wife's friends was a senior engineer. INIy wife, incidentally, is 
a construction engineer. It is one of the accomplishments of the 
Soviet system that women not only liave the riglit to be lionsewives 
and mothers, but also the right to work hard away from home. They 
have the right to do the same kind of heavy work as men, even min- 
ing, dock work, roadbuilding, and so 071. 

Getting back to my wife's friend — the senior engineer. Sometimes 
when I visited him to pick up some blueprints, I found him sitting 
only in pajama slacks because the slacks of his only one suit were 


washed by his wife. He couldn't get another suit because the money 
he earned had to be spent primarily for food, and getting a new suit 
requires too much time and too much luck. 

In order to be impartial, I should say that not all the people in 
the Soviet Union have such a bad life. Members of the elite some- 
times enjoy a very good living. I could take as an example the living 
conditions of the officers who were in the same service with me in 
Moscow. For instance, people who worked in services like my own — 
the Officers of Secret Service — couldn't complain that the State treated 
them badly. Quite the contrary. Let me use myself as an example. 
I had a very good salary, a nice apartment, an official car, television 
and hi-fi sets, and so on. Very often I went abroad and could bring 
back freel}^ many things, including Paris dresses for my wife. As 
far as material things were concerned, we couldn't wish for more. 
The other officers, high party officials and Army generals, and some 
of the writers and artists had the same standard of living. But the 
masses, the millions of them, were in extremely bad shape. And I 
will later quote the words of Mr. Khrushchev himself to prove this. 

But I would like to stress once again that the conflict between the 
Soviet people and the Soviet Government is not ])rimarily based 
upon the standard of living. The conflict was and is based upon 
the lack of persf)nal freedom. 

Let me now go back to what I said a little while ago about the first 
time Stalin was denounced, in July 1058. At that time, tliey sacri- 
ficed Beria. They denounced him publicly and what is more, they de- 
nounced liiui as Stalin's associate. 

Li the summer of lO.^S, I got my hands on a small red booklet en- 
titled, "The Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist 
Party in the Case of Beria." In denouncing Beria this decision also 
denounced Stalin, wh.o was described as a man who used wrong meth- 
ods — the methods of a one-man dictatoi-ship. 

Tliis booklet Avhich was distributed only to a relativelj'' small number 
of party officials, indicated the last resort they could use in dealing 
witli the ))opular discontent. In othei" words, when it was necessary 
they could even blame Stalin. And this already in July 1953 — but 
only by party activists. 

At the same time thousands of members of the secret police were 
thrown out of office to show the people that even secret police prestige 
can be sacrificed to please the ]ieo])le. This new campaign had its 

Mr. Tavenxer. ]May I interrupt you there a moment ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Why was it that those in authority felt at that time 
that it was necessary to resort to such means ? That is, openly to criti- 
cize Stalin and to 

Mr. KiiOKiiLOv. Because they realized that the popular discon- 
tent went too deep to be counteracted only by INIalenkov's promises to 
provide material goods. The Government wanted to show the people 
that for the ^ake of individual rights, it would sacrifice even the secret 
police itself. But this was not true. 

Only we, the members of the Soviet secret apparatus, knew that the 
only people Avho were sacrificed were the ones who were actually not too 
necessary for the secret police. 


One of my g-enerals told me this when I wanted to use this situation 
in order to resign. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were those concessions made to the people because 
of a fear on the part of the leadership that some drastic results might 
occur ? 

Mr. KiioKHLOv, Yes. In the summer of 1953, the Russian anti- 
Communist underground was declared within the Soviet Secret Serv- 
ice in a special instruction, signed by the Minister of State Security, to 
be enemy No. 1 of the Soviet State. Enemy No. 1 is an American ex- 
pression, but whenever we wrote a document about the Russian 
anti-Communist underground, we had to mark it in a sjjecial way — 
with 5 letters. T. S. : N. T. S. — that is, extraordinary report : Russian 
anti-Communist underground. 

Thus the Russian anti-Communist underground was regarded as 
enemy No. 1 of the Soviet system. But the attempt to deceive the peo- 
ple and to tell them that the Soviet rulers are ready to sacrifice the 
secret police, the rulers overplayed their hand, and even made them- 
selves look foolish. 

For instance, in the summer of 1953, I was in my apartment in 
Moscow which was on the basement floor. My window opened onto an 
inside yard, where I heard some young workers — boys and girls — 
playing the guitar and hannonica. One of the Russian popular songs 
is Dark Eyes. And one of the refrains goes like this : 

Kiss me, and then I'U kiss you, and then yon'll liiss me again; then we'll kiss 
each other. 

The Russian words '"kiss me" rhyme with "arrest me." So they 
changed the song to sound like this: 

"Arrest me, and then I'll arrest you, then you'll ariest me again, and 
then we'll both be arrested." 

Everybody got a big laugh out of that. They even cheered, because 
it was at this time that the Soviet rulers arrested Reria on the pretext 
that Beria wanted to arrest them. 

You see, the people immediately understood the phoniness of the 
Beria story. 

Anyhow, the policy of the Soviet Government in 1953 and 1954 was 
a policy of apparent softening of the line, a policy of promising mate- 
rial goods to the people, and some individual freedom. 

(Representative Morgan M. Moulder returned to the hearing room 
at this point) . 

Mr. Khokiilov. In the background, Mr. Khrushchev and his as- 
sociates worked secretly. Mr. Khrushchev is a very good student of 
communism, wdio knows that communism cannot permit itself the 
luxury of becoming libei-al. 

Mr. ScHERER. Luxury of what? 

Mr. KiioKTiLov. Of becoming liberal. People like Khrushchev 
know that with all the alleged good will of ^h: Malenkov, the Soviet 
system would never be able to raise the standard of living. They also 
know that to give freedom to the arts and to the individual would be 
to undermine the basis of the Soviet system itself. 

So Khrushchev knew that the promises of Malenkov could not be 
fulfilled. Already at that time he began to ]n-epare a field 

Mr. Tavexxer. Prepare what? 


Mr. Khokhlov. A line, a strategic line to revive Stalin's policies of 
com,plete control over the people and suppression of individual 

What is very interesting for us is tliat the first steps in his campaign 
were directed against the arts. The first signal that the Stalin policies 
were being revived was the calling of the All Union Soviet Congress 
of Writers and Poets at Moscow in late fall of 1954. 

Mr. MoTjLDER. May I interrupt you there. 

May we give our reporter a brief recess for a period of approx- 
imately 10 minutes. 

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken, there being present Eepre- 
sentives Moulder, Doyle, Jackson, and Scherer.) 

(The committee reconvened at the expiration of the recess, there 
being present Eepresentatives Moulder, Doyle, Jackson, and Scherer.) 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order, please. 

All the people standing in the corridor who Avish to come into the 
hearing room and be seated will do so immediately so as not to disturb 
the proceedings of this committee. 

The committee wishes to announce that all witnesses who were sub- 
penaed to appear before the committee on Monday, as well as all 
witnesses who were subpenaed to appear before the committee today 
and tomorrow and who have not been heard, are directed to appear 
before the conunittee at 9: 30 a. m., Thursday morning, unless other- 
wise notified prior to that time. 

Is that right, Mr. Tavenner? 

Mr. Tavenner. That is right. 

Mr. Moulder. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner, with the examination of this 

INIr. Tavenner. ^lay T state that, as far as we can determine, there 
will not be an opportunity for any witnesses to be heard this after- 
noon. I don't know if that question has been raised. 

So I believe you had better release any one who desires to leave now 
for the rest of the afternoon. 

Mr. Moulder, I tliought in my announcement I covered that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Several raised the question since your announce- 

Are you ready, Mr. Chairman ? 

Mr, AIoulder. Yes, Mr. Tavenner, 

Mr. Tavenner. At the time of the recess, Mr. Khokhlov, you were 
telling the committee of the events occurring in the Soviet Union 
at the time Stalin and Beria were first criticized, and at the time that 
certain promises were being made to the people of the Soviet Union. 
Will you begin there and continue ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Apparently in late 1954, Khrushchev and his lieu- 
tenants got the idea that Stalin's policy could be revived, so they 
called the Congress of Soviet Writers in order to tell them that freedom 
of thought and expressions in the arts had gone too far, and had now 
to return to Socialist realism. In other words, creative art had to 
be put in a straitjacket of thought control. 

At this time Stalin's name reappeared in the leading Soviet news- 
papers which played him up as the one really great man in Soviet 
history, as the father of mankind, as the man who led the Soviet 
Union to all its victories and successes. Some editorials emphasized 


the priority of heavy industry over light industry, a favorite thesis 
with Stalin. In other words, the Soviet citizen must once more sac- 
rifice his clothes and the butter on his bread, in order to help to build 
a state powerful enough to conquer the world, or at least to support 
the international movement for the so-called better world of tomorrow. 
And so Malenkov had to go. 

In February of 1955, Khrushchev conceived of himself as a poten- 
tial dictator, a man capable of reviving old Stalin policies. 

But in the spring of 1955 the Western World was not the same 
as it was when Stalin was alive. By this time the free world had 
come to understand many things. It had decided to defend itself 
against the dangers of subversion and infiltration carried out by 
Communist parties abroad, outside the Soviet Union. 

Mr. SciiERER. "V^^io did you say began to understand that? 
Mr. KiioKHLOv. The Western World. 
Mr. ScHERER. Finally. 

Mr. KiiOKiiLov. Finally. Still not enough, but at least it began to 
understand something. 

Mr. ScHERER. That is what this committee has been trying to tell 
them for many years. 

Mr. KiioKHLov. Well, I wouldn't Imow. 
Mr. SciiERER. It is just a comment. 

Mr. KiioKiiL-ov. It seems that Khrushchev decided to be a Stalin 
inside the Soviet Union and a Malenkov abroad. 

I am sure he was proud of this invention when he created the 
Geneva spirit and the policy of coexistence which required shaking 
the hand of Mr. Eisenhower. 

But one thing jMr. Khrushchev and company underestimated : they 
underestimated the Russiaji people who were no longer the same. 
The Russian people had already outgrown the Soviet system, and 
understood in full that in order for them to be moral, decent human 
beings, the immoral Soviet Government had to go. 

Once again, the Soviet rulers tried to mobilize the young generation 
to follow their ideas. Thus was born the big plan of ]\[r. Khrushchev, 
a plan called development of unexplored land. This plan called for 
mobilization of hundreds of thousands of young people, who would 
go out into virgin territory and work hard for nothing, even sacrifice 
themselves, just to fulfill the designs of the Soviet rulers. 

Besides, Mr. Khrushchev had the idea that the pressure put upon 
the peasants would make them produce. 

And at the same time the revival of Stalin's ideological approach 
would mobilize the young workers and intellectuals to work more 

Mr. Khrushchev failed. Why di<l lie fail '. 

Actually, the only success which tlie Khrushchev strategy had ac- 
complished was his big victory over the West. The Western World 
believed — at least its leaders believed — that the Soviet system is cap- 
able of changing itself, and that there are only two ways to meet com- 
uniiiism- — atomic war or coexistence. 

We all know, and I guess we all agree, that a war. especially an 
atomic war, would l)e an inh\nnan thing. And to take the smallest 
risk of involving humanity in such a tragedy would be a crime. 

But one thing \vhich the people here in the United States don't 
often realize 


Mr. ScHERER. I did not get that. One thing what? 

Mr. Khokhlov. TVliich the people here in the United States, in the 
free world, do not realize is that there is a third way to resolve the 
conflict, and this is the way of destroying the Soviet system by the 
forces of the enslaved peoples themselves. 

Mr. ScHERER. Within Russia? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Within Russia, the Russian people themselves. 

Mr. ScHERER. That is what Eugene Lyons says in his recent book 

Mr. Khokhlov. I see. 

Mr. ScHERER. Our Secret Allies — The People of Russia. He comes 
to the same conclusion that you have here today. 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes; but in one respect he may be wrong. The 
Government of the Ignited States and the Russian people are not 
equall}' allied. Actually the Russian people are more strongly allied 
to the Ignited States than the United States is to them. 

Mr. ScHERER. That is what he meant. 

"Our Secret Allies" is the title of his book — the people of Russia 
are our secret allies. 

Mr. Khokhlov, Unfortunately I haven't yet had the opportunity 
to read his book. 

Mr. SciiERER. He says in his book substantially what you have said 
here today. 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is very good. That means that T am not say- 
ing anything very new. 

Mv. ScHERFK. I did not mean that in any way. You are telling us 
what lie surmised, because he Avasu't there. It is his conclusion. 
. Mr. Khokhlov. All right. In 1955, the Soviet rulers realized what 
too few i)eople here realize, that it is impossible to indoctrinate millions 
of young people by means of simple repetition for 88 years that evil is 

Let's take a look at a fe^^■ facts and figures to appreciate what nuiy 
have ha])j)ened in 1955, to astonish the Soviet rulers. 

It is true that at the i^Otli l^irty Congress Khrushchev declared the 
plan for developing unexplored lands was fulfilled. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Will you explain in a little more detail what you 
mean by unexplored land? 

Mr. Khokhlov. There are large areas of virgin land previously used 
only for grazing, such as Kazakhstan, parts of Siberia and the Trans- 
Ural. They are very far away from ti-ansportation lines, have a bad 
climate and are difficult to develop. 

Mr. Tavexxer. We would refer to them here as vacant lands prob- 

Mr. Jacksox. I'ndeveloped. 

Mr. Khokhlov. All right, undeveloped lands. 

I don't know what Khrushchev really wanted more, to get some grain 
from this land or to find a means of making the youth again serve thp 
system in a fanatical wav. Well, how did'the voung people react to 
all this? • . ^r 1 

Let's take a look at some Hgures which the Soviet rulers themselves 
quoted at the 20th Party Congress. 

One of the Communist Party's top officials, the Secretary General 
of the Komsomol, — Shelepin, told to his distress, that in 1955, 209.000 
young people were sent out to do forestry work. And do you know 
how many of them deserted ? 205,000, 


In other words, just about all of them. To give another example, 
the Communist movement planned to use 100,000 young people to build 
plants for making cement. But the local party cells were able to 
assemble only 13,000. 

Perhaps the best way to understand why all this happened is to take 
a look at a stage play written in 1955 by Nikolai Pogodin. 

Wrongly assuming that the youth this time could be told the truth, 
he wrote a stage play which he entitled "We Three Went Out to the 
Undeveloped Lands." 

This play was allowed to a])pear on the best stage in Moscow in 
November of 1955, but lasted only about 2 weeks. The reason for its 
being canceled was that Mr. Pogodin had made the mistake of being 
too impartial. 

None of the characters in his play were of the type who cared about 
the plans of the Soviet rulers. 

Some of them left INIoscow because of unhappy love affairs. Others 
were the kind who had stolen some money and wanted a chance to start 
a new life. Pogodin's play revealed how the young people went far 
away not to fulfill Khrushchev's plan, but for personal reasons. Thus 
his play exposed the principal failure of the Soviet system in 1955 — 
its inability to make the youth accept the new enforcement of Soviet 

So the young generation in 1955 gave Mr. Khrushchev proof that 
the young generation would no longer serve the Soviet system, but even 
oppose it. As we all know, it is very difficult to mobilize young people 
only through promises of material goods. They need something 
more — spiritual incentives. 

One of the reasons wh}' the rulers began to think of a so-called 
revival of Leninism was their attempt to bi-ing the youth back into 
their camp. Thus the idea of the final public denunciation of Stalin, 
a kind of second death for him, was born there and then. 

At the same time the situation in agriculture continued to be 

Some liberals, or even some deliberately unintelligent people in the 
West, often say that the peasant in the Soviet Union may not have it 
so good today, but at least he is much better off than before. 

In Mr. Khrushchev's oAvn words at the 20th Party Congress, the 
total area planted in 1953 was exactly the same as it was in 1913 when 
the population was nnich smaller and when Russia didn't have to sup- 
port so many international operations and movements. 

For instance, if we use the figures quoted by Khruslichev himself 
as to production of meat and otlier things in 1955. and divide them by 
the number of people in the Soviet Union, we will see that the average 
person got only 2 pounds of meat a nionth, a little more than 2 j)ounds 
of fish a month, and only a yard of wool stuff a year. Besides, Khrush- 
chev hardly understated his case. 

But keep in mind that not everybody gets 2 pounds of meat a month. 
Thousands of peo])le eat as much as 30 pounds of meat a month. These 
are the few favored ones. 

This gives you some idea of how desperate is the condition of the 
rest of the population. 

Mr. ScHEKER. May I interrupt? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes. 


Mr. ScHERER. From wliat you say then, it would be impossible for 
Russia at this time to fulfill the obliirations that she is now committing 
herself to in offering technical assistance to some neutral countries. 

Mr. Khokhlov. I wouldn't agree with that. Some of them could 
be fulfilled. The Soviet citizen is robbed in such an inhuman way 
that the rulers can sometimes scrape together enough exports to pro- 
mote their propaganda program. 

Mr. ScHEKER. Tliey would not be able to do so without inflicting 
serious harm upon the Soviet people. 
Mr. JvHOKiiLov. Tliat is right. 

Mr. ScHERER. Actually they are not able to fulfill their obligations. 
Mr. Khokhlov. Well, right now it would be twice as hard as it was 
before for them to make these exports for propaganda purposes. Let 
me show you what Soviet statistics really mean. 

For example, Mr. Khrushchev said that the total area of cultivated 
land was much greater in 1955 than in 1954. 

A local newspaper in the Soviet Union described this kind of thing 
in the Kalinin district, which is one of the largest districts in the 
middle of the Russian Republic — RSFSR. The local newspaper 
stated that in 1955, 70,000 liectares more were cultivated than in the 
previous year. Then the newspaper went into detail. 

Of this 70,000, 18,000 hectares didn't produce anything, but the 
paper didn't explain why no crops came up. The other 52,000 hectares 
produced about 3i/^ tons of unripe crops which had to be converted 
into ensilage ; that is, cattle feed. 

In the same district there were 15,000 fewer head of cattle than in 
1954. In addition, the newspaper declared there was a decrease of 
12,000 pigs and ■i;>,000 sheep. I think that the people probably 
slaughtered them for their own needs. 

The newspaper was much alarmed because there were not even 
enough seeds for spring planting. This will show you why the Soviet 
rulers have reason to be Avorried. The people would not cooperate. 

This may have caused the party secretaries to rush around the 
country throughout the summer and fall of 1955 in a desperate attempt 
to stop this passive resistance on the part of the people. 

When they did not succeed they realized that something drastic had 
to be undertaken, a kind of big retreat in order to save themselves. 

So the Soviet rulers decided to adopt a new policy, that of aban- 
doning Stalin's programs and returning to Lenin's. They hoped that 
the young generation would not remember that the principles of Stalin 
and Lenin were practically the same. In other words, they wanted 
to put a new look upon the old objectives. This plan included a public 
denunciation of Stalin as a one-man dictatorship. They could not 
attack Stalin's ideology because that is exactly what they Avanted to 
preserve. So they attacked his methods. 

At the opening of the 20th Congress, they probably wanted to make 
this denunciation in a soft Avay ; that is, so as not to blame themselves. 
They hoped to combine the denunciation of Stalin with various meas- 
ures of pleasing some strata of society. For instance, they informed 
students that they Avould no longer haA^e to pay their OAvn tuition. 

At the same time Khrushchev presented his own plan for special 
schools to be sponsored by the state. These schools were designed for 
the education of a neAv l)reed of Soviet youth fanatically devoted to 


the system. Thus he hoped to show the delegates to tlie Party Con- 
gress how a new generation woukl be trained to hack them up. 
Evidently, the youth of today is not supporting them. 

Next the workers were told that wages will be raised and the working 
day shortened. 

They also told the army that pensions will be granted on a fairer 

The stratum of Soviet society which they evidently regarded as 
hopeless was the peasants. No concessions were made to them. 

On the contrary, after the 20th Congress, the Government iscued a 
special directive which authorized the local managers to expel the 
peasants from the collective farms and deprive them of their indi- 
vidual pieces of land and their individual cattle. 

If you will remember that a peasant cannot leave the country and 
work in a city you will understand what this meant to him — starvation. 
In other words, the Government introduced a kind of legal economic 

So that is what made the Soviet rulers denounce Stalin ; it was the 
fear of an explosion which made the Soviet rulers denounce Stalin. 
They were afraid that the entire Soviet economy would disintegrate 
and that the youth would openly rebel. At the outset the Soviet rulers 
probably didn't intend to go very far in denouncing Stalin. 

"Wlien Khrushchev opened the 20th Congress he made only a few 
derogatory remarks about Stalin. 

Anastas Mikoyan, another top party leader, used much stronger 
language with regard to Stalin. He also did something else. Perhaps 
he got the idea that now is a good time to get Khrushchev out of the 
way. Thus, he brought up the matter of some old Bolsheviks who 
were liquidated at tlie time of the purges in the Ukraine for which 
Khrushchev was responsible. In this way he implicitly associated 
Khrushchev with Stalin. 

Apparently, Khrushchev became afraid that if the people now asso- 
ciated his name with Stalin his power would be destroyed. In my 
opinion, that is why Khrushchev had to prepare a hasty speech in 
which he blamed Stalin much more than the Communist Party in- 
tended at the outset. In other words, things had gotten out of control. 
Wliat does this mean for us ? 

It means that a revolution has begun inside the Soviet Union. You 
see, a revolution need not always be an uprising or a shooting. 

In Lenin's own words a revolution begins when the masses of peo- 
ple no longer want to live as before. On the other hand, the Govern- 
ment is not able to change its way of ruling. 

That is what is going on now in the Soviet Union. 

The Soviet rulers had to retreat, because the will of the people in 
the Soviet Union today is stronger than the Government itself. But 
the Government cannot make the changes which the people want with- 
out abolishing the system itself. 

Mr. Tavenner. Air. Khokhlov, what will be the effect of all this 
upon the danger of war? 

Mr. KiioKiiLov, I think there is less danger of an atomic war now. 
The people wouldn't follow the Soviet rulers who started such a war. 
You see, it is not enough to drop a few atomic bombs to win a war. 
A lot of people are needed to make a war machine effective. Today it 


would be very difficult for the Soviet rulers to get the necessary coop- 
eration from millions of officers and men. 

Mr. Moulder. May I interrupt you to inquire, do you believe that 
as a result of the danger of the leaders losing their power that they 
would, in desperation, probably unleash and make an abrupt attack 
of war and use atomic bombs in order to retain their position by creat- 
ing such an emergency ? 

Mr. KiiOKHLOv. No ; I wouldn't think so, and I will tell you why : 
The Soviet rulers now see that their own house is on fire. If they 
started such an adventurous war tomorrow they would only accelerate 
the process of their own downfall. 

However, they might be able to take such a risk if the policy of the 
United States would help the Soviet rulers confuse the Russian people 
and make the people believe that the United States wants to destroy 
the Russian people, rather than the Soviet system. But I think there 
is very little chance that such a lie would be accepted by the Russian 

Mr. Moulder. I do not know whether I make myself clear. They 
could create a situation, a condition whereby they would bring about 
war themselves and accuse the United States of being the aggressor, 
as they have in other instances. 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is ri^ht. 

Mr. Moulder. Thereby retaming the following and loyalty of their 
people to wage a war against us. 

Mr. Jackson. And recreate again the same spirit of nationalism 
which existed before Leningrad. 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is right. 

But right now the Russian people are so thoroughly confirmed in 
their belief that the Soviet system is wrong that the Soviet rulers 
would not dare to risk a conflict between the Soviet Union and the 
United States. On the other hand, it makes them all the more 
anxious to stir up trouble between the United States and some coun- 
tries in Asia and the Near East, as they had done in Korea. In 
this way they hope to lessen the prestige of the United States. But 
if the United States were to reduce its military potential, then the 
Soviet rulers might take a chance upon the prospects of an easy 
victory. But, of course, prediction is an easy thing. 

Mr. Jackson. May I ask a question on this particular point ? 

Why is there the obvious reluctance to approach some genuine 
understanding on the matter of armaments ? 

Is it a sincere fear on the part of the Soviet Union that the United 
States is prepared to or has the intention of attacking the Soviet 

Mr. Khokhlov. If the United States should agree to disarm, it 
would, of course, require adequate inspection and control in other 
countries. But the Soviet rulers cannot allow any kind of control 
or any kind of inspection in their own country. If they did you 
would learn the whole truth, not only about their military poten- 
tial, but also about their internal troubles. And this is what they fear 

Notice how Mr. Khrushchev opened the 20th Party Congress. Ac- 
cording to him, there are only two possibilities for the human race — 
atomic war or coexistence. "There is no third way," he said. But 


in liis heart he was worried because there is a third way, and he 
knew very well what it is — the eventual overthrow of the Soviet 
system by the force of the Russian people themselves. And Khrush- 
chev is afraid that the Western World will understand the significance 
of this third way, wliich is the real Achilles heel of the Soviet sys- 
tem. Consequently, he can never permit adequate arms inspection. 

Mr. Jackson. To what extent do these groups in the exchange-of- 
persons programs, farmers, cultural artists and so forth, have an 
o]iportunity, if any, to mingle with the Russian people? I distin- 
guish now between Russian people and Soviets. 

Mr. KiioKHLOv. Very little. First of all, they are not allowed 
to have real contacts with the Russian people. Secondly, the Rus- 
sian people tliemselves would not dare to tell them much. Thirdly, 
only those that are checked and approved by the Soviet State De- 
partment are allowed to visit the U. S. S. R. 

Let me say by way of conclusion to my analysis of the recent 
events in the Soviet Union, the situation is no less dangerous for 
the West. On the contrary. You see, the Communists never really 
lelied upon armed conflict as the way to conquer the world. 

Their unique weapon, which the West doesn't possess, has always 
been infiltration and subversion. Today their only hope for survival, 
for keeping the Soviet system alive, is through disintegrating the 
West, through the promotion of softness and disunity in the West. 

After they have created enough softness and disunity in the West, 
the Soviet rulers can tell the Russian people that the West will not 
be able to support any popular opposition to tlie Soviet system. 

For instance, Malenkov, Bulganin, and Khrushchev were invited to 
England. Rut they did not accept the invitation in order to promote 
world peace. What they had in mind was what they could say to the 
]:)eop]e back in Russia. For example, "Look. See how the Prime 
Minister of England shook hands with us. He did not tell us we are 
immoral. He considered us as a legal, normal, decent government. 
The President of the United States, the fortress of freedom and jus- 
tice, also shook hands with us. Then who are you to criticize us ? "\^^lo 
are you to protest and to oppose us?'" This propaganda line could 
liave its effect. 

What I want to emphasize is that the Soviet rulers understand how 
important it is for them now to have at their disposal every member of 
the Communist parties around the world. Today this is the only army 
upon which they can rely. They cannot rely any longer on the Rus- 
sian soldier. But they can rely on 

Mr. ScHEKEK. You mean on tlieir es]iionage agents and collab- 
oratoi's ? 

Mr. KiioKHLov. Not only upon that. It is important for them to 
get all the information they can. But it is nnich more important for 
them to shape public opinion in the West. 

Mr. SciiEHEu. And liow do they shape ])ublic opinion? 

Mr. KiioKHi.ov. I will explain. But })of()ro I go into that, the most 
important wea])()n Mas not and is not tlio atomic bomb or the H-bomb, 
but tlie misconception existing in the free world that tlie overthrow of 
the Soviet system by means of enslaved piM)))lo tliemselves is not 

In Older (o make peoi)le in the AVest believe such nonsense, that is, a 
j'opular revolution inside the Soviet Union is an impossibility, the 


Soviet rulers must be able to iufluence public opinion in this country. 
It is too late for the Daily Worker to do that. But this shaping of 
public opinion can be brought about by ])eople who are not intention- 
ally associated with the Conniiunist Party. 

For example, a movie director, a journalist, a producer, a painter, 
even a musician who is not necessarily associated w^ith the Communist: 
Party of Soviet Intelligence. Perhaps such a person would not realize 
that he is doing the work which the Soviet rulers want him to do. 

However, in helping to prevent the United States from allying it- 
self with the Eussian people, from inspiring the Russian people to 
revolution which would accelerate the destruction of the Soviet system, 
such a person is actually doing a more important job for Soviet Intelli- 
gence than if he were to obtain some information about guided missiles. 

Mr. Moulder. It is your belief that as long as the free world re- 
mains united together and keeps a firm stand and that our Nation's 
economy remains strong, that Russia will disintegrate and the Soviet 
Union in its plans will be destroyed internally. Is that the summa- 
tion of what you say ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. I firmly believe today that the Russian people will 
eventually overthrow the Soviet system, or, better said, will success- 
fully pursue its struggle until the Soviet system is completely de- 
stroyed. Sooner or later that day will come with the help of the 
West or even in spite of the West. It will come much sooner and be 
much more advantageous to the West itself if the free world helps. 

I believe that today is the time to consider the deep significance of 
what is going on in the Soviet Union. Today is the time for every 
American citizen to recognize the responsibility placed upon him by 

If Americans come to understand the timeliness and the necessity 
of assuming their responsibility toward mankind, the day on which 
Ave will be rid of communism and have a genuine guaranty of peace 
and happiness for future generations will not be far oft'. 

Mr. SciiERER. Have you told this story that you told us here today 
to the State Department ^ 

Mr. Khokiilov. Yes. 

But I would like to add that there are in your Government some 
people who don't know, some people w^ho don't want to know, some 
who are smart, more who are ignorant, and too many who are de- 
liberately unintelligent. 

Mr. Moulder. May I ask this question ? Concerning the so-called 
foreign-aid program, what is your opinion or w^hat information do 
you have concerning the overtures or the alleged offers on the part of 
the Soviet Union to aid and assist other countries' economy ? 

Do you think it is oftered in good faith, or is it purely propaganda 
on their part to lead us to world competition in making greater aid 
in the form of aid appropriations? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes. I wouldn't say that the Soviet leaders acted 
from philanthropic motives. It is only a propaganda move, made to 
involve the United States in the field of economical competition, to 
make the United States forget that the Achilles heel of communism 
is in the realm of ideas. The Soviet rulers want the United States 
to be distracted from this last point. 

But I am glad they began this drive of economic competition be- 
cause there are so many hungry people in the w^orld, and if this eco- 


nomic competition provides millions of people with another piece of 
bread, it would be a good thing. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you believe that the Soviet economy could stand 
substantial assistance to other countries? 

Mr. Khokhlov. I don't think so. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Jackson? 

Mr. Tavenner. May I ask a question in that connection ? 

Mr. Moulder. Yes. 

Mr. Jackson. I don't want to leave this point without clarification. 

For instance, on the construction of the high Aswan Dam in Egypt, 
which will, when completed, cost in the vicinity of $200 million or 
$300 million, the United States and Great Britain are undertaking to 
underwrite a considerable portion of the initial phase of the cost to 
the extent of some $75 million, with a commitment, an implied 
commitment which will extend beyond that amount. The Soviet 
Union has made an offer which is, in essence, an offer to construct 
the dam for nothing. 

It occurs to many of us that it might be a good idea to say to the 
Soviet Union, "Very well, your profession is to raise the standards of 
living of underprivileged people. That is ours also, and not only 
our profession but our national record over the course of the years. 
Go ahead and build the high Aswan Dam." 

Mr. Khokhlov. That is right. 

Mr. Jackson. But would that seem to you to be a logical approach? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes. 

First of all, you would put them to the test. Secondly, if they really 
do construct the dam, why not let the people have it ? But remember 
the Soviet rulers would not construct the dam in order to help hu- 
manity. If they really loved humanity so much, they could begin 
by constructing more dams for their own people. 

They could treat their own people as human beings. Why should 
they show preference for foreigners except for propaganda purposes? 

Mr. Jackson. That is a question that some of our own peoj^le ask 
some of the Members of Congress. That is a very touchy subject 
every time the foreign aid bill comes up. 

I am interested to have your viewpoint with respect to this and 
other offers made elsewhere throughout the world ; for instance eco- 
nomic assistance in Latin America to the extent of a billion dollars. 

In matters of this kind it seems to me that the time has come for us 
to say, "Very well, we certainly won't stand in the way of anything 
you want to do to lift the oppressed peoples. If you can lift your own 
ojDpressed peoples at the same time that is so much to the good." 

Let them spend their money and let the Eussian taxpayers write to 
the Politburo or the Supreme Soviet, if they dare do so. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have a question on that line of Mr. Jackson's. 

Mr. Moulder. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to Icnow whether or not it has been the 
practice of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to give financial 
aid to the Communist parties abroad, such as the Communist l*arty in 
Yugoslavia, the Communist Party in tlie United States. 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes. 

I wouldn't say that any money passed through my own hands to the 
Communist parties abroad. I did not see any records. But I knew 
from my contacts with the France and American desks, and from my 


private contacts with people on the staff of the Central Committee, 
that very large amounts are actually sent abroad for this purpose. 

Mr. ScHERER. You mean to the Communist Party in the United 
Mr. Khokiilov. Positively. 

They are probably sent under various camouflages. But the Rus- 
sian people felt the heavy burden of the expensive subversion work 

Mr. ScHERER. That is to support the Communist Party and its ac- 
tivities in the United States ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes, more than that. In order to assure their own 
survival, the Soviet rulers must support the Communist parties 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Doyle ? 

Mr. DoYLE. I just want to ask a couple of questions, not disregard- 
ing the international aspect of this discussion brought to us so ably, 
but here we are a committee of Congress studying ways and means to 
meet the Soviet Communist Party threat in our own Nation. 

Briefly, let me make this statement before I ask you the question. 
Wlien I was in Europe and Asia as a member of the Armed Services 
Committee, I interviewed certain high intelligence officials, some 
American and some foreign, and they all told me that the Communist 
Party's subversive activities in the United States, with which this 
committee is concerned, was part and parcel of the international 
Soviet conspiracy. 

Do you believe that is true ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Positively, because the Soviet rulers have always 
regarded tlieir state as the headquarters of an international conspiracy, 
the final purjiose of which is to establish a Communist society all over 
the world. They don't even conceal this fact. Mr. Khruslichev, only 
a feAv months ago, emphatically stressed it. In effect he told the West, 
"Please don't fool yourselves. We will never renounce our objectives. 
Our final purpose is to establish a worldwide Communist society by 
any means at our disposal. To expect us to give up communism is 
like expecting a shrimp to whistle." 

Mr. ScHERER. Pardon me for interrupting. 

When you say, "any means," does that include force and violence ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Well, his latest version is that violence is not always 
absolutely necessary. That does not mean that he is altogether aban- 
doning violence. 

But he did say that the course of history will in this century lead 
to the final victory of communism. 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask this : 

If the pronouncement is as you have related, that the Soviets say 
it is not necessary to emphasize the use of force and violence, what is 
your opinion as to whether or not they are postponing that propaganda 
or that policy of advocating force and violence, but anticipating its 
use, and they emphasize more or less the practice of subversion, of 
infiltration, say in the United States Communist Party, of propaganda 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes; I thought I mentioned that they must now 
resort to subversion and infiltration as their only chance for survival, 
as the only way to postpone their end. 


Mr. Doyle. One moi-e question. I have never asked 3'ou this ques- 
tion, and I have never discussed it with you. I don't know what your 
answer will be. But whatever it may be, will you give us the benefit 
of your considered opinion as to whether or not the United States 
Congress should and must continue, or should discontinue a function 
of this sort of a committee in the United States^ Is this sort of a 
committee necessary? Is it a wise expenditure of the taxpayers' 
money ? x\re we accomplishing a result that is necessary to be done, 
or what? 

Mr. KiiOKHLOv. My own knowledge about the activities of your 
committee is very limited. ^^Hien I got the subpena a few days ago, I 
didn't exactly know what the work of your committee is. Besides, I 
wouldn't permit myself to comment on internal American affairs. 

But I would like to say one thing : In my own life I had to struggle 
very hard to get away from the spoiling influence of communism; I 
had to sacrifice all that I had. I had to give up, at least temporarily, 
my country and my family. All that I did I did for the sake of my 
people. I know that it is impossible today to be a decent person and 
a Communist at the same time. 

Mr. ScHERER. I didn't understand that last sentence. 

Mr. KiioKHLOV. Today it is impossible to be a Communist and a 
decent man at the same time. I know it from my experience in the 
Soviet Union. 

Therefore I was amazed and surprised that so many Americans who 
could have known about all the tragedy and crimes the Communists 
liave committed consider it possible to clef end or even help commmiism. 
This is something which I simply cannot understand. In your coun- 
try you have freedom, and yet there are here some people who endanger 
their own freedom by associating with Communists. 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will stand in recess for a period of 5 
minutes in order to give the reporter a brief rest. 

(Whereupon, a brief recess w^as taken, there being present Repre- 
sentatives Moulder, Doyle, Jackson, and Scherer.) 

(The committee was reconvened at the expiration of the recess, there 
being present Representatives INIoulder, Doyle, and Jackson.) 

Mr. Moulder. Let's proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

I understood you had some statement to make. 

Does that conclude your general statement, Mr. Khokhlov? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes, that concludes my statement. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Doyle, do you have any questions ? 

Mr. Doyle. I have just one more question. I know this will interest 
all the American women if you are able to answer it. 

What is the status of the Russian woman under the system of Soviet 
communism ? 

(Representative Gordon H. Scherer returned to the hearing room at 
this point). 

Mr. Khokhlov. Well, I could say one thing. When commuuism is 
finally destroyed and humanity is no longer in danger, a monument 
should be raised to the women of Russia. The Russian woman today 
carries all the burden of responsibility for the Russian family. She 
not only has to work in the same way that her liusbaiul does/she has 
full responsibility for the children, for their education, how they will 
grow, what they will believe, what they will think. In addition, she 


has the responsibility for tlieir breakfast, dinner, clothes, and house 

And, I repeat once again, every item of it is a big problem. Only by 
means of the extremely rich soul of the Russian woman could the 
Russian spiritual treasury and devotion to high moral principles have 
been transmitted to the new generation. Only in this way was Soviet 
indoctrination opposed and finally compelled to retreat. 

At the same time they want to be ladylike; to dress and take care 
of their appearance as American women do. This is not easy in the 
Soviet Union. Even the most ordinary items of makeup and dress 
accessories are often not available. 

Don't forget that she must carry out a heavy job, and to be a front- 
line soldier in the fight against the poisonous influence of the Soviet 

Mr. Schekp:r. It is very difficult, then, for us to understand how some 
of these American Avomen who have appeared before this committee as 
witnesses can be sucli dedicated Communists. 

Mr. Doyle. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Jackson? 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Khokhlov, there is one question bearing on your 
testimony which I should like to ask you to extend very briefly. 

From the testimony you have given I gather that in your official 
capacity as a member of the Soviet Intelligence you were in a position 
of relative luxury, let us say, in the way of living accommodations and 
other perquisites which were youi'S. It might have been an easy 
matter for you to have continued indefinitely with promotions and so 
forth had you seen fit to do so. 

Would you care to state — and I know that there are personal con- 
siderations involved in any answer which 3"ou might give which I 
don't want to press, and, that is to say, I have some knowledge of a 
tremendous personal sacrifice which has been involved in your leaving 
the Soviet Union — but woidd you care to tell the committee, for the 
record, the fundamental things which brought about the decision on 
your part ? 

Mr. KiioKTiLov. Actually I had no choice. 

Paradoxically, the same reasons which once made me join the Soviet 
Intelligence, later led me to join the free world. Before the war I 
planned to become a movie director, but when war broke out I joined 
Soviet Intelligence. Because the Soviet Intelligence always had much 
use for show people as instruments of infiltration and penetration into 
the enemy system, I was assigned a place on a special show team, which 
would be left behind for guerilla operations in case Moscow had to be 

That happened in the late fall of 1941. I was then 19 years old and 
firmly convinced that the Soviet State and Russia were one and the 
same thing. In accepting this assignment with Soviet Intelligence, 
] was convinced that I was fighting for my motherland. I knew it 
would not be child's play, but I put my country's interest above my 

Later on I was assigned to go behind the enemy lines. I had to 
learn enough Gennan to be able to pass as a German. I got a Nazi 
officer's uniform from Soviet Intelligence, and I spent a year in guer- 
rilla territory passing myself off as a German. I was actually proud 
to do that. 


In 1953, 1 was ordered to become part of an assassination team. At 
this time this ^Yas for me nothing but a calculated murder. 

You see, during the war I was assigned to assist in the killing of 
Wilhelm Kube who was a Nazi general and gauleiter of Byelorussia. 
He was the deadly enemy of my people, and responsible for the killing 
of many thousands of my compatriots. I considered it an honor to 
take part in his assassination. 

Mr. Tavennee. Do you mean that you were assigned to the part of 
directing that it be done, or that you participated in it? 

Mr. Khokhlov. I personally made contact with a servant who 
worked where Kube lived. Because this servant was kept under con- 
stant Gestapo surveillance, she could not be approached by a person 
who looked too much like a Russian. Dressed in the uniform and pro- 
vided with the papers of a Nazi officer, I was able to penetrate into the 
restricted area, to contact the servant and persuade her to place a 
bomb under the gauleiter 's bed. So he was blown up. It was just a 
wartime assignment. 

But in 1953 it was quite a different story. First, I met my wife in 
1949. And it was she who taught me the true nature of communism. 

Mr. ScHERER. She taught you what? 

Mr. Khokhlov. The true nature of communism. Secondly, 
through her I learned to understand the Russian people. For the 
first time in my life I began to feel how my people think. 

I saw that the majority of my people were opposed to the Soviet 
system. Therefore, in 1953 for me to serve my country required that 
I should help the Russian anti-Communist underground and not the 
Soviet S3'stem. 

^^Hien I first heard about this anti-Communist underground in 1952, 
I was afi'aid to cooperate with it because we already had a son. 

"\^'lien, in 1953, the Soviet Government realizect that this Russian 
anti-Communist underground was enemy No. 1 of their system, they 
planned to assassinate one of its leaders who lived in Frankfurt in 
West Germany. 

Two East German Communists were assigned to get out of the party 
and pass themselves off' as Austrian merchants. Next they had to go 
through Switzerland to West German}- on an assignment to kill tliis 

Because I worked at the Austrian and German desk, I was also 
assigned to take part in this operation. My task was to plan their 
route, to provide them with papers. 

After that I had to go to Switzerland to supervise this operation, 
and to serve as the liaison officer between the assassins and Moscow. 

But, as I said before, my sympathies were already with the Russian 
anti-Communist underground. I simply couldn't help Soviet Intelli- 
gence kill this man. However, at first, I was afraid to do something 

If it were not for my wife, I would merely have stood aside and not 
taken an active part in the affair. After all, I had to explain the situ- 
ation to her, because if I failed in my plan not to take part in the 
assassination she and our child would have to pay the consequences. 
I could not regard defection to the West as a way out because I could 
never forget m}' country. 

There never will be any country in the world, even one as beautiful 
as the United States, that can be for me a second home. 


So I asked my wife whether she would object to my letting the 
assassins do the job by themselves. I explained to her that I could 
not reject the job outright, but I wouldn't help the assassins. I could 
not prevent all the political murders in this world. Then she told me 
something which gave me no choice. She said, "Of course I know 
what you are worried about. You are worried that if you try to 
prevent this murder, our son and I can be sent to a concentration 
camp. But if I go to a concentration camp we will still be husband 
and wife, and the spiritual love and understanding between us will 
still be there. But what will happen if you take part in this murder ? 
Perhaps we will stay free, but I will no longer be able to be your wife. 
We will lose each other forever and live the rest of our lives in the 
concentration camp of our own conscience." 

I knew that she was right. 

We had no other choice but to stop this murder. 

So I decided to go and see the intended victim in order to warn him 
to join the anti-Communist underground, without contacting any 
Western authorities, and to return to Moscow and eventually work for 
the revolution. This I already considered to be my duty to my own 

So I left my family behind in Moscow. I couldn't take them with 
me. I arrived in West Germany, contacted and warned the intended 
victim and asked him to help me obstruct the plot in such a way that 
Soviet Intelligence would be deceived. 

Unfortunately, we thought it necessary to contact American and 
British Intelligence because he explained that in the brief time at our 
disposal, the Russian anti-Communist underground wouldn't be able 
to carry out this deception by itself. This was very unfortunate for 
all of us because the American officials didn't believe either him or me. 

The fact that I did not ask for political asyhnn made the American 
officials suspicious of me. They couldn't believe that a Soviet Intelli- 
gence officer would risk his life to help a Russian emigre They 
couldn't believe that all I wanted was to prevent this murder and 
to join my own anti-Communist underground. 

They told me that what I said ran counter to what they had learned 
from Russian research centers in the United States. According to 
these centers most Russians were supposed to support the Connnunist 
system. So they regarded my entire story as phony. 

They arrested me and checked on me for 2 months. Thus valuable 
time was lost, and there was no hope for me to return home. "WHien 
they understood that I was sincere and that every word I said was 
true, they tried to save my family. The plan called for my making a 
statement over the radio of the Voice of America. I was to explain 
my wife's part in my decision. This statement was to be used as a 
pretext to get her to a safe place in Moscow. The Americans assured 
me that the plan would be carried out. So I went along with it be- 
cause it seemed the only possible way to save her. I did my part, 
but, unfortunately, the American officials did not do theirs. 

Mr. ScHERER. Did not do what ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Did not do their part. Because nobody went to 
pick up my wife, and she was automatically taken into custody by 
the Soviet secret police. 

After this I had to remain in the West. I agreed to come to t]ie 
United States in order to testify before the Federal Government, be- 


cause the task wliicli I am obliged to do for my wife and child is now 
to help destroy the Soviet system. This is the reason why I came here, 
why I am here, why I am fighting communism, and why I agree to give 
my testimony to your committee. 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Khokhlov, it is almost impossible for me to ex- 
press my appreciation for your testimony. I have been on the com- 
mittee something over 6 years. We have had effective, coherent 
witnesses on many occasions, but I do not know of any witness whose 
personal experiences and personal knowledge of the situation as it 
exists in the Soviet Union has been as complete or as well presented 
as your testimony today. 

I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that upon the return of the subcom- 
mittee to Washington, following the conclusion of these hearings at 
the end of this week, that a special resolution could be presented to 
the House, requesting publication of this testimony in documents, 
printed greatly in excess of what we generally ask for, and that if 
it is considered desirable by the House, that the testimony be trans- 
lated into German, into Russian, or whatever the decision may be, 
and that it be given the widest possible circulation in the Western 
Zone of Germany. 

This is a great message, and it is unfortunate that we lost about half 
of our audience here a while ago. The air has been a little better, but it 
is unfortiuiate, whether they left by direction or left on their own voli- 
tion, that they had perhaps not the courage nor the stomach to listen 
to what you had to say. 

I think it is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that the testimony of this 
witness was not on television, in order that every citizen of this com- 
munity and every citizen of southern California could have heard the 
devastating damning testimony, which I think will do as much to de- 
stroy the backbone of the Communist eifort in this community as 
anything that has ever taken place in this city. 

As an American citizen, I want to thank you very sincerely. And I 
know that I express the gratitude of the House of Representatives and 
the Congress of the United States. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Scherer, do you have any questions or statement 
you want to make? 

Mr. Scherer. I concur in everything that my colleague, Don Jack- 
son, has said. I am just wondering whetlier we could offer a resolution 
in the United States House of Representatives commenting on this 
man's testimony and saying in that resolution some of the things you 
said here so ably. 

Mr, Jackson. Yes; and I would enclose a copy of the resolution in 
every copy of the translation which is sent, in order that it miglit ex- 
press to the Russian people, as distinguished from the Soviet rulers, 
some of the things which you have so forcibly put forth, Mr. Khokh- 

Mr. Scherer. Frankly, I intend to explore — and I think the com- 
mittee should explore — the possibilities of a proper resolution passed 
by the Congress of the United States with respect to this man and , 
the devastating blow tliat he has given to the Communist conspiracy 
in this country. 

May I ask one furthei- question. What percentage of the Russian 
people are dedicated Comnnmists? 


Mr. KiioKHLOv. In official figures tliere are about 71/^ million mem- 
bers of the Communist Party today, which constitutes about 3 percent 
of the entire population. But we must take into account that more 
than half of them joined the party during World War II, when sol- 
diers at the front were forced to join the party before going into 
attack, because the party wanted to be associated with victories at the 
front. Many of these are not genuine Communists at all. I think 
that j)erhaps 2 percent of the entire population today continue to be 
stanch defenders of the Soviet regime. 

Mr. ScHERER. And that 2 percent can control Kussia mider the 
system you have just described to us, because that 2 percent controls 
the army, controls the police, and the secret police ? 

Mr. Khokulov. That was true before, but not any longer. As re- 
cent events have shown us, they cannot have complete control today. 

Mr. ScHERER. Tliey can stay in power because of that ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes; but not only because of that. Of course, it 
is important to them to have the secret police and the army. But you 
see, even the secret police apparatus is as much exposed to the in- 
fluence of tlie anti-Communist underground as the army or the 
farmers. I was, for example, an officer of the secret service. I am 
here today because people in this privileged position sometimes get 
firsthand information about the revolutionary movement, get their 
hands on leaflets and see reports about the true mood of the people. 
In fact, it is they who are flrst exposed to tlie influence of revolution- 
ary developments. 

Mr. SciiERER. Answer me this question in your own way : How is 
it that this 2 or 3 percent, then, can control the Government of Kussia 
today ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. They began with a complicated system of ideas 
which they made the people adopt. Then with the help of the secret 
police they introduced terror, distrust, and isolation back in the 
thirties. After World War II, tliey relied upon the ignorance of 
the West about the Soviet Union. They also relied upon the con- 
fusion, inertia, and hypnosis of the IJussian people, who still believed 
that they were not able to do anything against the Government. But 
every day more Russian people come to understand that something 
can be done about overthrowing the Soviet system. 

Mr. ScHERER. There are some people in this country, particularly 
those that oppose this committee, that say we are exaggerating the 
Communist menace, and that there are only a handful of Communists 
in this country. Yet we have here your testimony under oath saying 
that only 2 percent of the Russian people are Communists, and yet 
that 2 percent is able to still maintain control over the Russian people. 
I think it negates the argument that we hear so often, that only a 
handful of Communists in this country is nothing to worry about. 
But here you have demonstrated that just a very few, placed in the 
proper positions, and with the proper backing, with the proper arma- 
ments, can control the whole country. 

Mr. Moulder. Any further questions ? 

Mr. ScHERER. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Doyle, do you have any more questions ? 

Mr. Doyle. I just ^yish to join very cordially with the other mem- 
bers of the committee in commendation and best wishes and apprecia- 
tion to you for coming. 


Mr. Khokhlov. Thank you. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Tavenner? 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I feel that I should ask this witness 
one other question. 

You have given the committee your conclusion that the real hope of 
the Kussian people is in the revolution, which you say has started. 
In what way, would you suggest, could this country be of assistance to 
the people of Russia in the situation confronting them ? 

Mr. Khokhlov. I suppose first of all that American people should 
come to understand that communism is an immoral system, a system 
which deprives you of your decency, of your right to be an individual, 
and which will exploit you drastically in order to achieve its own ends. 

Besides, you must believe and understand that the Russian people 
don't want communism, that the Russian people are moral and very 
religious despite of all the oppression of the Soviet system, and that 
they are the first victims of communism. As soon as you understand 
this, you will realize why the Russian people cannot support the Soviet 
S3'stem, but must fight it. And all they need from you in this fight is 
your confidence and your spiritual support. 

You are in a unique position. You have at your disposal extremely 
powerful technical means for broadcasting and printing. You have 
other technical means. If j^ou could bring your faith and trust in the 
Russian people directly to them, it would help tremendously. I am 
not sure whether this next point fits in here, but perhaps it does. The 
early Christians did not follow Christ because He presented them with 
facts and figures that He would emerge victorious. They followed 
Him because they believed it to be their duty. Today it would be diffi- 
cult to present facts and figures to prove that the Soviet regime can 
soon be overthrown by the force of the Russian peoples themselves. 
But we know that it is our duty to try. 

You see, nobody will be able to destroy humanity if all the peoples 
of the world will help one another spiritually. This is why you should 
believe in the possibility of a third way of meeting communism — 
overthrow of the Soviet system by the enslaved peoples themselves. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with what is known as the 
Sarnoff plan, which was discussed with and submitted to the Presi- 

Mr. Khokhlov. I remember Sarnoff's memorandum. I exchanged 
letters with him. His plan calls for the organization of a subversive 
network in the Soviet Union by means of some American authorities 
who would hire and use defectors from the other side. I replied that 
in my opinion, this plan could never be accepted by the United States 
Government or by the Russian people. 

Because of international law, the United States Government could 
never support a subversion program. 

Mr. Jackson. Not support what? 

Mr. Khokhlov. A subversion program. 

Mr. Jackson. Could not support subversion? 

Mr. Khokhlov. A subversion task, a subversion pi-ogram. 

Mr. Jackson. Under international hiw the Soviet Union labors un- 
der no such handicap. 

Mr. Khokhlov. Yes; tliey do, but you don't object. If you would 
object, they still wouldn't stop. 



To get back to my second point, why wouldn't the Russian people 
accept it ? Let's not discuss the question of whether the United States 
would be able to support it or not. I don't know about that, but I do 
know tliat the task of reestablishing freedom inside the Soviet Union 
can be done and will be done mainly by the Russian people themselves. 

But you can help us in many ways. Mr. Eisenhower, the President 
of the United States, may not be able directly to help the Russian 
people get rid of communism because the United States has diplomatic 
relations with the Soviet Union. 

But Mr. Dwight D. Eisenhower, as an individual, could state that 
he doesn't trust the immoral Soviet Government; that he doesn't think 
this Government could be improved and that this Government has a 
right to exist. In this way, Mr. Dwight D. Eisenhower as an indi- 
vidual would be sympathizing with the Russian anti-Communist 
underground, would believe in the Russian people, and would hope 
that they will succeed in their task. Actually, this is all we need, and 
we don't ask for more. 

We want also tliat you, who are American officials, will ask your- 
selves what you really want from us, the Russian people, and tell us 

Mr. Moulder. Do you have any more questions, Mr. Jackson ? 

Mr. Jackson. Yes; I just have one brief observation, and I trust 
that you will not be offended by what I am going to say. This commit- 
tee constantly comes under attack for tlie use of, quote "paid inform- 
ers." And in order that the record on this may be absolutely clear, 
1 should like to have it understood that the present witness, when 
contacted in New York relative to these hearings, volunteered to come 
to Los Angeles at his own expense, in order to tell his story before 
this committee. Unfortunately, the rules of the committee are such 
that we cannot accept that offer and the witness will be paid his travel 
expenses and expenses incurred while he is here. But any charge in 
tlie Daily Worker or any charge from any other quarter that this 
witness is in any manner paid, is an absolute falsehood. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, this witness will receive the same 
compensation which the witnesses who relied upon the fifth amend- 
ment received. 

Mr. Doyle. How much is that, Mr. Tavenner, so the people will 

Mr. Tavenner. It is a per diem of $9 a day. 

Mr. ]\IouLDER. Do you have any more questions, Mr. Scherer, or any 
more statements? 

Mr. Scherer. No, 

Mr. ]\Ioulder. Is that all, Mr. Tavenner? 

Mr. Tavenner. That is all. 

Mr. Moulder. I wish to say the suggestions or recommendations 
made by Mr. Jackson and ]Mr. Scherer in connection with a resolution 
which they are going to offer will be duly considered by the subcom- 
mittee, and in my opinion will be adopted hj the full committee. 

Mr. Khokhlov, I as subcommittee chairman, wish to express my 
appreciation for your cooperation. This committee and our pro- 
fessional staff deeply appreciate your clear, convincing, interesting, 
and important information concerning communism, its functions 
in the Soviet Union, and its application to our country. Your im- 
pressive and valuable contribution to this committee and the people 


of America will be recorded as a permanent monument to you, your 
sacrifices, and the courage which you exhibited, in support of all the 
liberties of the free world. And I consider it also as a commenda- 
tion, as a monument to our purpose and the continuous work of this 
committee in connection with our legislative duty, and exposing, 
warning, and alerting the people of America to the dangers of com- 
munism. Your sincerity and impressive testimony is of greater im- 
portance because of your extensive knowledge and recent experience 
as an intelligence officer of tlie Soviet Union. Your analysis of the 
events in the Soviet Union will serve as an important addition to the 
symposium now being prepared for publication by this committee, 
setting forth the view of approximately 40 specialists in this field. 
We admire your courage and sincerity, Mr. Khokhlov, and we are 
deeply grateful for your cooperation. 

The committee will recess until 9 : 30 Thursday morning. 

(Whereupon, at 5 p. m., the committee recessed, there being present 
Representatives Moulder, Doyle, Jackson, and Scherer.) 

(At 5:02 p. m. the committee was reconvened and the following 
proceedings were had, there being present Representatives Moulder, 
Doyle, Jackson, and Scherer.) 

Mr. Moulder. We will be in session. 

Mr. Khokhlov, the committee, by unanimous decision has directed to inform you that we extend in full force and effect your subpena. 
In other words, it is still in full force and effect and you are not re- 
leased or excused as a witness. 

(Wliereupon, at 5 : 03 p. m., Tuesday, April 17, 1956, the committee 
was recessed, to be reconvened at 9 : 30 a. m., Thursday, April 19, 
1956, there being present Representatives Moulder, Doyle, Jackson, 
and Scherer.) 


When the second U. S. S. R. Writers Congress was held in the 
closing days of 1954, the CPSU naturally told the delegates what to 
think. Art for art's sake was, of course, declared to be nothing but a 
false and hypocritical bourgeois deviation. Ideologically correct 
writers must master the profound realities of Marxism-Leninism, 
become true socialist realists, and extol the achievements of the Soviet 
economy, especially those of heavy industry and the proposed devel- 
opment of marginal lands. 

In the following "greetings" which w^ere reprinted in Masses and 
Mainstream for March 1955, pages 16-21, no mention is made of 

Message to Soviet Writers 

This text of greetings sent hy the Communist Partu of the 
U. S. S. R. to the Writers Congress provides tacTcground material for 
the literary discussion reported by Jack Lindsay in the preceding 

The Communist I'arty sets a high value on the role of Soviet literature in the 
upbringing of the new man, in the oonsolidatiou of the moral and political unity 
of Soviet society, in the efforts to build communism. 

In the years that have passed since the First Writers' Congress Soviet literature 
has made considerable i)rogress. 

Iviterary works have been created that truthfully reflect the enthusiasm of 
building socialism, the unprecedented exploits of Soviet patriots in the difficult 
years of the Great Patriotic War, the labor heroism of our people in restoring 


the economy after the war. And never before has any literature had such a 
broad circle of sympathetic and responsive readers as our Soviet literature. 

The rapid economic, political and cultural development of the Soviet republics 
has led to the flourishing of the literatures of the peoples of the U. S. S. R. The 
development and mutual enrichment of the national literatures are taking place 
with close co-operation of the writers of all the fraternal republics. A multi- 
national literature of historic significance, embodying the progressive ideas of our 
times, has been created in the Soviet Union. 

During these years the international prestige of Soviet literature has grown 
and the number of its readers beyond the frontiers of the U. S. S. R. has immeas- 
urably increased, particularly in the people's democracies. Soviet literature has 
won recognition among millions of foreign readers because it always comes out 
in defense of the working people's interests, counters the man-hating imperialist 
ideology with the ideas of humanism and the struggle for peace and friendship 
among the peoples, and is permeated with an optimistic faith in the bright future 
of mankind. 

In their creative activity Soviet writers are inspired by the great ideas of the 
struggle for communism, for the genuine freedom and happiness of the masses 
of the people, against every kind of oppression and exploitation of man by man. 

To the false and hypocritical bourgeois slogan of the "independence" of litera- 
ture from society, and the false concept of "art for art's sake" our writers proudly 
oppose their lofty ideological stand of serving the interests of the working people, 
the Interests of the nation. 

The Second U.S.S.R. Writers' Congress is called upon to discuss the most 
important problems of creative work and to map out ways for the further advance 
of our literature to new heights. 

Our country and the entire Soviet people are at present faced with magnificent 
tasks. On the basis of the successes achieved in socialist industry and agricul- 
ture important measures are being carried out, aimed at the further development 
of all aspects of the socialist economy and culture, which is essential for the 
strengthening of the socialist society and for the gradual transition from social- 
ism to communism. The competition between socialism and capitalism, whose 
aggressive and reactionary circles are ready to use force in order to hinder the 
growth of the forces of socialism and the aspirations of the peoples for emanci- 
pation from the capitalist yoke and colonial oppression, is unfolding and going 
over to a new and still higher stage on an ever-increasing scale in the interna- 
tional arena. In these conditions the role of Soviet literature in transforming 
society and its active educational role are increasing immeasurably. 

Literature like all other forms of art is called upon to inspire the Soviet people 
in their creative labor and in overcoming all difficulties and shortcomings on this 
road, in the great cause of building communism. 

The Soviet people expect their writers to create truthful and vivid pictures 
of our glorious contemporaries who are carrying out the colossal tasks involved 
in the constant development of our heavy industry, which is the basis for the 
further progress of the entire national economy and a guarantee of the impi-eg- 
nability of our frontiers ; our contemporaries who are building gigantic power 
stations, perfecting the methods of construction, bringing millions of acres of 
virgin land under the plough, working for the advance of our entire agriculture 
and still greater satisfaction of the growing requirements of the people as regards 
foodstuffs and consumer goods. 

The Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. urges writers to make a profound study 
of reality on the basis of creative mastery of Marxism-Ueninism, which teaches 
us how to see the genuine truth of life, in all its complexity and fullness, as it 
arises in present-day international conditions when the struggle is unfolding 
between the camp of imperialism and the camp of socialism and democracy, to 
understand the processes of development that are taking place in our country 
and which are directed by the Communist Party, to understand the laws and 
prospects of the development of our society, and to reveal the contradictions 
and conflicts of life. 

In their writers the Soviet people want to see ardent flghters who actively 
intervene in life and help the people to build a new society in which all the re- 
sources of the social wealth will give of themselves to the full, in which a new 
man will grow up whose psychology will be free from the survivals of capitalism. 
Our writers are called upon to educate the Soviet people in the spirit of com- 
munism and communist morality, to further the all-sided and harmonious de- 
velopment of the individual, the full blossoming of all the creative inclinations 
and talents of the working people. 


The duty of Soviet writers is to create a truthful art, an art of great thoughts 
and feelings, profoundly revealing the rich inner world of the Soviet people ; to 
embody in the portraits of their heroes all the many-sided character of their 
work and social and personal life in their intrinsic unity. Our literature is 
called upon, not only to reflect the new, but also to facilitate its victory in every 

An important and honorable task of our literature is the upbringing of the 
youth, the young workers, collective farmers, members of the intelligentsia and 
servicemen of the Soviet Army in the spirit of love for labor, cheerfulness, fear- 
lessness, confidence in the victory of our cause, and in the spirit of selfless loyalty 
to the socialist motherland and constant readiness to deal a crushing blow to 
imperialist aggressors if they attempt to interfere with the peaceful labor of our 
peoples. At a time when the aggressive imperialist circles are once again rallying 
and reviving the forces of defeated German fascism, Soviet literature cannot 
remain aloof from the struggle against the reactionary forces of the old world. 

Soviet literature is called upon to foster with all its revolutionary ardor, and 
to strengthen the patriotic sentiments of the Soviet people ; to fortify the friend- 
ship among the peoples ; to promote the further cohesion of the mighty camp of 
peace, democracy and socialism ; to foster the sentiments of proletarian interna- 
tionalism and fraternal solidarity of the working people. The duty of Soviet 
writers is to raise still higher the banner of struggle for the unity of all peace- 
loving forces in the interests of the security of the nations, and to expose and 
brand the criminal plans of the imperialists who are threatening to unleash a 
new world war. 

Continuing the finest traditions of the classical literature of Russia and the 
world, Soviet writers are creatively developing the method of socialist realism 
which was founded by the great proletarian writer Maxim Gorky, and are fol- 
lowing the traditions of the militant poetry of Vladimir Mayakovsky. Socialist 
realism demands of the writer a truthful, historically concrete picture of life 
in its revolutionary development. 

To be able fully to live up to the tasks of socialist realism means to possess 
a profound knowledge of the real life of the people, their sentiments and thoughts, 
to display genuine sensitiveness to their feelings and an ability to depict all this 
in an interesting and comprehensible artistic form, worthy of the true standards 
of realist literature — presenting all this with proper understanding of the great 
struggle that is being waged by the working class and all the Soviet people for 
the further consolidation of the socialist society which has been created in our 
country, and for the victory of communism. Under present-day conditions the 
method of socialist realism demands of the writer an understanding of the tasks 
involved in the completion of the building of socialism in our country and in our 
country's gradual transition from socialism to communism. Socialist realism 
gives vast opporunities for the manifestation of creative initiative and the 
choice of different forms and styles in accordance with the individual inclinations 
and tastes of the writer. 

Deviations from the principles of socialist realism are detrimental to the 
development of Soviet literature. In many respects our literature still lags 
behind life, which is rapidly developing, behind the requirements of the reader, 
who has grown politically and culturally. Some writers do not show the exacting 
attitude to their work which is necessary, and release for publication mediocre 
and weak productions which make Soviet reality look insipid. 

There have been few striking and artistically impressive portraits created 
recently which could serve as ;in inspiring example for millions of readers. 
There are as yet no monumental literary works about the heroism of the Russian 
proletariat and the party of Lenin in the first Russian revolution and in the 
Great October Socialist Revolution, and we have few books about our Soviet 
Army — the reliable sentinel of the peaceful labor of the Soviet people. Literary 
criticism and the history of literature, which should develop the rich heritage 
of our classics, draw general conclusions from the experience of Soviet literature, 
and promote the ideological and artistic progress of our literature, are still 
lagging behind. 

The tendency in a number of works to embellish our reality and to pass over 
in silence the contradictions of development and the difllculties of growth has 
had an unfavorable effect on the development of our literature. The survivals 
of capitalism in the minds of the people do not find ample reflection in our 
literature. On the other hand, certain writers who have become divorced from 
life, in looking for far-fetched conflicts have written pot-boilers giving a distorted 


and at times libellous picture of Soviet society, blaming the Soviet people without 
any reason. 

Actively supporting everything new and progressive which is promoting the 
advance of our society, Soviet writers, with all their energy and ardor, must 
castigate survivals in people's minds of the old world of proprietors, castigate 
those who are indifferent and inert, help to uproot from our life ail that is anti- 
social and decrepit and hampers the rapid growth of the socialist economy and 

The Party calls on writers to engage in bold creative endeavors, to enrich and 
further develop all forms and genres of literature, to raise the level of their 
artistic skill in order fully to satisfy the ever-growing intellectual requirements 
of the Soviet reader. 

Soviet writers have most favorable conditions for creative work. 

They have millions of friendly readers — friends of whom the writers of the 
past could only dream — exacting, conscious and mature readers who love their 

Soviet literature, which is an inspiring example for foreign writers and a 
source of experience in the struggle for a new, advanced and progressive art, 
at the same time becomes enriched by utilizing the best achievements of progres- 
sive foreign M-riters in the course of developing and perfecting itself. Our 
writers can and must continue to utilize to a still greater extent the valuable 
experience of our foreign friends in the endeavor to achieve high standards of 
artistic mastery. 

Of great importance for the accomplishment of the honorable and responsible 
tasks facing Soviet literature is the work of the Union of Soviet Writers, 
which during the last two decades has grown into a mighty public organi- 
zation built on the principles of collective leadership and uniting all the cre- 
ative forces of the writers, both those who are members of the Party and 
those who are not. 

Soviet literature and Soviet writers have grown ideologically and have been 
steeled in battles against various alien influences, against manifestations of 
bourgeois ideology and survivals of capitalism. In the future, as in the past, 
the Union of Soviet Writers must concentrate its main attention on the ideo- 
logical direction of Soviet literature, on ideological education and enhance- 
ment of the writers' artistic skill it must fight resolutely against departures 
from the principles of socialist realism, against attempts to divert our literature 
from the life of the Soviet people, from the urgent problems of the policy 
pursued by the Communist Party and the Soviet government, and fight against 
relapses into nationalism, cosmopolitanism and other manifestations of bour- 
geois ideology, against attempts to push our literature into the swamp of 
Philistinism, art without a message, and decadence. Soviet literature is 
called upon to serve the cause of the working people as the most advanced 
literature of the world, and to be at the summit of world artistic endeavors. 

The Union should constantly see to it that writers live the life of the people, 
understand their interests and aspirations, are active participants in the build- 
ing of communist society, know our contemporaries, the real heroes — builders 
of communism. 

One of the main tasks of the Union of Soviet Writers is to give constant 
aid to young writers in their creative development, and to secure the enrich- 
ment of Soviet literature by young talent. 

The greater ideological unity of all the active forces of the writers, the 
bold unfolding among the writers of criticism and self-criticism based on prin- 
ciple, and comradely discussion of creative problems will be a guarantee of 
fresh successes in Soviet literature. 

The Central Committee of the Communist Party wishes the Second Congress 
of Soviet Writers success and expresses firm confidence that our writers will 
give all their energies to selfless service of the Soviet people and will create 
works worthy of the great epoch of the building of communism. 


Mao Tse-tung's lectures on literature and art have been very widely 
distributed by the CPUSA. From the following excerpts it is clear 
that Communists cannot produce art, literature, and music for their 
own sake, but only for "political reasons" — that is, for the good of the 


Communist movement. In Mao's own words those writers, artists, 
and musicians who persist in expressing liberal and individualistic 
sentiments "should be extirpated to make room for the new." 

Mao Tse-tung, Problems of Art and Literature, New York, Inter- 
national Publishers, 1950, pages 5, 7, 8-14, 29-30, 32-34, 35-41, 44-45. 

Editok's Note 

A conference on the Problems of Art and Literature as related to the struggle 
for liberation in China teas held from May 2 to May 2S, 1942, in Yenan, then the 
capital of the Liberation Movement. Writers and artists from all parts of 
China came to participate in the Yenan Conference — from Japanese-occupied 
Shanghai and Nanking, from Kuomintang Chunking, as well as from the liberated 

The conference seems to have been conducted in a leisurely manner; only three 
formal plenary sessions were held, the rest of the time being devoted to individual 
study and group discussions. 

Mao Tse-tung, Communist and Liberation leader, opened the conference on 
May 2 tvith a short introduction presenting the fundamental questions of the 
Liberation struggle and the role of ivriters and artists in this struggle {see pages 
7-14)- He spoke again, on May 23, and this time extensively, at the closing 
session of the conference, analyzing the tvork of the conference and giving detailed 
answers to the moot questions ivhich ivere raised during the three weeks' debates 
and discussions {see pages 15-48)- 

It is worth noting that this writers' and artists' mobilization in May, 1942, was 
held five months after Pearl Harbor. The organization of a nation-wide con- 
ference on literature and art during that very critical period for China — the 
military and political struggle against the Japanese invaders and for Chinese 
unity — attests to the confidence of the Liberation Movement and the understand- 
ing of the need and manner of mobilizing all the popular forces, including the 
cultural, in the icaging of a war of national liberation. 


Comrades : You have been invited to this meeting so that we may discuss the 
correct relationship between literature and art, on the one hand, and revolution 
ary work in general, on the other, with a view to properly developing our revo- 
lutionary literature and art, and making them more effective in support of our 
other revolutionary activities. By this means, we shall be able to defeat our 
national enemies and fulfill our task of national liberation. 

Our struggle for the liberation of the Chinese nation is being waged on a num- 
ber of fronts, and on the cultural as well as on the military front. AVhile victory 
over our enemies depends primarily upon soldiers with guns in their hands, never 
theless troops alone are not enough. We must also have a cultural army in order 
to accomplish our task of uniting the nation and defeating the enemy. 


We have called this meeting for the express purpose of making literature 
and art part of our revolutionary machinery, so that they may become a powerful 
weapon with which to unite and educate our people, to attack and destroy th 
enemy, and to help our people fight the enemy unitedly. What questions mus' 
be solved in order to achieve this objective? The questions of our positio: 
our attitude, our public, our work and our study. 

The question of our position: Our standpoint is the standpoint of the proletariai 
and the masses. Members of the Communist Party must adopt the standpoini 
of the party, and of party policy. Is it true that many writers and artists sti 
lack a clear and correct understanding of our position? I think so. Many oj 
our comrades often slip into an incorrect position. 

The question of our attitude: After the question of our position comes th 
question of our attitude toward concrete matters. Take, for instance, th 
question of whether to praise or to expose? It is a matter of attitude. Wha' 
attitude should we adopt? I say that we should adopt either one or both,! 
depending upon the subject under consideration. There are three kinds of| 
people : our enemies, our allies, and ourselves — the proletariat and its vanguard, 
We should have a different attitude toward each of these three categories. 


Should we praise our enemies, the Japanese fascists and all other enemies 
of the people? Certainly not, for they are evil reactionaries even though they 
may, technically, have some strong points. They may, for example, have excel- 
lent guns and artillery, but these good weapons in their hands become instru- 
• ments of reaction. Our military forces have the task of seizing these weapons 
and turning them against the enemy. Our cultural army must undertake the 
task of exposing the atrocities and treacheries of our enemies, of making it 
clear that their defeat is inevitable, and of encouraging all anti-Japanese forces 
to rally with one heart and spirit in determined battle against our enemies. 

With respect to our friends and our different allies, our attitude should be 
one of coalition and of criticism; there are different kinds of coalition and 
different kinds of criticism. We support their resistance against Japan ; we 
must praise their accomplishments. But at the same time we must criticize 
those who are not active in the war of resistance and oppose those who take 
sides against the Communists and the people, and those who are gradually 
following the road to reaction. 

Our attitude toward the masses, toward their work and struggle, and toward 
the people's army and party obviously must be one of praise. The people, of 
course, also have shortcomings. Among the proletariat many still possess a 
petty-bourgeois ideology. Some of the peasants and members of the petty 
bourgeoisie have remnants of a backward ideology. This hinders them in their 
struggle. We must patiently devote ourselves to the long-range task of educating 
them. We must help them throw off their burden so that they may advance 
with great strides. They have reformed or are reforming themselves in the 
course of the struggle, and our literature and art should describe the change 
instead of viewing them from one angle only, of jeering at their mistakes, or 
even showing open hostility to them. Our work must help unite the masses 
to enable them to advance ; to rally them with a single heart and spirit for 
the struggle ahead ; to help them rid themselves of their backwardness and 
develop their revolutionary qualities. Our work should not be in the opposite 

The question of our puhlic: For whom should literature and art be created? 
The answer is different in the Shansi-Kansu-Xinghsia Border Region and in our 
anti-Japanese bases in north and central China from what it is in the general 
rear* and in pre-war Shanghai. Before the war the public for revolutionary 
works of literature and art in Shanghai consisted mainly of students, professional 
and white-collar workers. Since the war, the reading public in the general rear 
has grown somewhat but in the main still consists of the same groups since here 
the government keeps revolutionary literature and art out of the reach of workers, 
peasants, and soldiers. 

In our areas, the situation is entirely different. Here the workers, peasants, 
and soldiers, side by side with our cadres in the party, government, and army, 
form the reading public and audience for our revolutionary literature and art. 
We have students too at our bases, but they are not the old-type students. If 
they are not already our cadres, they will be in the future. All sorts of 
ca(lre.s — soldiers in the army, workers in the factories, and peasants in the 
villages — all want to read books and newspapers as soon as they have learned 
to read. Even those who cannot yet read want to see plays and look at pictures ; 
they want to sing and hear music. They form the public for our literature and art. 

Take the cadres, for example. Do not think for a moment that they represent 
merely a small segment of the population. They outnumber the readers of any 
single book in the general rear where a book is published in an edition of only 
2,000 copies. Even if a book were issued in three editions, it would total only 
6,000 copies. But in Yenan alone, we have more than 10,000 cadres who can read. 
Moreover, most of our cadres are revolutionaries who have been forged through 
long years of experience and suffering. They hail from all four corners of the 
country, and they will be sent to work in difficult areas. It is, therefore, of the 
greatest importance to educate these people, and our writers and artists ought 
to try to do an excellent job among them. 

Since literature and art are created for the workers, peasants, soldiers, and 
for the cadres among them, the problem arises of how to understand and get to 
know the people. In order to understand and know all sorts of things and to 
understand and become acquainted with all sorts of people, one must do extensive 
work among them wherever they are to be found — in party and government 
organs, in villages and factories, in the Eighth Route and New Fourth Armies. 


*Kuomintang areas. — Ed. 


Writers and artists should, of course, pursue ttieir creative activities, but their 
first and foremost duty is to get to know the people and to understand their ways. 

What have our writers and artists been doing in this respect? I do not think 
that they have learned to know or understand the people. Not knowing the 
people, they are like heroes without a battlefield. Writers and artists are not 
only unfamiliar with the subjects they describe and with their reading public, 
but, in some cases, are even completely estranged fi*om them. Our writers and 
artists do not know the workers, peasants, and soldiers, or the cadres emerging 
from among them. What do they not understand? The language. They speak 
the language of the intellectuals, not the language of the masses. 

I have said before that many of our comrades like to talk about "populariza- 
tion," but just what does "popularization" mean? It means that our writers and 
artists must weld their ideas and emotions with those of the workers, peasants, 
and soldiers. In order to bring about this unity, we must start by learning the 
language of the masses. If we do not even understand the language of the masses, 
how can we possibly talk about creating literature and art. 

When I spoke of heroes without a battlefield, I meant that the masses are not 
able to appreciate theories if they are abstract. The more you try to show off, 
the more you strut and preen as a great talent or a great hero, the harder you 
try to put yourself over, the more emphatically will the people reject your work. 
If you want the masses to understand you, if you want to fuse yourself with the 
masses, you must be determined to undergo a long and sometimes even painful 
tempering process. 

Let me tell you of my own experience ; let me tell you how my feelings toward 
the people changed. I was once a student and in school I acquired student habits 
and manners. For instance, I was embarrassed when I had to carry my luggage 
on a bamboo pole in the presence of my fellow students. They were so refined 
that they could not stand having any weight press upon their shoulders and dis- 
dained the very thought of carrying anything in their hands ! At that time I was 
convinced that only intellectuals were clean, that workers, peasants, and soldiers 
were unclean. I would, therefore, readily borrow clothes from an intellectual 
but never from a worker, or a peasant, or a soldier because I thought that their 
clothes would be unclean. 

During the revolution I began to live among workers, peasants, and soldiers. 
Gradually I began to know them, and they also began to know me. Then, and 
then only, did the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois sentiments inculcated in me by 
the bourgeois schools change fundamentally ! Ever since then, whenever I com- 
pare unreformed intellectuals with workers, peasants, and soldiers, I realize that 
not only were the minds of those intellectuals unclean but that their bodies were 
also unclean. The cleanest people in the world are the workers and peasants. 
Even though their hands may be soiled and their feet smeared with cow dung, 
nevertheless they are cleaner than the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie. 
That is what I mean by a transformation of sentiments — a changing over from 
one class to another. 

If our writers and artists who come from the intelligentsia want the masses to 
welcome their work, they must bring about such a transformation in their think- 
ing and their sentiments. Otherwise they cannot do an effective job ; for their 
work will never be spread among the people. 

The question of learning: This is a question of studying the principles of 
Marxism-Leninism and society. Anyone who considers himself a Marxist-Len- 
inist revolutionary writer, especially a writer who belongs to the Communist 
Party, must have a general knowledge of Marxism-Leninism. At present, how- 
ever, many of our comrades fail to understand even tlie most fundamental 
concepts of Marxism-Leninism. It is, for example, a fundamental concept that 
objective conditions determine the subjective, that the objective conditions of 
class struggle and national struggle determine our thinking and our sentiments. 
In fact, these comrades reverse this principle. They say that everything begins 
with "love." Speaking of love, there can be only love of a class, or class-love, 
in a class society. Yet these comrades seek a love that stands above all class 
distinctions; they seek abstract love, abstract freedom, abstract truth, abstract 
human nature, etc., and thereby prove liow deeply tliey have been influenced by 
the bourgeoisie. We must uproot this influence and bring an open mind to the 
study of Marxism-Leninism. 

It is true that writers and artists must learn more about the methods of 
creative work but Marxism-Leninism is a science which every revolutionary must 
study, and writers and artists are no exception. Writers and artists must also 
study our society — they must study the various classes composing society, their 


relation to each other, their conditions, attitudes, and psychology. Only when 
they have thoroughly understood all these factors can they give our literature 
and art a rich content and a correct orientation. 

Our writers and artists are working primarily for the masses and not merely 
for the cadres. Thus, Maxim Gorky edited histories of factories, guided corps 
of village newspaper reporters, and taught the youth. Lu Hsiin devoted much 
time to corresponding with young students. 

Our literary experts must give their attention to the wall newspapers of the 
masses and to news reporting in the army and in the rural areas. Our drama 
experts must give their attention to the small repertory theatrical groups in 
the army and the rural areas ; our music experts to mass singing ; and our art 
experts to popular art. All these experts must maintain close contact with 
the comrades propagandizing literature and art of the lower levels among 
the masses. 


Since we realize that our literature and art must serve the masses, then we 
can go a step further and discuss (1) the inner-party problem of the relation 
between the literature and art work of the party and party work as a whole; 
and (2) the problem of our relations with those outside the party, i. e., the 
relation between party writers and artists and non-party writers and artists ; 
in other words, the problem of a united front in literature and art. 

Let us consider the first problem. All culture or all present-day literature 
and art belong to a certain class, to a certain party or to a certain political 
line. There is no such thing as art for art's sake, or literature and art that lie 
above class distinctions or above partisan interests. There is no such thing as 
literature and art running parallel to jwlitics or being independent of politics. 
They are in reality non-existent. 

In a society with class and party distinctions, literature and art belong to a 
class or party, which means that they respond to the political demands of a 
class or party as well as to the revolutionary task of a given revolutionary 
period. When literature and art deviate from this principle, they divorce them- 
selves from the basic needs of the people. 

The literature and art of the proletariat are part of the revolutionary program 
of the proletariat. As Lenin pointed out, they are "a screw in the machine." 
Thus the role of the party's work in literature and art is determined by the 
over-all revolutionary program of the party. Deviation from this principle 
inevitably leads to dualism and pluralism, and eventually to such views as 
Trotsky advocated : Marxist politics but bourgeois art. 

We are not in favor of overemphasizing the importance of literature and art 
but neither must be underestimate it. Although literature and art are sub- 
ordinate to politics, they in turn exert a tremendous influence upon politics. 
Revolutionary literature and art are part of a revolutionary program. They are 
like the aforementioned screws. They may be of greater or lesser importance, 
of primary or secondary value when compared with other parts of the machine, 
but they are nevertheless indispensable to the machine ; they are indispensable 
parts of the entire revolutionary movement. If we had no literature and art, 
even of the most general kind, we should not be able to carry on the revolution 
or to achieve victory. It would be a mistake not to recognize this fact. 

Furthermore, when we say that literature and art are subordinate to politics, 
we mean class politics and mass politics, not the so-called politics of a few 
politicians. Politics, whether revolutionary or counter-revolutionary, represent 
the struggle between two opposing classes, not the behavior of isolated indi- 
viduals. The war of an ideology and the war of literature and art, especially 
the war of a revolutionary ideology and the war of revolutionary literature and 
art, must be subordinate to the political war because the needs of a class and of 
the masses can be expressed in concentrated form only through politics. 


Literary and art criticism constitutes a major weapon which must be developed 
to carry on a struggle in literary and art circles. As many comrades have 
rightly pointed out, our past work has been inadequate in this respect. 

Criticism of literature and art presents a complicated problem requiring special 
study. Here I shall discuss only the problem of basic standards of criticism. 
I shall also comment on various problems raised by comrades and the incorrect 
views expressed by some. 


There are two standards for literary and art criticism. One is the political 
standard and the other, the artistic standard. 

By the political standard, artistic production is good, or comparatively good, 
if it serves the interests of our war of resistance and unity, if it encourages, 
solidarity among the masses, and if it opposes retrogression and promotes 
progress. Conversely, artistic production is bad, or comparatively bad, if it 
encourages dissension and division among the masses, if it impedes progress 
and holds the people back. 

Shall we distinguish between the good and bad on the basis of the motives 
(subjective intention) or the effects (actual practice in society)? Idealists 
stress the motives and deny the effects ; mechanical materialists stress the effects 
and deny the motives. We are opposed to both approaches. 

We are dialectical materialists ; we insist upon a synthesis of motive and 
effect. The motive of working for the masses cannot be separated from the 
effect which is welcomed by the masses. The motive and the effect must dove- 
tail. A motive engendered by individiial self-interest or narrow group-interest 
is not good. On the other hand, a good intention of working for the masses 
is of no value if it does not produce an effect which is welcomed by the masses 
and benefits them. 

In examining the subjective intent of a writer, that is to say. In determining 
whether his motive is correct or good, we cannot depend upon his own declara- 
tion of intent; we must analyze the effect which his behavior (his creative 
product) has on society and the masses. The standard for examining a sub- 
jective intent is social practice ; and the standard for examining a motive is 
the effect it produces. 

Our criticism of literature and art must not be sectarian. Bearing in mind 
the general principles of the war of resistance and national unity, we must 
tolerate all works of literature and art expressing every kind and shade of 
political attitude. At the same time, we must be tirm in principle and in our 
position when we criticize. This means that we must criticize severely all literary 
and artistic works which present viewpoints that are opposed to national, scien- 
titie, mass, and Communist interests because both the motives and the effects 
of this so-called literature and art jeopardize our war of resistance and wreck 
our national unity. 

From the point of view of artistic standards, all works of higher artistic 
quality are good, or comparatively good while those of inferior artistic quality i 
are bad, or comparatively bad. But this criterion also depends upon the effect 
a given work of art has on society. There are few writers and artists who do 
not consider their own works excellent. 

Also, we must allow free competition of various types and shadings of artistic 
work. At the same time, we must criticize the work correctly, by scientific 
and artistic standards, in order gradually to raise art of a lower level to a 
higher level, and to change art which does not meet the requirements of the 
people's struggle (even when it is on a very high level) to art which does. 

We know now that there is a political standard and an artistic standard. 
What then is the proper relation between them? Politics is not at the same time 
art. The world outlook in general is not at the same time the methods of 
artistic creation. Not only do we reject abstract and rigid political standards 
but we also reject abstract and rigid artistic standards. Different class societies 
have different political and artistic standards as do the various classes within a 
given class society. But in any class society or in any class within that society, 
political standards come first and artistic standards come second. 

The bourgeois class rejects the literature and art of the proletariat, no matter 
how high their artistic quality. The proletariat must likewise reject the 
reactionary political essence of bourgeois literature and art, and extract their 
artistic quality very judiciously. It is jwssible for outright reactionary litera- 
ture and art, the creative work of Fascists, to have a certain measure of artistic 
quality. Since reactionary prodxictions of high artistic quality, however, may do 
very great harm to the people, they must definitely be rejected. All literature and 
art of the exploiting classes in tlieir decadent period have one characteristic in 
common — a contradiction between tlieir reactionary political content and their 
artistic form. 

We demand unity between politics and art ; we demand harmony between 
content and form — the perfect blending of revolutionary political content with 
the highest possible level of artistic form. Works of art and literature without 
artistic quality are ineffectual no matter how progressive they are politically. 


Thus we condemn not only works of art with a harmful reactionary content 
but also works done in the "poster-and-slogan style," which stresses content to the 
exclusion of form. It is on these two fronts that we must fight in the sphere of 
literature and art. 

Many of our comrades suffer from both defects. Some tend to neglect artistic 
quality when they ought to be devoting much more attention to advancing artistic 
quality. But even more important at present is their lack of political quality. 
Many comrades lack fundamental political common sense, with the result that 
they entertain all sorts of confused notions. Let me give you a few examples of 
the notions entertained in Yenan. 

1. "The theory of human nature"' — is there such a thing as human nature? 
Yes, certainly, but only concrete human nature. In a class society human nature 
takes on class characteristics ; there is no abstract human nature which stands 
above class distinctions. 

^^'e stand for the human nature of the proletariat, while the bourgeoisie and 
the petty-bourgeoisie advocate the human nature of their respective classes. 
And while they may not express it in so many words, they consider that theirs 
is the only kind of human nature. In their eyes, therefore, the human nature of 
the proletariat is contrary to human nature. There are in Yenan some who 
think along similar lines ; they advocate the so-called theory of human nature 
as the basis for their theory of literature and art. This is absolutely wrong. 

2. "The origin of all literature and art is love, love of mankind." Love may be 
a starting point, but there is still another even more basic starting point. Love 
is a concept which is the product of objective experience. Fundamentally we 
cannot start from an idea ; we must start from objective experience. 

The love that we writers and artists with our intellectual background bear 
for the proletariat stems from tlie fact that society lias forced ujion us the same 
destiny as it has forced upon the proletariat and that our lives have been inte- 
grated with the life of the proletariat. Our hatred of .Japanese imperialism, 
on the other hand, is the result of our oppression by .Japanese imperialists. 
Xowhere in the world does love exist without reason nor does hatred exist 
without rea.'^on. 

As for love of mankind, there has been no sueh all-embracing love since the 
human race was divided into The ruling classes have preached universal 
love. Confucius advocated it, as did Tolstoy. But no one has ever been able to 
practice it because it cannot be attained in a class society. 

A true love of mankind is attainable, but only in the future when class distinc- 
tions will have been eliminated throughout the world. Classes serve to divide 
society ; when are eliminated, society will be united again. At that time, 
the love of mankind will flourish but it cannot flourish now. Today we cannot 
love the fascists nor can we love our enemies. We cannot love all that is evil 
and ugly in society. It is our objective to eliminate all evils. The people 
know that. Cannot our writers and artists understand it? 

'A. "Literature and art have always presented impartially and with equal 
emphasis the bright and dark sides, always as much of one as of the other." 

This remark reflects a series of muddled ideas. Literature and art do not 
always present the bright and dark impartially. ;\Iany petty-bourgeois writers 
have never discovered the bright side : they depict only the dark side and call 
their work "expose literature." They even produce works which are devoted 
entirely to spreading pessimism and defeatism. 

During the period of socialist reconstruction the literature of the Soviet Union 
primarily described the bright side. Although shortcomings were admitted, 
they were presented as .shadings against a background of over-all brightness. 
There was no equal emphasis of the bright and the dark. 

During periods of reaction bourgeois writers and artists have characterized 
the revolutionary masses as bandits and gangsters but referred to themselves as 
god-like. Thus have they distorted the bright and the dark sides. 

Only truly revolutionary writers and artists can correctly .solve the problem of 
balance between praise and expose. Every dark force which endangers the 
masses must be exposed while every revolutionary struggle of the masses must 
be praised. This is the fundamental task of revolutionary writers and artists. 

4. "The function of literature and art has always been to" This kind 
of talk, just like the previous remark, shows a lack of understanding of the 
science of history and historical materialism. 

As I have pointed out, to expose what is bad is not the only function of 
literature and art. Revolutionary writers and artists should limit the subject 
matter of their exposure to the aggressors, exploiters, and oppressors. The 



people, naturally enough, also have shortcomings, but their defects are produced 
in large measure by the rule of the aggressors, exploiters, and oppressors. Our 
revolutionary writers and artists must lay the blame for these shortcomings 
upon the crimes committed by the aggressors, exploiters, and oppressors, not 
expose the people themselves. As for the people, our only problem is how to 
educate them and raise their level. 

If ***** * 

8. "Learning Marxism-Leninism is a mechanical repetition of dialectical mate- 
rialism, which will stifle the creative spirit." 

Learning Marxism-Leninism means only observing and studying the world, 
society, literature, and art from the point of view of dialectical and historical 
materialism. It does not mean that one must include an outline of philosophy 
in a work of literature or art. 

Marxism-Leninism embraces but does not replace realism in creative literature 
and art, just as Marxism-Leninism can only embrace but not replace the theories 
of atoms and electrons in physics. Empty, dry dogmas truly stifle the creative 
spirit ; furthermore, they destroy Marxism-Leninism. Dogmatic Marxism-Lenin- 
ism is not Marxism-Leninism ; it is contrary to Marxism-Leninism. 

Will not Marxism-Leninism then destroy the creative spirit? Oh yes, it will. It 
will destroy the feudal, bourgeois, and petty-bourgeois creative spirit ; the creative 
spirit that is rooted in liberalism, individualism, abstractionism ; the creative 
spirit that stands for art-for-art's sake and is aristocratic, defeatist, and pessi- 
mistic. It will destroy any brand of creative spirit which is not of the masses and 
of the proletariat. And is it not right that these brands of creative spirit should 
be destroyed as far as proletarian writers and artists are concerned? I think so. 
They should be extirpated to make room for the new. 


Just two months previous to Mr. Kliokhlov's testimony before this 
committee, Nikita Khrushchev expressed his "views" on the role that 
literature and art must play in Communist life. Let no true Com- 
munist artist get the silly idea that Khrushchev's earlier remarks about 
peaceful coexistence were to be taken too literally. As long as there 
remain "survivals of capitalism," Party vigilance must never be 

The following paragraphs are reprinted from New Times, February 
16, 1956, pages 68-69, 71. 

It is incumbent on Party organizations to heighten their vigilance in ideologi- 
cal work, strictly safeguard the purity of Marxist theory, wage a resolute 
struggle against all throwbacks to bourgeois ideology, intensify the drive against 
the survivals of capitalism in the minds of men and expose their carriers. 

In this comiection, we cannot pass by the fact that some people are trying 
to apply the absolutely correct thesis of the possibility of peaceful co-existence 
of countries with different social and political systems to the ideological sphere. 
This is a harmful mistake. It does not at all follow from the fact that we stand 
for peaceful co-existence and economic competition with capitalism, that the 
struggle against bourgeois ideology, against the survivals of capitalism in the 
minds of men, can be relaxed. Our task is tirelessly to expose bourgeois ideology, 
reveal how inimical it is to the people, show up its I'eactionary nature. 

In the battle which our Party is waging against the moribund ideas and 
conceptions of the old world, for the dissemination and affirmation of com- 
munist ideology, a major role belongs to the press, literature, and art. While 
noting the considerable achievements registered in this field, it must nevertheless 
be said that our literature and art stiU lag behind life, behind Soviet reality, for 
these are immeasurably richer than their reflection in art and literature. It is 
legitimate to ask : have not some of our writers and art workers been losing 
contact with life? 

Art and literature in our country can and should take first place in the world 
not only for wealth of content, but also for artistic power and execution. We 
cannot reconcile ourselves to pallid works bearing the stamp of haste, as some 
comrades in art organizations, editorial oflices, and publishing houses are doing. 


Mediocrity and insincerity are often not given a snflBcient rebuff, and this is 
detrimental to the development of art and the artistic education of the people. 

We can note some progress in the cinema. More films are now being produced 
than before. Yet, in their drive for quantity, cinema workers often are less dis- 
criminating as regards the ideological and artistic quality of pictures and turn 
out feeble, superficial productions dealing with petty and insignificant phe- 
nomena. This practice must be ended, remembering that the cinema is a power- 
ful instrument of communist education of the working people. 

The Party has combated and will continue to combat untruthful depiction of 
Soviet reality, both attempts to varni-sh it and attempts to scoff at and discredit 
what has been won by the Soviet people. Creative work in literature and art 
must be permeated with the spirit of struggle for communism, it must instill 
buoyancy and firm conviction in people's hearts and minds, cultivate a socialist 
mentality and a comradely sense of duty. Particular attention must be devoted 
to enhancing further the part played by the press in all aspects of ideological, 
political, and organizational work. 


Our party is full of creative strength, mighty energy, and inflexible resolve 
to achieve the great aim^ — the building of communism. In all human history 
there has not been, nor can there be, a loftier and nobler aim. Communism 
will bring about the fullest development of all the productive forces of society ; 
it will be a social system where all the fountains of social wealth will flow 
freely, where every individual will work with enthusiasm according to his 
abilities and be compensated for his labour according to his needs. On this 
basis the prerequisites will be created for the all-round development of the 
individual, of every member of the conmiiinist society. {Prolonged npplauHC.) 

That is why the ideas of communism possess a tremendous magnetic power 
and attract ever new supporters. There is nothing more absurd than the 
fiction that people are forced to take the path of communism under pressure 
from without. We are confident that the ideas of communism will triumph 
and no "iron curtains" or barriers erected l)y the bourgeois reactionaries can 
halt their spread to more and more millions. (Loud applavse.) 

At the same time we firmly stand for peaceful co-existence, for economic 
competition between socialism and capitalism ; we follow a consistent policy 
of peace and friendship among nations. 

Our Party has many enemies and ill-wisliers, but it has a great many more 
tried and tested friends and loyal allies. 

Our cause is invincible. It is invincible because, together with the great 
Soviet people, many hundreds of millions in fraternal People's China and in all 
the other People's Democracies are carrying it forward. (Loud applauae.) It 
is invincible because it enjoys the ardent supiM>rt and sympathy of peoples and 
countries which broke out of naticmal and colonial oppression. It is invincible 
because it is supported by the working jjeople of the whole world. No one can 
intimidate us, compel us to withdraw from the positions we occupy, to renounce 
the defence of peace, democracy, and socialism. . (Loud applause.) 

The future is with us, for we are confidently marching forward along the only 
correct path, the path charted for us by our teacher, the great Lenin. (Loud 
and, prolonged applause.) Hundreds of millions of men and women, inspired 
by the ideas of a just social system, the ideas of democracy and socialism, are 
rallying around us and our friends. 

Under the banner of jMarxism-Leninism, which is transforming the world, the 
Communist Party of the Soviet Union will lead the Soviet people to the complete 
triumph of communism. (Loud and prolonged applause and cheers. All rise.) 


Perhaps by the time this appendix is printed, William Z. Foster may 
no longer be chairman of the CPUSA. His snccessor, of conrse, will 
hold the same ideas abont art and culture. 

Foster's advice to "friendly" artists is very interesting: Be sure to 
pick up your capitalist pay check while trying your best to subvert 
the capitalist system. 

The following excerpts are reprinted from Xew ISIasses, April 23, 
1946, pages 6, 8, and 9 : 


Elements of a People's Cultural Policy 

The chairman of the Communist Party discusses art as a weapon; foresees a 
resurgence of progressive spirit in all cultural fields 

(By William Z. Foster) 

As a start on a people's cultural program, there must be a clear understanding 
that "art is a weapon" in the class struggle. Not only is art a weapon, but a very 
potent one as well. 


The new, elementary people's culture is developing along two general avenues. 
For one thing, progressive artists are raising their voices independently in litera- 
ture, in the theater, and in various other artistic fields. At the same time they 
are also exerting constructive pressiires upon the organized, capitalized cultural 
forms : the radio, the press, the motion pictures, etc. 

Communist and othcT democratic artists should cultivate both of these streams 
of the new people's art. As the very basis of their activity, they should further 
the growth of every furm of democratic cultural activities outside direct capital- 
ist control, including die work of independent artists in every field, the publica- 
tion of good books and the production of progressive plays, the ijromotion of 
artistic and general cultural work by trade unions, Negro groups, farmers' organi- 
zations and other people's groupings, the development of democratic art projects 
by the local, state and national governments, the strengthening of publication 
facilities by the Left, and the establishment of organized artists' movements. 
It was one of the worst features of Browder's revisionism in the cultural field 
that, with its policy of tailing after the bourgeoisie, it tended to liquidate these 
independent artistic endeavors. 

Progressive artists should also strive to make their constructive influence felt 
within the scope of the great commercialized organizations of the bourgeoisie — 
motion pictures, radio, literature, theater, etc. Artists must eat, like other 
people. Many artists, therefore, are necessarily constrained to wort under di- 
rect capitalist controls, on employers' payrolls, pretty much as workers are. 
It is also a political and artistic necessity to penetrate the commercialized art 
medium. It would be as foolish for artists to refuse to work for bourgeois 
cultural organizations as it would be for workers to declare a permanent strike 
against the capitalists' industries. But this does not mean that artists so 
employed should become servile tools or prostitutes for these exploiters, as 
unfortunately many do. On the contrary, the progressive artists have a double 
responsibility. Not only should they actively cultivate every form of inde- 
pendent artistic activity, but they should also fight, as workers do in capitalist 
industry, to make their democratic influence felt in the commercialized cultural 

The special task of the Communists in the development of the new demo- 
cratic trends in our national culture is to enrich culture with Marxian un- 
derstanding and to carry it to the people. The Communists must, above all 
others, be the ones to understand the true significance of art as a weapon 
in the class struggle and to know how to combat all reactionary capitalist ideo- 
logical hindrances to the development of the new people's democratic art. 
They must realistically develop a penetrating Marxist criticism. They must 
strive for the utmost excellence in their own artistic creative work. They 
must take the load in educating and mobilizing the great masses to support 
all independent art projects of the i)eople, the fight against reactionary trends 
in the capitalistically organized literature, theater, radio, motion x)ictures, 
etc., and to insist upon democratic artistic expressions through these power- 
ful mediums. They must ceaselessly teach artists the elements of Marxism 
and inspire the whole body of artistic and cultural workers with the perspective 
or" the great cultural renaissance that socialism brings with it. 

The Communists, to be elTective in all this work, must be alert to fight 
against the Left and Right dangers. Left sectarian trends are prominent in 
the new people's democratic art. They have done great harm in the past and 
are still not without considerable negative effects. Among such leftist trends 
may be noted tendencies to sweep aside all bourgeois art, past and present, as 
useless and dangerous, to have contempt for all art that is not immediately 


expressive of the class struggle, to fall into naiTow cultism of various sorts, 
to idealize the working class, to disdain high standards in artistic technique, to 
adopt sectarian attitudes toward the problems of artists working in the or- 
ganized art mediums and cultural organizations of the bourgeoisie, etc. Such 
leftist conceptions have nothing in common with a people's cultural policy. 
The Communists, contrary to all such narrowness, should have the highest ap- 
preciation, as exemplified by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, of boui'geois 
artistic achievements ; they .should have the broadest of all conceptions of what 
art is and of its vital social role ; they should strive to be masters of artistic 
techniques and should eagerly learn much that bourgeois artists have to 
teach in this respect : they should be militant opponents of every conception 
of "artists in unifonn" controls ; they should be leaders in the artistic fight in 
every field not only in the initiation of independent art activities, but also in 
cultivating democratic expressions within the scope of the bourgeoisie's organ- 
ized, capitalized cultural mediums. They must especially fight against the 
destructive effects of Trotskyism in every cultural field. 

Left sectarian trends are still highly corrosive to a democratic cultural pro- 
gram. Nevertheless, the main danger in the cultural field is the Right danger, 
which is the direct pressure of capitalism itself. This Right danger, in gen- 
eral, expresses itself in the tendency of cultural workers to fall victims of, or 
surrender to, the insidious attempts of the bourgeoisie to stifle every manifes- 
tation of the new people's art and to enslave ideologically the people's art- 
ists. Among the major manifestations of the Right danger is the acceptance 
of the bourgeois propaganda to the efl'ect that art is "free" and has nothing 
to do with the class struggle ; that the artist has no democratic message for 
the people ; that the man as artist has no relationship to the man as citizen, 
and that technical content and not social content is the essence of art. Such 
ideas not only liquidate the democratic ideology of the artist, but also degen- 
erate him into a puppet of the bourgeoisie, a defender of every detrimental 
feature of capitalist culture, an accepter of the wages of the capitalists in 
return for poisoning the minds of the people. Browderism tended to cultivate 
all these enervating Right tendencies. The Communists must be the leaders 
in fighting against such Right dangers, which operate to make the artist merely 
an appendage and servant of the decadent capitalist system and its sterile art. 

The present debate now going on in the left-wing press over the original 
Albert Maltz article in New Masses is a healthy sign of the correction of our 
revisionism in the cultural field, as well as in other branches of our Party's 
work. For Browder, with his imperialistic theories to the effect that the Ameri- 
can bourgeoisie has become progressive, not only set our Party to tailing after 
the capitalists in the field of politics, but also in that of culture. Maltz's article 
expressed elements of this Right trend, now happily being corrected by Maltz 
himself. From the course of the debate it is clear that the necessary rectifications 
in our Party's understanding and practice are being made. 

The tone of the debate has been sharp. Some people attempt to interpret 
this sharpness as an indication that the Communist Party wants to regiment 
the artists. But this is decidedly not the case ; the Party wants to cultivate the 
maximum freedom of artistic expression among cultural workers of all kinds. 
It knows full well that without such freedom there can be no productive people's 
art. But Maltz's article was of a highly theoretical character, and in matters 
of theory Communists insist upon clarity. Maltz in his article attempted to 
lay down, and incorrectly, the line that should be followed generally by pro- 
gressive artists in every field of culture. Hence his proposals had to be dis- 
cussed with all the sharpness necessary to achieve theoretical clarity. The debate 
is a healthy one. The Communist Party and its friends are now getting a much- 
needed lesson in the principles of Marxism in the cultural field, and the Party 
is actively laying the basis for the soundest artistic program it has ever had. 

The next years will show a tremendous resurgence of progressive spirit in every 
cultural field. Capitalism is sinking deeper into its general crisis, and the re- 
actionaries, who .see their precious social system threatened, are moving again 
in the direction of fascism and another world war in an attempt to save it. 
More and more the democratic forces, here and abroad, are going over onto the 
political and ideological offensive against capitalist decadence in all its mani- 
festations. These awakening masses and peoples will increasingly demand the 
voice of every kind of artist in their struggle against reactionary capitalists, 
especially American big capital. Hence our Party must be fully prepared to 
play a vital leading role in this broad cultural movement of the people, even as 
it does in every other phase of the class struggle. 



As cultural commissar of the CPUSA, V. J. Jerome would be in a 
position to explain how culture can be used as a weapon. The fol- 
lowing paragraphs taken from his Grasp the Weapon of Culture, lay 
stress upon certain aspects of the united front in artistic and scientific 

V. J. Jerome, Grasp the Weapon of Culture, New York, New Cen- 
tury Publishers, 1951, pages 20-21. 

The intellectual's work in the peace movement, however, has tended to be 
limited to the direct political plane, to participation only as "citizens." Such 
activity, in the form of rallies, petitions, statements to the press, etc., is most 
valuable and needs to be greatly expanded through united-front efforts in many 
directions. Yet the full value of the contributions of men and women of the 
arts and sciences in such progressive coalition actions demands for its realization 
that they participate consciously as (irtisfs and as scientists in the great strug- 
gles of our times. Such integrated cultural endeavor is vital to the development 
of the peace movement and of an independent people's ciilture. A novelist who 
tights with his voice but not with his pen, an artist who gives his name to the 
fight but not his brush, a scientist who fights against the destruction of his 
civil rights but not of his science, fights with one hand, and with the other ob- 
jectively aids the enemy. 

Reactionary content in culture cannot be fought in the economic and political 
sphere solely ; it must be challenged and fought with the counter-ideology of 
progressive and working-class culture, which the Communists must lead in de- 
veloping. The "practicalism," rationalized by the pressures of the work for 
I)eace, that cannot pause for concern with the content of the artist's or scien- 
tist's work, is opportunism, analogous to "economism" in the trade unions. 

Nor can we effectively wage the broad battle of ideas, unless we battle for the 
advanced, Marxist-Leninist ideas in culture. For example, to combat the general 
run of anti-Soviet disciissious of the sciences, literature, and the arts, is to leave 
these vital cultural fields to the enemy and to weaken the struggle against anti- 
Sovietism as a whole. 

However, it would manifestly be wrong to demand of everyone who partici- 
pates on a political-cultural basis in a united-front peace activity or organiza- 
tion that he necessarily give full expression to the proletarian class ideology. 
What should be expected of him is that he express himself as citizen and as 
artist on the level of his own understanding. Of course, it is the task of Com- 
munists to help the non-Communists in the united front to understand that the 
cultural forces with their ])ursuits and talents can, in alliance with the working 
class, labor ;uid struggle to hasten the end of a system which, historically doomed, 
enslaves and humiliates them. 


From personal experience, Sidney Finkelstein could appreciate the. 
problems confronting "independent*' Communist writers and com- 
posers. In 1950, his own work. Art and Society, had been discovered 
to contain dangerous bourgeois sentiments which, of course, Finkel- 
stein (pnckly coi-rected. 

Sidney Finkelstein, How Music Expresses Ideas, New York, Inter- 
natiofial Publishers, 1952, pages 101-105. 

In the Soviet Union, criticism is a sign of the high regard the people have for 
music and its creators. This will seem especially strange to composers in the 
United States, who regard critics as arch-enemies except when they themselves 
become critics. Yet the i)roof of the regard lies in the higli position Shostakovich 
has always held in Soviet musical life, in the fiict that his melodies are hummed 
by millions, in the fact th:it his successful symi)honic works are known by music 
lovers as tlioroiighly as tliey know the great classics. The Soviet criticisms are 
liart of the nourishing musical life of the country, of the give and take between 
aitist and jieople. They are part of the jirocess through which the composer is 
made aware of the progress of the people themselves, and the need to catch up 


with them aud at the same time give them a consciousness of their being through 
Iiis work that they could not attain by themselves. Through these criticisms 
Shostakovich has grown, as few other composers in these difficult times. His 
deeply moving expressions of pain aud tragedy, his joyfulness and impish humor 
have become a world cultural possession. This growth is true of other Soviet 
composers ; and in general, Soviet music as a whole, in spite of red-baiting, has 
become the most popular body of contemporary music. It is popular in the real 
sense of the term, not the commercial best-seller sense, which creates works to 
be consumed and destroyed so that they may make room for others. It is turned 
to again and again. Not every work is a masterpiece, but every work is human, 
and the listeners feel in the music a deep regard for themselves. 

One of the effects of the Soviet criticisms has been to puncture the carefully 
nurtm-ed myths about "modernism" in music, myths so well publicized that the 
listeners who felt only boredom, distaste, or confusion at this music began to 
feel that the fault was in their own lack of "finer sensitivities." The Soviet 
Union has raised questions of music, asking that it possess not only "talent," or 
cleverness, or experimental novelty, but seriousness and depth. This, too, has 
been well expressed by Shostakovich, on his visit to the United States in 1949 
as a delegate to the Cultural and Scientific Conference for World Peace. 
"Bringing into being a work which must be permeated with great ideas and great 
passions, which must convey with its sounds tragic suspense as well as deep 
optimism, and must reaffirm the beauty and dignity of man — this is the difficult 
and complicated task which realism demands." And the great power of realism 
is that it enables the composer himself to be a powerful factor for peace against 
war. And so Shostakovich asks, "How can we musicians serve the cause of 
peace, democracy and progress with our art?" 

The criticisms and discussions of 1948 were again derided throughout the 
capitalist world by composers and critics, especially in the United States, along 
with a fury of Soviet-baiting and dire predictions of the imminent collapse of 
Soviet music. And while writing these attacks in the name of "freedom" of the 
composer to compose music, these same composers were worrying about when 
they could find some spare time to compose, how they could make some money 
out of their composition, and why nobody seemed either to like their music or 
even to be interested in their existence. Needless to say, these critics and 
"authorities" have made no attempt to prove or disprove their predictions by 
examining the new works of Soviet music, such as Shostakovich's "Song of the 
Forest," a cantata for chorus and orchestra on a grand scale, with a rich and 
fresh melodic quality, celebrating in words and music peaceful life and construc- 
tion. It is one of the few really "new" works of the postwar years, for it deals 
with the vistas opening up before humanity after the defeat of fascism. And 
the music fits the subject, having a lyric sweetness and a joyousness surpassing 
everything in his previous work. 

The criticism of 194S, which inaugurated widespread discussions by com- 
posers, musicians, critics, and the public was aimed at accelerating the de- 
velopment of Soviet music by making the composers aware of the vast changes 
that had taken place among the people, the new avenues of musical composition 
that were opening up, the new needs of the people. It laid the basis for a new 
level of socialist realism, breaking down all previous opposition that had ex- 
isted between concert hall and opera, lietween music for professional and music 
for amateur, between instrumental music and vocal, between music of the most 
serious "classical" principles and music for popular use. It pointed out that 
Soviet music had developed one-sidedly, in its attention to the concert hall ; 
that the tens of thousands of amateur choral and instrumental groups offered 
Soviet composers great opportunities for reaching audiences far beyond the 
concert hall, providing the people with music of the best quality, and raising 
their level ; and that this effort would in turn, enable the composer to develop 
new resources of human imagery in music. It called for a serious and far 
deeper approach to the problems of opera than had been made hitherto, point- 
ing out that Soviet composers had suffered from the failing to write for the 
human voice and the neglect of vocal music and song, characteristic of the 
decline of bourgeois music in general. One of the profound remarks made by 
Andrei A. Zhdanov (1896-1948) in his speech at a conference of Soviet musi- 
cians was as follows : "I shall now pass on to the danger of losing profes- 
sional mastery. If formalistic distortions make music poorer, they also entail 
another danger : the loss of professional mastery. In this connection it would 
be well to consider still another widespread misconception : the claim that 


classical music is supposedly simpler, and modern music more complex, and 
the complexity of modern music represents a forward step." This is true of a 
great number of contemporary composers, who speak in mysterious shop-talk 
terms of their "advanced" techniques, when they have actually lost basic skills, 
such as those of constructing a large-scale dramatic work, writing an opera 
that presents credible human characterizations on the stage, or even writing 
a genuinely emotional and singable melody. 

Opera happens to be one of the richest historic musical forms, capable of both 
the greatest music and the greatest popularity, educating people in the mean- 
ing of all music by associating music with dramatic events and experiences. 
Like all forms of theatre, it has been feared and censored by reactionary gov- 
ernments, and it is significant that the Soviet criticisms call for even more 
intensive work on opera, and a devotion to the most real and contemporary 
themes. The criticism attacks narrowness and calls for more breadth, for 
"works of high quality and high ideals in all genres — in the field of operatic 
and symphonic music, in the creation of songs, in choral and dance music." 

The criticism touches on other points that could well be examined in the 
United States : the charge, for example, that music criticism "has made itself 
a trumpet for individual composers. Some music critics have taken to fawning 
upon one or another of the leading musicians, praising their works, in every 
ray, for reasons of friendship, rather than criticising them on the basis of 
objective principles." The cliquishness dominating the circles in which con- 
temporary music is discussed in the United States, is obvious to anyone who has 
contact with them. 

Zhdanov called for more "creative discussion," saying: "When there is no 
creative discussion, no criticisui and self-criticism, there can be no progress 
either. * * * When criticism and creative discussion are lacking, the well- 
springs of growth run dry, and a hothouse atmosphere of stuffiness and stagna- 
tion is created." Self-criticism is nothing new in musical history. Every 
great artist has gone through periods of deep self-examination, harshly criticiz- 
ing his previous work and trying to discover new pathways to growth. The 
new aspect of Soviet criticism is that it is more open, social, and collective, 
more conscious of the historical forces that in fact have always forwarded the 
progress of music. Again Zhdanov said : "Not everything that is comprehen- 
sible is a work of genius, but every geunine work of genius is comprehensible, 
and it is all the more a work of genius, the more comprehensible it is to the broad 
masses of people." This is a restatement of nothing more than what the his- 
tory of music displays, for Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Verdi, Tchaikovsky were 
comprehended in their time, within the limits of the audiences they could 
reach. It does not say that all great music is immediately comprehended by 
all listeners. It says that great art can be explained and taught, and to claim 
that today's art will be understood only by the "future" is to hide its poverty- 
stricken content. 

Again Zhdanov declared : "Internationalism arises from the very flowering of 
national art. To forget this truth is to lose sight of the guiding line, to lose 
one's own face, to become a homeless cosmopolitan. Only the nation which has 
its own highly developed musical culture can appreciate the music of other 
peoples. One cannot be an internationalist in music, or in any other realm, 
without being at the same time a genuine patriot of one's own country. If inter- 
nationalism is founded on respect for other peoples, one cannot be an inter- 
nationalist without respecting and loving one's own people." This too is worthy 
of study by many composers in the United States, who produce a music according 
to an atonal or polytonal set of formulas that is exactly like the music produced 
by the same formulas in Paris, Vienna, London, and Rome, and which is pro- 
foundly boring to audiences both abroad and at home. Internationalism is the 
mutual help and interchange of ideas, experiences and knowledge among peoples. 
Cosmopolitanism is the attempted dictatorship of a dominant imperialist culture 
over peoples through the insistence on musical systems that iireclude realism or 
human imagery, and which destroy national cultures wherever their influence is 
felt. Today the cosmopolitan dictatorship of atonality and polytonality, and of 
the manufactured music of Tinpan Alley, go hand in hand, and their destructive 
influence is easy to see, both in Europe and in the United States itself. 




3 9999 05706 320b