Josef Stalin, man of mystery! (1945)

The Pittsburgh Press (December 20, 1945)

Man of mystery!
Josef Stalin, at 66, stand supreme as most powerful man in world

Wide influence felt in both Europe and Asia – Dictator rose from poverty to pinnacle
By Eugene Lyons, written for The Press and NEA Service

This is the first of a series of dispatches by outstanding authorities on Russian affairs. A second article by Mr. Lyons, author of “Assignment in Utopia,” appears tomorrow.

NEW YORK – Generalissimo Josef Stalin, who reaches his sixty-sixth birthday tomorrow, is beyond compare the most powerful human being in the world of living men.

No other individual in our epoch, not even Adolf Hitler, has been so extravagantly glorified in his own lifetime.

His birthday finds Stalin wrapped in a black cloud of mystery streaked with purple rumors about his health and his political intentions.

But nothing can any longer destroy his right to place among leaders and conquerors hike Genghis Khan, Peter the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte in the annals of mankind.

Absolute dictator of the immense Soviet Union with its population of near 200 million, he also dominates half of Europe through Red armies of occupation and Moscow-made governments in an array of small countries.

Overshadows Asia

With the defeat of Japan, Russian might – and that means the might of Stalin – overshadows all of Asia.

His policies and purposes are the most decisive factors in shaping the post-war world generally.

It is not too much to say that the fate of the human race in the atomic age is in largest measure in his hands.

Moreover, as the omnipotent leader of world Communism, Stalin exercises a vast influence in virtually every nation on earth.

In non-Soviet lands, his word is law to millions of fanatic Communists whose first loyalty is to Russia rather than to their own countries.

Considering that he was born in a cobbler’s hovel as a member of one of the small, persecuted minority races in the empire of the Czars, his rise to supreme power and world leadership adds up to a “success story” with few parallels in all history.

Josef Vissarionovich Djugashvilli, which is his real name, was born in the slummy hamlet of Gori, near Tiflis in the Russian Caucasus, on December 21, 1879.

Family poor

Desperately poor his uneven features pitted by a long bout with smallpox, his left arm slightly warped, he had an unhappy youth. It seared him with a bitterness and an abnormal suspiciousness which have left deep marks on the events of our time.

Until he was nearly 19, the future Stalin studied in a Greek Orthodox seminary in Tiflis in preparation for the priesthood.

While still in the seminary he was drawn into the underground movements of Georgian nationalists and Marxian socialists.

From the first he sided with the more extreme elements. Expelled from school before graduation, he turned into a professional revolutionist, working with the Bolshevik faction within the Social Democratic Party of Russia.

After he achieved the pinnacle of dictatorship. his biography was thoroughly “revised” to magnify his role before, during and after the revolution. Where necessary, records were falsified or destroyed to support the revamped story.

The truth, however, is that his role was relatively unimportant before the revolution and that he was unknown even to many of the underground leaders in his own Caucasus.

In the police archives of the period, he appears as a minor figure.

Stalin means steel

Like most other revolutionaries, he sported many pseudonyms, chiefly to confound the police. “Stalin,” which he seems to have used first about 1912, was one of these.

The widespread idea that the name was attached to him by Lenin, in recognition of his steel-like character, is pure fable. It was simply the fashion then to adopt “tough” nicknames with a proletarian flavor.

In his early thirties, Djugashvilli called himself Stalin, derived from the Russian word for steel, for the same reason that another became Molotov, from the word for hammer, and a third Kamenev, from the word for stone.

Shortly before World War I, Stalin did rise high enough in the Bolshevik ranks to be assigned to tasks in St. Petersburg and other large centers and to be given a place on the Central Committee of Lenin’s party.

But in 1913 he was exiled to the Far North and returned to active life only in 1917, after the fall of the Romanoff dynasty.

Though he was among the top leaders of the Bolshevik’s revolution which seized power from the Kerensky regime, Stalin’s part was so unobtrusive that few reports of the period even mentioned him.

While Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Bukharin and the others held the limelight, however, the dark-visaged Georgian proceeded to build up a personal political machine. He operated so slowly, so deviously, that few around him were aware of his growing influence.

Lenin was among those few. In a document written in his last months of life, he warned against Stalin’s “rude” methods and urged his removal from the crucial post of secretary-general of the ruling part.

By that time Stalin was so deeply entrenched that he could suppress Lenin’s “last will,” as it came to be called.

Many years later, when he was secure, he permitted its publication.

Patience is perhaps the most significant element in Stalin’s makeup. He remained in the shadows for nearly seven years, until Lenin’s death in January 1924, carefully fortifying his domination of the party bureaucracy.

Then, for another four years, he played one leader against the other until most were eliminated.

By 1928, he was virtual dictator.

Trotsky, his main rival, was in exile in Turkey, while the others were in prison, in banishment or wholly subservient. In the great blood purge of 1936-38, Stalin finally wound up the slow-motion game by executing nearly all who remained of the founding fathers of his regime, along with tens of thousands of others.

Hitler pact

The pact with Hitler in August 1939 was typical of Stalin’s boldness and contempt for opinion at home or abroad.

He took the step, touching off a new World War, despite the fact that the Nazis had been pictured to Russia for years as the great menace.

When Hitler violated the pact invading the Soviet Union in June 1941, Stalin emerged as a great war leader who, after two years of continuous disasters, ultimately turned the tide and drove out the invaders.

It was under the pressure of war that Stalin first assumed government titles, becoming premier.

Until then he had ruled simply through his position as secretary-general of the Communist Party.

With the war ended, he is likely to relinquish some of his official posts and return to the behind-the-scenes role as party boss. His official position, however, is of no real importance.

His word remains law for his country and for the Communist movement of the whole world regardless what titles he deigns to assume.

NEXT: Stalin’s possible successors.

The Pittsburgh Press (December 21, 1945)

Man of mystery!
Stalin’s health held strict secret; who’ll succeed him? is big question

Molotov has ‘inside track’ but others also are mentioned
By Eugene Lyons, written for The Press and NEA Service

This is the second of a series of dispatches by experts on Russian affairs timed in connection with the 66th birthday today of Generalissimo Josef Stalin. A final dispatch by Joseph E. Davies, former U.S. ambassador to Russia, will appear tomorrow.

NEW YORK – The health of dictators is a state secret. Reliable information on the physical condition of Josef Stalin this is unavailable.

But the supreme ruler of Russia has just turned 66; unconfirmed stories of his illness have been widespread recently, and even his most ardent followers admit that he is mortal.

By race Stalin is not a Russian. He belongs to the Georgian segment of the Caucasus, and Caucasians are reputed to be exceptionally long-lived.

This particular Caucasian, however, has had an intense life and especially in these last war years has carried a staggering burden of responsibility.

After he is gone?

Speculation about the likely consequences of his removal from the scene, therefore, are in order. After Stalin – what? After Stalin – who?

These questions have become of supreme importance with Russia’s emergence as one of the two or three top powers on earth.

Unfortunately, too many who attempt to answer such questions allow their hopes to affect their judgment.

Hundreds of thousands of homesick Russian refugees look for far-reaching changes in their native land with Stalin’s demise. Others, because they view Stalin as the personification of dictatorship, have convinced themselves that his passing would open the door to democracy and civil freedoms in Russia.

In this writer’s view they are wrong. The removal of the dictator, far from ending a dictatorship, may even fortify it.

The death of Lenin made way for Stalin. The passing of Stalin is altogether unlikely to alter the basic Soviet system or the machinery of power but up since 1917.

In power 28 years

Despite its revolutionary origin, the Kremlin regime is one of the oldest and strongest in the world. It has had 28 years in which to consolidate its authority.

In these years it has evolved a police apparatus and a hierarchy of privileged officials which will weather any storm.

They stood up under the terrific impact of nearly two years of defeats in war, with the Germans holding most of European Russia and with casualties counted by the million.

The strain of Stalin’s death would be minor by contrast.

Stalin, it is true, has gathered dictatorial power in his own hands. But he dictates through a new ruling class, comprising several millions of upper-bracket officials, military leaders and industrial specialists.

All of them have a life-and-death stake in the permanence of the Soviet setup. Although Stalin is the dictator, this whole class constitutes the dictatorship.

Whatever difference there may be among the ruling elements, the first effect of Stalin’s death would be to draw them more closely together for common defense. The importance of surviving as a group is certain to outweigh all inner rivalries.

Gains in strength

In the early stages of Soviet history, the enemies of the new state expected the Bolshevik government to cave in if Lenin should die or be killed.

The government was still new and relatively weak and had only recently emerged from a fearful civil war. Their expectations had some basis in logic at that time.

Yet Lenin’s regime survived his death. A contest for power did develop, but strictly within the framework of the new setup.

Soviet Russia today unquestionably would be better able to take the shock of its leader’s demise than it was in 1924 when Lenin died. Individuals and groups eager for a share in the power of the state probably have developed, especially under the pressure of war, but they want to take part in the regime rather than to destroy it.

Those who suppose that Russia, after Stalin, may have a kind of democratic rebirth fail to understand that the Soviet system is thoroughly totalitarian.

The removal of Stalin and other leaders would not change the fundamental anti-democratic character of the government. Nothing short of a full-parade revolution, a complete overturn equivalent to the one in 1917, could convert the Soviet government into anything resembling an Anglo-Saxon type democracy.

The problem of who would take Stalin’s place, therefore, is less vital than it seems on the surface.

Molotov stands high

Stalin himself has never indicated a successor publicly in words.

In action, however, he has left little doubt that Viacheslav Molotov, once premier and now Commissar of Foreign Affairs, is his heir-apparent.

Molotov has overshadowed all other Kremlin leaders in the difficult war years and has been pushed forward on every occasion both inside Russia and in the conduct of Soviet relations with the outside world.

Molotov, despite his shortcomings intellectually and as a personality, is one of the few “old Bolsheviks” still in authority.

Continuity of power, linking the Lenin and the Stalin periods with the post-Stalin era, is a vital consideration and Molotov is one who could provide that continuity. He is about 10 years younger than Stalin and in vigorous good health.

Whether he would be able to maintain his position of leadership against other ambitious contenders is another problem. It took about four years after Lenin’s death before Stalin’s succession was firmly established.

With Molotov generally regarded as the No. 2 man, there is ample material for leadership on the upper level of the present rulers.

Others mentioned

Andrei Andreyev is often mentioned as a possible successor and so is Andrei Zhdanov. Both are members of the all-powerful Politburo headed by Stalin. Andreyev is 50, Zhdanov 49. Both have been at Stalin’s right hand in the conduct of the war.

Since Russia was forced into the war by the German invasion, Molotov has had a liberal education in the ways and personalities of the western world.

At crucial stages in the conflict, he made trips to London and to Washington. He was one of the co-chairmen of the San Francisco World Conference.

Neither Andreyev nor Zhdanov has had any such experience with the non-Soviet world, though Zhdanov in 1944 did go to neighboring Helsinki, capital of Finland, to sign a military treaty with that country.

Direct knowledge of other nations, however, is hardly a vital prerequisite for Soviet leadership. Stalin has done fairly well without it. His visits abroad total only a few weeks, even if we include his journeys to Tehran and Berlin for Big Three meetings.

The youngest of the leaders frequently listed by observers among the possible heirs to Stalin’s mantle is George Malenkov, 41.

Vice chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars, his star has been rising steadily.

These do not exhaust the list. In Russia a man’s public prominence or title in the government is less important than his influence inside the ruling party.

A surprise successor consequently is always possible.

But if you must bet on the basis of present appearances, put your money on Molotov.

Concluded tomorrow.

The Pittsburgh Press (December 22, 1945)

Man of mystery!
Stalin prefers to strive for peace, but future of Russia comes first

Dictator ready to cooperate, writer finds
By Joseph E. Davies, written for The Press and NEA Service

This is the last of three dispatches by experts on Russian affairs timed in connection with the 66th birthday yesterday of Generalissimo Josef Stalin. Mr. Davies, author of “Mission to Moscow,” is former U.S. ambassador to Russia.

WASHINGTON – It was in 1936 – nine years ago – that President Roosevelt sent me to Russia to report on Russian strength and on which side Russia would fight if Hitler made war.

I first “came to know” Stalin through my reading in preparation for the trip to Moscow. Later this background was greatly enhanced by my personal contact with the man.

As I know Stalin, he is first a Russian and second an ardent advocate for world security under peace based on law and order.

Consistent with obtaining the security of his own country, he would, in my opinion, go as far to project and manta peace for the world as would any of the great leaders of the earth.

If he can participate in such an enterprise with the considerate cooperation of the Allies who fought at his side during the war, he will have rendered as great a service to the world in peace as he did in war.

Foe of Czarism

Stalin’s story is one of idealistic youth, courage, adventure and great achievement. He was apparently the devoted son of humble parents – a fine mother and a peasant shoemaker father.

As a young man Stalin had been expelled from a religious seminary for his radical views.

He became a bitter opponent of Czarism – a revolutionary who “expropriated” government funds by robbing banks to aid the revolution.

He was exiled to Siberia five times and five times he escaped.

While in Russia I traveled extensively.

I saw their industry, their army, their great wealth. I studied their budget, their plants, their achievements and their leaders. And I came to the conclusion that but for the great executive ability and wisdom of one powerful individual, this greatest economic revolution in history could not have succeeded.

That individual was the secretary of the Communist Party – Stalin.

As such he was not the titular head of the state and, therefore, he had not been accessible to the diplomats. It was not until 1938 when I was saving goodbye to Premier Molotov that I first personally met Stalin at the Kremlin.

Friendliness cited

I was particularly struck by the informal friendliness and kindliness of his greeting, the obvious human qualities which would draw men to him.

But he also gave me the impression of great capacity and power.

Again in 1943, as special envoy for President Roosevelt, I met the Marshal in Moscow. I had long conferences with him and Molotov, in the course of which we discussed for hours the international situation and its problems.

He looked older and worn – but fit. He gave me the impression of being a man with his guard up.

Only a few months before Prime Minister Churchill had visited Moscow to explain the change in plans, the delay in delivery of supplies and the inability to open a second front in France. That was a bitter disappointment to Russia because of the load which the Red Army was carrying.

I was impressed by the number of times he used the word “why?” He was frank to the point of bluntness.

Tells his stand

He stated his own position simply, but fluently. He knew exactly what he would do. He emphasized that relations required reciprocity to be permanent.

He impressed me then as he had apparently impressed Wendell Willkie, Donald Nelson, Eric Johnston and many of our top military leaders as a man who could be relied upon to live up to his word.

My impressions generally were summed up by the brilliant comment of Prime Minister Churchill in Commons when he said:

“It is fortunate for Russia to have this great, rugged war chief at her head. … Stalin is a massive and strong personality, of inexhaustible courage and will power… a man direct and even blunt in speech… a man with a saving sense of humor… of deep, cool wisdom and complete absence of illusion of any kind.”

‘Practical idealist’

I came away from Moscow in 1943 with the conviction that while he was hardboiled, he was also a practical-minded idealist.

There was no doubt in my mind but that he wanted peace for the world because, realistically, Russia needed it.

But beyond any question, in my opinion, his primary concern was for the security of his people from outside physical attack.

He was suspicious, too. Before he would completely trust the governments of western Europe he would have to be shown.

As to the United States, he apparently had full confidence in our goodwill and intentions, but he had doubts as to the disposition of our people to appreciate the facts of life in connection with the necessity for building confidence through a common-sense approach to realities.

The next time I met Stalin was at the Potsdam Conference. He looked older, less wire-edged. At the formal dinners – which, by the way, I found most useful in promoting better understanding – he was again the life of the party, kindly and always with a twinkle in his eye.

At the conference table, I had an opportunity to observe him close-up for many hours and over many days. Here was the first critical test of whether Allied unity could be preserved after the fighting to win the peace.

Wants peace

It was apparent that, consistent with safeguarding what he considered vital matters to his country, he was bending every effort, through accommodation and concession, to find an accord which would achieve unity for peace.

Repeatedly, he acceded to the suggestions of President Truman.

In conclusion, I would say that Stalin is one of the great men of this or any other time.

As an international statesman, in 1939, he bought time to prepare for Hitler’s inevitable attack. He mobilized a great army from scratch. He mobilized his people to support that huge military effort.

In 1941 and 1942, he traded space for time and retreated into his own land in the face of an onslaught of three million Germans on a 1,600-mile front and hundreds of miles in depth.

Under his leadership, his people scorched their own earth, and the Red Army then drove the enemy out of their country.