Photoshop was far in the future in 1960 when a loafer was maladroitly manipulated into a photo of Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev's pounding fist at the podium of the United Nations General Assembly. |
For those of us of a certain vintage, the image of the Evil Dictator of Communist Russia, an ugly
little man who resembled a pig, pounding his shoe on a table at the United Nations confirmed our worst fears that the possibility of a nuclear World War III was in the hands of a crude mad man. And that’s exactly what we were supposed to think.
According to most of the almanacs I consult regularly in
preparation of these blog posts, it was October 12 1960 when Nikita Khrushchev, First
Secretary of the Communist Party and Premier of the Soviet Union
threw that famous temper tantrum.
But it
turns out that it may have been September
23 or 29, or October 13 during the 902nd
Plenary Meeting of the UN General
Assembly in New York. It may have come in protest to a speech by British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan or
remarks by Philippine delegate Lorenzo Sumulong. He was visibly
upset by statements of both men.
He may have banged his shoe at the podium…or at his seat in the Soviet delegation…or perhaps not at all.
And the old man was not really a
dictator, as in the single, unquestioned
authority of the nation in the way of Hitler,
Stalin, or Third World generalissimos.
How could we have gotten it so wrong?
The trouble is, there is no documentation of the event in the official records of the United
Nations. It was in daily press not mentioned reports of any of the possible dates. No
footage could be found in the archives
of NBC and CBC, both of which covered
the General Assembly regularly and often broadcast
important speeches live. Nor has any
authentic photograph of the episode
been found—more on that later.
Fuzzy
accounts of the event have been pieced together from memories and memoirs, many of which don’t
agree.
In retrospect, it is astonishing
that the leader of one of the most powerful
nations on Earth came to the of his major
city chief rival to sit for hours
daily over a span of weeks for
the meeting of the Security Council. And
he wasn’t the only one—Macmillan was only one of the top Western leaders who did the same, as did a parade of presidents, prime ministers, kings, and despots from
lesser nations. If Dwight
Eisenhower elected only to attend
briefly to make his annual speech
and to consult with world leaders in
private meetings, the United States was represented at the top level by Secretary of State John
Foster Dulles as well as the Cabinet
level Ambassador to the world body. It shows how
important the UN was viewed in those distant
days.
Most historians now discount the
possibility that the shoe came off in September. He did take to the podium, pounding his fists, in angry denunciation of Macmillan’s speech that
day. Later an AP photo of that diatribe would be altered by someone and a shoe
inserted into Khrushchev’s fist.
It was released and widely circulated by the media
within weeks of the alleged event and not questioned at the time. Who made the alteration and how did get to
the media? No one seems to know, but it
has all of the earmarks of a classic intelligence service
disinformation operation.
The consensus
now is that it was Sumulong’s speech on October 12 that
was the trigger—if the event
happened at all. The Philippine delegate
rose in support of an anti-colonial resolution that had the support of the Soviets and their allies.
The delegate spoke as a representative
of a nation with a colonial past
which had achieved its independence. Of course, the Philippines, while
independent, were known as a staunch
ally of their former colonial master,
the United States. Although the
resolution was tailored to the remaining
colonial holdings of the Western
powers, Sumulong strayed from the topic at hand to offer
a slap at the Soviet Union:
…It is our view that
the declaration proposed by the Soviet Union should cover the inalienable right
to independence not only of the peoples and territories which yet remain under
the rule of Western colonial Powers, but also of the peoples of Eastern Europe
and elsewhere which have been deprived of the free exercise of their civil and
political rights and which have been swallowed up, so to speak, by the Soviet
Union.
An enraged Khrushchev was recognized
on a point of order and rushed the podium. He shoved the
Philippine diplomat aside and launched an extended diatribe calling Sumulong
a “jerk, a stooge, and a lackey…a toady of American imperialism” and demanding
that he be ruled out of order. Assembly President Frederick Boland of Ireland did caution the Sumulong to “avoid wandering out into an argument which
is certain to provoke further interventions.”
But Sumulong was permitted to
continue his speech and Khrushchev returned to his seat in the Soviet
delegation.
At least one person remembers the Soviet premier as using his shoe at the
rostrum in this confrontation.
Khryschev, Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko, and others in the Soviet delegation pound their fists at their desks in protest. |
But most agree that it happened after
he sat back down. As the Filipino
continued to speak, Khrushchev pounded
both fists angrily on his desk, joined
obediently by other members of the Soviet delegation and Eastern Bloc nations. In fact, he pounded so hard that his watch stopped or flew off of his
wrist—not speaking well of quality
of Soviet consumer goods. According to a memoir by Khrushchev’s daughter
Nina, confirmed by interpreter
Viktor Sukhodrev who sat next to him,
he looked down and saw his shoe, which he had
removed for some reason earlier
and spontaneously picked it up and
began pounding the table. He never, as
some reports had it, removed the shoe
from his foot, a virtual
impossibility in the cramped space of
the desk and given his girth.
The only evidence of a shoe--it rests on the desk in front of Khruschev as the delegation listens quietly and evidently with some amusement |
Decorum at the session soon broke down and it was gaveled to adjournment by President
Boland, who was being abused and booed from the Soviet bloc seats.
However, other accounts do not remember or mention the shoe at all.
To make matters even more confusing
in his own memoirs Khrushchev remembered a shoe pounding incident but placed it in an entirely different context—a protest to remarks by a diplomat from Franco’s Spain. A later
published edition, however, contained a footnote saying that the incident was misremembered.
An English translation of Khruschev's memoirs in which he gave a garbled and erronious account of the shoe baning. |
That United Nations trip is also
remembered for Khrushchev’s own address
to the world body in which he famously
said of the United States, “We will bury you.” That was played in the U.S. press as a threat
of nuclear annihilation. In fact translators and linguists are unanimous that
he had a different, less threatening meaning. He was quoting a well known Russian proverb that means “we will survive you and see
you in your grave.” It was a prediction of the triumph of Communism over capitalism
as inevitable, but not a threat of war.
No matter what happened, Americans
were soon convinced that Khrushchev
was an arch-villain and
dictator. In fact, although he had consolidated considerable power in the Party, Khrushchev was never able to rule alone. He was answerable
to the Presidium of the Party
and to the larger Polit Bureau, each
of which included powerful rivals who limited his freedom of action.
Moreover, in the Soviet sense, Khrushchev was a liberal and reformer. He had presided over de-Stalinization of the Party.
He had also loosened economic
regulations, liberalized the
still restricted freedom of writers
and intellectuals to express themselves, and had been a general break on the most aggressive military ambitions of hard
liners. Western intelligence
agencies undoubtedly knew all of this.
In fact, four years later Khrushchev
was deposed by the hardliners led by
Leonid Brezhnev.
But in order to keep up public support for continued
high defense spending and the proclaimed
policy of aggressive containment of Communism, it was
necessary to paint the Soviet
leaders in the same stark terms as the
county’s late enemies in World War II.
All of this should be kept well in mind as one after another leaders of small and weak nations are portrayed
to the American people as, inevitably, Hitlers.
No comments:
Post a Comment