On at least two occasions in 1937 Nikita Khrushchev seemed to be in serious trouble.
(1) The first had to do with a potentially grave political mistake he had made back in 1923:
"In 1923, when I was studying at the workers’ training program, I was guilty of Trotskyite wavering...I was distracted by Kharechko, who was a rather well-known Trotskyite...I didn't stop to analyze various tendencies in the...party; all I knew was this was a man who had fought for the people before the revolution, fought for workers and peasants", Khrushchev wrote in his memoirs.
"Trofim Kharechko was a prominent Bolshevik who had signed the Declaration of Forty-six. [See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Declaration_of_46 for the text and signers--DT] Since the issue of internal party democracy (or rather the lack thereof) was hotly contested, Khrushchev must have known what he was doing. He certainly couldn't admit that while Stalin lived, however, and he never did afterward, either. ..."
Williram Taubman, *Khrushchev: The Man and His Era,* p. 57 https://books.google.com/books?id=o9W4BkNN0WAC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57
In 1937, Khrushchev confessed his youthful dalliaince with Trotskyism to Kaganovich (probably recognizing that word of it would be bound to get around anyway in 1937's atmosphere of denunciations and terror, popularly called the Yezhovshchina). "Kaganovich blanched (knowing that any Khrushchev sins were a stain on his own record) and urged him to take the matter up with Stalin himself. Receiving Khrushchev in his office, Stalin calmly advised him not to mention the episode at the party conference. But Molotov, who was with him, thought it better for Khrushchev to own up in public, and Stalin nodded. 'Yes,' said Stalin, 'better to tell what happened, because if you don't then, they'll all be able to pester you; they'll bombard you with questions—-and us with reports.'
"How lucky could Khrushchev get! Suddenly the deadly torrent of denunciations was reduced to 'pestering' and 'reports.' Reassured in advance by the one who really counted, Khrushchev informed the conference of his transgression, adding that Comrades Stalin, Molotov, Kaganovich, and other Politburo members 'knew about my mistake' but he considered it necessary that our Moscow party organization should know as well." https://books.google.com/books?id=o9W4BkNN0WAC&pg=PA104 Naturally, Khrushchev got resounding applause for his confession--if the Vozhd had forgiven him, surely the party conference should do so as well!--and was re-elected to the Moscow committee.
This does not necessarily mean that Khrushchev was out of danger. As he would relate decades later:
(2) "Stalin was partial to Jesuitical, provocative methods of conversation. I remember Stalin once asking me to come to the Kremlin, to a particular square that was being laid out near the Tainitsky garden. I went right away, of course. As soon as I entered the Kremlin I saw Stalin, Voroshilov, and Molotov walking about, admiring the reconstruction work.
I approached and saw Stalin's face, expressionless as usual. He looked at me and said, You know, Antipov [who had been People's Commissar of Posts and Telegraphs and later a Deputy Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars--DT] was arrested.
No, I didnt know, I answered.
He had evidence of some kind against you, said Stalin, staring into my eyes with that blank look of his.
I stared back at him, not knowing what to say. Then I answered, No, I did not know Antipov was arrested, nor do I know with what he has been charged. But I do know that Antipov would not, indeed could not, offer any evidence against me, because I never have anything to do with him. The extent of our acquaintance is tipping our hats in the hall and our work together at party meetings.
Stalin turned, lowered his head, and started to talk about Moscow, the real reason he had called me here in the first place. He asked me some questions. As he did so I think he was trying to read in my eyes how I was going to act. It just so happened that my external appearance, my face and my eyes, gave him no reason to suspect any link between me and Antipov. Well, what if -- after all, its entirely subjective -- he had somehow gotten the impression that I was trying to hide something? Would it only have been a matter of time, then, until we had a new enemy of the people?..."
https://books.google.com/books?id=MYuwCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA101
Considering that (1) very few ex-Trotskyists escaped arrest and worse, no matter how youthful their affiliation and how absolute their submission to Stalin in later years, and (2) lots of people perished on the basis of accusations no less absurd than Antipov's, I think we have to say that Khrushchev was very lucky in 1937. Suppose he had perished in that year's terror. Who would lead the USSR after Stalin's death?
(1) The first had to do with a potentially grave political mistake he had made back in 1923:
"In 1923, when I was studying at the workers’ training program, I was guilty of Trotskyite wavering...I was distracted by Kharechko, who was a rather well-known Trotskyite...I didn't stop to analyze various tendencies in the...party; all I knew was this was a man who had fought for the people before the revolution, fought for workers and peasants", Khrushchev wrote in his memoirs.
"Trofim Kharechko was a prominent Bolshevik who had signed the Declaration of Forty-six. [See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Declaration_of_46 for the text and signers--DT] Since the issue of internal party democracy (or rather the lack thereof) was hotly contested, Khrushchev must have known what he was doing. He certainly couldn't admit that while Stalin lived, however, and he never did afterward, either. ..."
Williram Taubman, *Khrushchev: The Man and His Era,* p. 57 https://books.google.com/books?id=o9W4BkNN0WAC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57
In 1937, Khrushchev confessed his youthful dalliaince with Trotskyism to Kaganovich (probably recognizing that word of it would be bound to get around anyway in 1937's atmosphere of denunciations and terror, popularly called the Yezhovshchina). "Kaganovich blanched (knowing that any Khrushchev sins were a stain on his own record) and urged him to take the matter up with Stalin himself. Receiving Khrushchev in his office, Stalin calmly advised him not to mention the episode at the party conference. But Molotov, who was with him, thought it better for Khrushchev to own up in public, and Stalin nodded. 'Yes,' said Stalin, 'better to tell what happened, because if you don't then, they'll all be able to pester you; they'll bombard you with questions—-and us with reports.'
"How lucky could Khrushchev get! Suddenly the deadly torrent of denunciations was reduced to 'pestering' and 'reports.' Reassured in advance by the one who really counted, Khrushchev informed the conference of his transgression, adding that Comrades Stalin, Molotov, Kaganovich, and other Politburo members 'knew about my mistake' but he considered it necessary that our Moscow party organization should know as well." https://books.google.com/books?id=o9W4BkNN0WAC&pg=PA104 Naturally, Khrushchev got resounding applause for his confession--if the Vozhd had forgiven him, surely the party conference should do so as well!--and was re-elected to the Moscow committee.
This does not necessarily mean that Khrushchev was out of danger. As he would relate decades later:
(2) "Stalin was partial to Jesuitical, provocative methods of conversation. I remember Stalin once asking me to come to the Kremlin, to a particular square that was being laid out near the Tainitsky garden. I went right away, of course. As soon as I entered the Kremlin I saw Stalin, Voroshilov, and Molotov walking about, admiring the reconstruction work.
I approached and saw Stalin's face, expressionless as usual. He looked at me and said, You know, Antipov [who had been People's Commissar of Posts and Telegraphs and later a Deputy Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars--DT] was arrested.
No, I didnt know, I answered.
He had evidence of some kind against you, said Stalin, staring into my eyes with that blank look of his.
I stared back at him, not knowing what to say. Then I answered, No, I did not know Antipov was arrested, nor do I know with what he has been charged. But I do know that Antipov would not, indeed could not, offer any evidence against me, because I never have anything to do with him. The extent of our acquaintance is tipping our hats in the hall and our work together at party meetings.
Stalin turned, lowered his head, and started to talk about Moscow, the real reason he had called me here in the first place. He asked me some questions. As he did so I think he was trying to read in my eyes how I was going to act. It just so happened that my external appearance, my face and my eyes, gave him no reason to suspect any link between me and Antipov. Well, what if -- after all, its entirely subjective -- he had somehow gotten the impression that I was trying to hide something? Would it only have been a matter of time, then, until we had a new enemy of the people?..."
https://books.google.com/books?id=MYuwCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA101
Considering that (1) very few ex-Trotskyists escaped arrest and worse, no matter how youthful their affiliation and how absolute their submission to Stalin in later years, and (2) lots of people perished on the basis of accusations no less absurd than Antipov's, I think we have to say that Khrushchev was very lucky in 1937. Suppose he had perished in that year's terror. Who would lead the USSR after Stalin's death?
Last edited: