Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Soviet Union, Eastern Mediterranean, Volume XXIV

51. Telegram From the Embassy in the Soviet Union to the Department of State¹

Moscow, June 2, 1956—4 p.m.

2718. Deptel 1339.² Having had opportunity of careful study of document I agree with conclusion that this is in all probability authentic copy version Khrushchev’s speech, at least as sent to satellites.

Certain errors of fact which had been noted in French document, e.g. date of deportations and Eikhe arrest, are corrected in this document. From comparison two documents it is apparent French version was based on same source, but since text from which notes were taken by French in Warsaw was in Russian two documents were apparently not identical. In view of complete secrecy surrounding event it is possible that Eikhe’s execution in 1940 is authentic, although as observed (Embtel 2603)³ end of 1938 was generally regarded as bringing to a halt excesses great purge and I still for this reason find puzzling reference to STALIN’s enciphered telegram concerning use physical torture as late as January 1939.

In addition, I have had from entirely independent source confirmation of certain specific details in document which tend to confirm its credibility, as well as possibility that document may be actual speech itself and not merely version prepared for Communist leaders in satellite countries. These details come from French journalist, Michael Gordey, at present in Moscow and he obtained this information from an old Menshevik friend whom he had known well in Paris and who had returned to Soviet Union in 1950. Gordey is of Russian parents, speaks perfect Russian and is extremely knowledgeable about Soviet Union. He of course has no knowledge whatsoever of existence document in question but had seen French version in French Embassy. His informant had not actually seen text of Khrushchev’s speech himself, but had received second-hand account from old Bolshevik friend who I believe had actually been present or in any event had seen stenographic account of speech. Version of speech given Gordey followed very closely that outlined in document and included certain specific details which were not in French version, namely reference to Khrushchev’s telephone call to Vasilevsky on Kharkov battle and his conversation on same subject with Malenkov when STALIN refused to come to telephone. Informant also gave in much greater detail than in French version Eikhe, Kedrov, Rudzut and, particularly, Kirov cases.

In addition, Swedish Ambassador told me that Bulgarian Ambassador here, who claims to have seen text of speech, had given him outline without details and order of subjects and construction of speech from source followed very closely order of subjects and general organization of documents.

While nothing can be conclusive in a matter of this kind, I believe these independent confirmations here in Moscow from persons stated above who have no knowledge of our possession of document certainly tend to add to its credibility.

In regard to publicity I am of two minds. In general I believe that documents such as this concerning Soviet policies which are believed to be genuine are worthwhile publishing in that they help clarify public opinion and explain what is actually going on in this country, and this document would be invaluable to students of Soviet affairs who would normally not have access to it. However, I would seriously doubt if publication would be valuable to our side from propaganda point of view. Speech is extremely serious and convincing and goes far to providing real evidence that current Soviet leadership determined to persist in present mere “liberals” course and do away with certain abuses of STALIN period. Theme throughout speech, particularly on page 12, that there must be no repetition of STALIN’s crimes will, I am sure, be regarded as strong evidence in many quarters that current leadership has indeed in certain respects “reformed”. Very fact that text given in this document is more balanced than previous speculations and leaks will, I feel, not only tend to enhance its credibility but will give more credit than discredit to present leadership. Fact that document when published will undoubtedly be denounced as spurious by Communists will not, in my opinion, offset reaction more favorable than not to present regime.

Therefore, I would conclude if primary purpose of publication is to place current rulers in unfavorable light, I would be inclined not to publish. On the other hand, if main purpose is merely to get out an interesting and important document concerning political developments in Soviet Union, publication would be useful, particularly as leaks are almost certain. In this connection I note (Paris 5677 to Department repeated info Moscow 212)⁴ that entire French version has been given to correspondent by Quai d’Orsay so that substance of speech has already been made public. If Department’s decision is to publish believe Committee Free Europe is as good a channel as any in order to avoid appearance US Government involvement.

I have strictly observed noforn classification; however, I do feel certain obligation toward French Embassy which made available to us other version, but will do nothing pending further instructions from Department.⁵

Bohlen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 761.00/6–256. Secret. Limited Distribution. Received June 2, 5:43 p.m.
2. Document 48.
3. Telegram 2603, May 19, contained Bohlen’s listing of the errors he perceived in the version of the speech obtained by the French. (Department of State, Central Files, 761.00/5–1956)
4. Telegram 5677, May 31, indicated that the U.S. Embassy in Paris obtained from the French Foreign Ministry a 19-page typewritten copy of Khrushchev’s speech that was presumed to be the same as the one Bohlen obtained from the French. The French Foreign Ministry had shown copies of the document to certain journalists, including Americans, and had given them permission to use the document without attribution. It was also pointed out that France Soir on May 29 had printed under a Vienna dateline excerpts patently taken from the same version. (Ibid., 761.00/5–3156)
5. In his memoirs, Bohlen wrote that his advice “was rejected.” (Bohlen, Witness to History, p. 399) It is clear, however, that the decision to publish the speech had already been made by the time Bohlen’s advice was received in the Department. A typewritten notation on the source text reads: “Mr. Furnas (R) notified 7:15 p.m., 6/3”. A handwritten notation reads: “No further action.”