The Crimes of Khrushchev: Georgia

The PDF of the full original of this document can be consulted and downloaded at the Internet Archive website.

“We declare that what has been modified by war cannot be modified again without war.”
— Nikita Khrushchev, Moscow, February 8, 1960.

The following consultations with Messrs. Guivy Zaldastani and George Nakashidse were held at 10:20 a.m., in room 226, Old House Office Building, Washington, D.C., Hon. Francis E. Walter, Chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities, presiding. Committee members present: Representatives Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, and Gordon H. Scherer, of Ohio. Staff members present: Richard Arens, staff director, and Fulton Lewis III, research analyst.

***

The Chairman. The committee will come to order, and the first witness will be sworn.

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

Mr. Zaldastani. I do.

Statement of Guivy Zaldastani

Mr. Arens. Please identify yourself by name, residence, and occupation.

Mr. Zaldastani. My name is Guivy Zaldastani. I live at 66 Atherton Street, Milton, Mass. I am a manager-buyer in a Boston department store and I am also vice president of the Georgian National Alliance.

Mr. Arens. Give us a word, please, about the Georgian National Alliance.

Mr. Zaldastani. The Georgian National Alliance is an American organization dedicated to oppose Communist imperialism and whose purpose is to contribute to the reestablishment of an independent Georgian nation.

The organization has two printed organs: “The Voice of Free Georgia,” a quarterly publication in English, which has been temporarily discontinued because of lack of funds; and “Georgian Opinion,” a monthly publication in Georgian, of which I am a member of the editorial board.

Mr. Arens. Please give us for the record, Mr. Zaldastani, a word about that area of the Soviet Union known as Georgia.

Mr. Zaldastani. Georgia is one of the oldest nations in the Christian world with a history which can be traced back to the Hittite and Assyrian civilizations. In ancient times Georgia was composed of two areas: Colchis (a name familiar through the legend of the Golden Fleece) and Iberia.

Georgia’s colorful past, highly developed culture, Christian ideals, advanced forms of government, geographic wealth, pleasant climate and scenic landscape have made her the provocation and envy of her neighbors—Greeks, Romans, Persians, Moslems, Turks, and presently Russians. Yet with numerous invasions and the continuing threat of losing her national identity, she has emerged repeatedly, holding fast to her culture, religion and unique language.

In the 12th century, Georgia reached an apex in her political and cultural achievement. Her literature, art and architecture brought about a flourishing “golden age.” In government the concept of individual freedoms and equality of the sexes were firmly established, but the culmination of this era of enlightenment came under the reign of Queen Thamar, who set up a reform program, whereby legislative and executive powers were entrusted to a parliament, leaving the monarch only the rights of veto and confirmation.

This humanitarian and democratic doctrine preceded similar movements in Western Europe by almost a century.

Georgia has no cultural, social, racial, ethnic, or linguistic ties with Russia. Her high degree of literacy, historical and religious background are forms of national pride, and she cannot imagine herself as part of the organized perversity that the Soviet Union represents.

Mr. Arens. Where is it located geographically?

Mr. Zaldastani. Georgia is situated in the Caucasus between the Black and Caspian Seas. Primarily an agricultural country, her wine, tea, fruit, and tobacco products are important exports. Silk has been a national industry since the fifth century A.D. Mineral deposits are considerable. She possesses the largest and finest manganese mines in the world, as well as coal, iron, oil and uranium. Good transportation networks of railroads, highways, and airways connect her capital Tbilisi to both Moscow and the Middle East.

Mr. Arens. Could you give us just a rough estimate of its physical size?

Mr. Zaldastani. Its area is a little smaller than Hungary—just about the size of the State of Virginia.

Mr. Arens. Please, sir, tell us about the population of this area known as Georgia, in the Soviet Union.

Mr. Zaldastani. The population, just over 4 million, is basically rural; however, in Tbilisi alone there are over 600,000 inhabitants. To help me describe the chief characteristics of the Georgian people I happen to have a copy of a book, The Last Years of the Georgian Monarchy 1658–1832, by David Marshall Lang,¹ from which I would like to read a few lines.

Mr. Arens. Please go ahead, Mr. Zaldastani.

Mr. Zaldastani (reading):

Generalizations about peoples are always dangerous, and the Georgians are no exception to this rule. But most observers would agree that, along with a high level of intellectual ability, they are quick-witted and prone to volatility and change of mood. They are gifted in dance, song, and poetry, and Georgian folklore is an inexhaustible mine of invention. They tend to take an optimistic view of life, are generous in hospitality.…

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly give us a word about your personal background?

Mr. Zaldastani. Well, I was bom in 1919 in Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia.

At the time of my birth Georgia was an independent republic. In 1921 Soviet Russia invaded that country, and after a very fierce fight, which lasted 6 to 7 weeks, the Georgian Army was defeated by the Soviet forces. At that time the Georgian government left Georgia and found asylum in Paris.

Up to 1924 my family stayed in Georgia. My father was hiding from the Soviet authorities and took a leading part in the organization of the national insurrection of 1924. After the failure of that insurrection my father escaped to Paris, and our family joined him a year later.

I grew up in France, where I attended L’Ecole des Sciences Politiques and graduated from the University of Paris Law School. During the war I served in the French Marine Corps. In 1948 I came to this country.

I graduated from Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration and since then I have been working in Boston.

Mr. Arens. Are you a citizen of the United States?

Mr. Zaldastani. Yes, sir, I am.

Mr. Arens. When were you naturalized?

Mr. Zaldastani. I was naturalized in 1954.

Mr. Arens. Mr. Zaldastani, do you have evidence of crimes by Khrushchev in your native country of Georgia?

Mr. Zaldastani. Yes, sir.

Mr. Arens. Can you characterize, first of all, the sources of your information?

Mr. Zaldastani. The information which I am prepared to submit to the Committee on Un-American Activities stems from documentary material which I have in my possession, as well as from confidential sources of information stemming from Georgia, which I obviously cannot reveal at the present time because it would jeopardize the lives of people who are presently there transmitting the information.

Mr. Arens. Will you kindly, Mr. Zaldastani, proceed at your own pace to present your information respecting the crimes of Khrushchev in your native land?

Mr. Zaldastani. To present the proper evidence of Khrushchev’s crimes in Georgia I would like to quote Webster’s definition of a crime: “A gross violation of human laws.”

Being an American citizen and testifying before the representatives of the United States Congress, the only laws which would be natural to apply here are contained in our own Constitution.

However, the events we are about to report which incriminate Khrushchev do not only violate our own concept of human rights, but also the Charter of the United Nations as well as the very laws of the Soviet Union.

The first amendment to our Constitution outlines our individual freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble and petition. These laws were ignored and violently repudiated by Khrushchev in Tbilisi, Georgia, in March 1956.

In 1956, as before, Muscovite imperialism was challenged by the Georgian masses who were seeking individual liberties and liberation from the Muscovite yoke.

What happened in 1956 in Tbilisi was a natural continuation of Georgia’s fight for survival. It was normal for Khrushchev to expect trouble. He was afraid that at that time—in 1950—a strong uprising in Georgia, if not controlled at once, could spread throughout the Soviet Union.

Early in that year he had elevated Vasili P. Mzhavanadze, an old comrade of his Ukrainian bloody purges, and first secretary of the Georgian Communist Party, to the Central Committee of the Soviet Party, placing him under his direct command.

He sent 15,000 party agitators to Tbilisi, which is roughly about one agitator for every 15 men, to control the city and to indoctrinate the population.

Mr. Arens. What do you mean by an “agitator”?

Mr. Zaldastani. The word “agitator” was used in the report given by Tass. I assume they meant it to be used in the common sense of the word—one who excites public discussion in order to prepare and educate the public for an idea. However, I think we should assume that they were trusted Communists sent to stir up and prime the population in the ways of Russian communism.

As I said, the purpose was to control the city and to indoctrinate the population.

At the time, the military tribunal—officers and soldiers—stationed in Georgia were made up entirely of Russians, as the Georgians could not be depended upon.

Since the fall of Beria the secret police had been reorganized and was in the hands of trusted men. There was no room left for surprises. Yet, in spite of all this organization, in spite of this control on every man, woman, and child living in the city, some people came out proclaiming hatred of their Soviet overlords and made a futile attempt to contact the free world.

Mr. Arens. Has anything of that sort happened before in Georgia, to your knowledge?

Mr. Zaldastani. Actually it has. In fact, at times historical analogies help to understand current events.

To understand what happened in March of 1956 in Tbilisi, Georgia—a few years after the death of Stalin—I should like to go back to 1924, just a few months after the death of Lenin.

Georgia at that time had been overwhelmed by the Soviet Army, after a brief but bloody war. The whole population resented the establishment of the Soviet puppet government, which effected daily executions by the secret police, deportation of the intellectuals to Siberia, the closing of the churches, and the constant indoctrination of communism.

To uphold their principles in view of death was far better than living under the existing conditions; yet, one had to wait for the right moment to insurge in order to have some chance of success.

After the death of Lenin, which happened in January of 1924, the struggle for a successor commenced. Georgia felt the time had come.

In August of that year a general insurrection broke out, but without the help of any foreign power, its destiny was inevitable: thousands of men died, more were deported. The fervor of these brave Georgians was never to be forgotten by Moscow.

In 1956, just as in 1924, Georgians saw hope for a successful stand against their evil dictator.

Mr. Arens. Who was the evil dictator to whom you allude?

Mr. Zaldastani. Well, by March of 1956, Khrushchev already had established himself as the primary leader of the Soviet Union. Just a few months before March he had denounced Stalin, thus wiping out the existing Stalinist hierarchy, who had up to that time threatened his dream as supreme “monarch.” There was no more triumvirate at that time. He was the sole ruler of the Communist Party as well as of the Soviet Union.

Mr. Arens. Was Khruschchev directly responsible for the bloody suppression of the efforts of the Georgian people to gain their freedom?

Mr. Zaldastani. There is no question about it, Mr. Arens.

Continuing with the analogy: After Stalin’s death in 1953—just as after Lenin’s death—the struggle for succession had commenced. Malenkov, Bulganin, and Beria, had tried to consolidate their positions, but failed. In 1953, Khrushchev—just as Stalin did in 1924—seized the general secretariat of the Communist Party; and from that position, Khrushchev’s influence grew. The Georgians realized that before Khrushchev established himself as a head of the Soviet Union, they must put their dreams of independence into action. The time was running short.

In February of 1956 Khrushchev denounced Stalin and exposed the crimes of the Stalin era. A wave of shock and confusion spread throughout the Communist world. The time for “speaking out” against the regime was ripe. The facade was Stalin—the hope was the spread of revolt throughout the Soviet Union against the Communist tyrants.

Mr. Arens. What actually happened then, in March of 1956?

Mr. Zaldastani. In previous years the anniversary of Stalin’s death had been celebrated by solemn ceremonies, meetings, and speeches of praise. But no such glory was accorded Stalin on March 5, 1956. The officials meant that day to be like any other. Yet, 2 days later, a body of students gathered in the center of Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia. They appeared before the Government House on Rust’haveli Street. They were soon joined there by factory workers and several thousand other citizens. They shouted for individual liberties and demanded the dismissal of Khrushchev.

Then the first party secretary, Vasili Mzhavanadze—a right-hand man of Khrushchev in Georgia—came out to appease the crowd. But the crowd answered by shouting, “Get out! Get out!”

Eventually the demonstrators dispersed.

The next morning all communications with Georgia ceased. The visiting French President, Vincent Auriol, was flown out of Tbilisi. Prime Minister Hansen of Denmark, scheduled to land in Tbilisi that day, was rerouted to Stalingrad at the last minute—the reason given: bad weather. Six U.S. physicians scheduled to visit Tbilisi for a few days “agreed” to drop the Georgian capital from their itinerary, at the suggestion of the Soviet officials.

Russian troops were ordered out of their garrisons, and tanks and machine guns surrounded the city.

Marshal Voroshilov was sent in from Moscow.

Mr. Arens. Who is he?

Mr. Zaldastani. Marshal Voroshilov was, at the time, a member of the Politburo, and the nominal President of the Soviet Union.

Apparently the troops received the order to fire at the crowd. Some demonstrators took over some buildings of the Communist Party, the post office, a newspaper building, hoping to cut off the directives of the Communist Party, and to get in touch with the outside world.

As the shots were fired, the demonstrators tried to organize street barricades by overturning trollies and blocking streets.

The tanks moved in. In one section along the river, the enclosing tanks cut off all means of escape as the citizens tried to seek cover. They were flanked on one side by closed buildings, and on the other by sheer cliffs, dropping to rocks and the swift currents of the River Kura, which was running through the center of the town. This obvious death jump was the only chance of escape. The casualties were reported to exceed 600.

The heroes of the day were two boys and a girl, who had set up a transmitter to the free world, which was apparently heard in Turkey, refusing to surrender to the Russian troops. The door of the building was forced open then, and all three were bayoneted and thrown into the street.

The bodies of those killed in the fighting were not returned to the families of the victims. The wounded were ordered to remain in their homes until fully recovered, so that the number of casualties in the city would not become known.

What started as a peaceful demonstration of distrust to the Soviet rulers had been turned into a bloody uprising. The only arms used by the demonstrators were small pocket guns. The only chance for success was to make this demonstration for freedom a peaceful one, counting on human conscience to recognize Georgia’s rights as a nation. A civilized government would have understood and very likely would have accepted discussion on these rights. For Khrushchev, the only answer, however, was death to those who challenged his authority. The right to assemble and petition could certainly not be given by Khrushchev to those who destroyed his picture and asked for his dismissal.

Mr. Arens. Were these demonstrations pro-Stalin?

Mr. Zaldastani. None whatsoever. In fact, there is no evidence which substantiates that there were any pro-Stalin demonstrations. Western journalists, looking for an interpretation of the few facts given by Reuters, connected the uprising with the anniversary of Stalin’s death, and the earlier denunciation of Stalin.

Obviously pleased with that false interpretation, Mikoyan himself, while touring in India, tried to reinforce it, and on March 27, 1956— which actually is about 19 days later—he made the statement that “even though there were no disturbances in Georgia, some people took the reevaluation of Stalin a bit hard.” Actually the downgrading of Stalin was just an occasion for the national uprising to start. As a matter of fact, the Georgian Communist Party meeting right after the uprising, on March 19 and 20, will substantiate my statement. This meeting took the following resolutions:

1. The Chief of Police—the MVD—demanded that every citizen deliver a rebuff to all those trying to resurrect the survival of bourgeois nationalism.
2. Mr. Sergei Dzhorberadze, the Communist Party leader of the University of Tbilisi, was denounced and ousted, for “failing to suppress elements of nationalism among the Georgian student body.”

Later, on March 24, the newspaper “Zarya Vostoka” (Dawn of the East) complained that Georgian students were putting too much emphasis on ancient Georgian history when Georgia was an independent kingdom with a strongly developed sense of nationalism. The party organ said that university party leaders should have been more diligent in suppressing elements of nationalism among the students. Later, in an interview, Viktor Koupradze, the rector of the University of Tbilisi, himself said that “during the disturbances some demonstrators shouted forbidden and illegal nationalistic slogans.”

Mr. Arens. Specifically what was Khrushchev’s responsibility in these crimes which you have just recounted?

Mr. Zaldastani. Khrushchev’s part in these crimes is revealed through his close collaboration with the man who was directly responsible for the suppression of the revolt: Mr. V. P. Mzhavanadze.

Remember, at the time of these crimes, Khrushchev was, as he is now, the all-powerful head of the Communist apparatus in tne Soviet Union. The crime which I have related could not have occurred without his acquiescence and approval.

Khrushchev, for many years, was a close collaborator of Mr. Mzhavanadze, who was his henchman in Georgia.

In February 1956, Khrushchev made Mzhavanadze a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, and as a reward to Mzhavanadze for his conduct during the uprising, Khrushchev sponsored him for nomination to the Presidium of the Communist Party in June of 1957.

Mr. Arens. Is there freedom of religion in Soviet Georgia?

Mr. Zaldastani. Georgia is one of the oldest Christian countries on earth. She was the second state which adopted Christianity as a state religion.

During the fifth century she was one of the first ones to translate the Bible, and this translation is presently used as a historical source.

Yet, in a country with such a background, religion is not being taught to the children today. It is a challenge to the regime to attend church services. Ministers do not have the right to make sermons because of the danger of expressing anticommunistic thoughts.

In 1922, Katholikos Ambrosius, head of the Georgian Church, was saddened by the fact that there were only 1,500 churches left in Georgia. Before his death in prison, Katholikos Ambrosius spoke these last words at his trial:

My soul belongs to God, my heart to my country: you, my executioners, do what you will with my body.

In 1951, Harrison E. Salisbury of the New York Times, while visiting Tbilisi, talked to Katholikos Callistratus who mentioned that there were only 100 churches left in Georgia. Katholikos Callistratus was also arrested, put to torture, and died in prison.

There is no freedom of religion in Georgia.

Mr. Arens. Do you have information respecting forced deportations of Georgians to other areas of the Soviet empire?

Mr. Zaldastani. The facts of forced deportations of Georgians into other parts of Soviet Russia, especially to the Arctic Circle and Siberia, are innumerable, and thousands of instances could be cited. However, just one example: After the rioting in Tbilisi that was mentioned before, 27 full trainloads of Georgians, mostly students, were sent to forced labor camps in Central Asia. This fact has been proven without any doubt whatsoever by many foreign observers and journalists, and is confirmed without question by my own sources of information.

Mr. Arens. We have read in the recent past where the Communist regime denies the existence of slave labor camps within the Soviet empire.

What observations would you care to make on that?

Mr. Zaldastani. It is a change of name. It is not a change of the nature. It is a Communist strategy to change names as evil is discovered.

For instance, the Soviet Secret Police, which was originally known as the Cheka, later became known as the GPU. Then it became known as the MVD, and is now known by some other name. I don’t know what they call it now.

In the same way the slave labor camps, which have existed in the Soviet Union since its conception, still exist, but under different names. They are being called now “correction camps,” “labor camps,” et cetera.

Mr. Arens. Can the free world trust Khrushchev in these impending international conferences?

Mr. Zaldastani. To my mind there is not the slightest doubt that Khrushchev, as any other Communist leader, cannot be trusted.

Let us not forget that the end always justifies the means for a Communist, and to ignore a treaty, or a signature, is just part of the strategy toward supremacy of world communism.

Mr. Arens. Can we believe Khrushchev’s professions of peaceful intent?

Mr. Zaldastani. We can only believe that he is at war against Western civilization.

Mr. Arens. And there will be peace in his eyes only when he has completed the conquest of the world by international communism?

Mr. Zaldastani. Yes.

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Zaldastani.

***

Mr. Arens. The next witness will be Mr. Nakashidse.

The Chairman. Do you, Mr. Nakashidse, solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Nakashidse. I do.

Statement of George Nakashidse

Mr. Arens. Please identify yourself by name, residence, and occupation.

Mr. Nakashidse. My name is George Nakashidse. I live at 22 East 89th Street, New York 28, N.Y.

I attended Georgian State University in Tiflis from 1918 to 1922. While preparing for my final examinations, I was arrested, with many other students, by the Bolshevik government, which was installed in Georgia by the Russian bolshevik military forces in 1921.

After 11 months of imprisonment I was exiled. I first studied law abroad, at Heidelberg University in Germany. I then went to Prague, Czechoslovakia, where I received my doctorate of law at the Ukrainian University in 1927, and my Ph.D. from Charles University in 1929.

In 1930 I went to Poland, where I was invited by the Orient Institute and by Warsaw University to lecture on Georgian language and literature.

In 1945, when the Russian Army occupied the whole of Poland, I went to Germany as a political refugee, and stayed there until 1948, at which time I emigrated to Argentina.

I arrived in the United States 3½ months ago as an immigrant.

I have always participated in anti-Communist organizations. For instance, I was the leader of the Anti-Bolshevik Georgian Student Movement in Tiflis in 1921–22. In Prague I was president of the International Anti-Bolshevik Student Organization. In Poland I was the vice president of the well-known anti-Communist organization, the Promethean Movement, created by the representatives of the subjugated nations. In Germany I was a member and also the rotative president of the International Central Committee of Political Emigrants and Refugees. In Argentina I was the vice president of the anti-Communist international organization, “Liberation Europea.”

Mr. Arens. When did you come to the United States?

Mr. Nakashidse. I came to the United States on the 26th of September 1959.

Mr. Arens. Do you have current sources of information respecting the situation in your native country of Soviet Georgia?

Mr. Nakashidse. Yes, sir. As I have explained to you already, I am a participant in a number of anti-Communist movements operating in various areas of the world, and am the direct recipient of information from sources which cannot be publicly revealed without jeopardizing innocent lives.

Mr. Arens. Mr. Nakashidse, the Committee on Un-American Activities, as you know, is developing information respecting the crimes of Khrushchev.

Based upon your own background as a one-time resident of Soviet Georgia, and your continuous interest in the operations of the Communist conspiracy in Soviet Georgia, do you have information bearing on this subject of the crimes of Khrushchev?

Mr. Nakashidse. The first time I heard the name of Khrushchev was when he became a member of the central committee in 1934. The Ukrainians, the Polish consulate members in Kharkov, Moscow, and Kiev, had characterized Khrushchev as a “fanatical and implacable Communist.”

In the terrible epoch of Yezhov, in 1937–38, when the bloody purges reached their summit in the whole union, the name of “Khrushchev, the hangman of the Ukraine,” was often mentioned at our Promethean reunions.

Hundreds of thousands of party members, professors, students, journalists, writers, artists, workers, engineers, peasants, and clergy were executed by him, or banished to Siberia.

In 1937–38, the Promethean League, at public meetings, international conferences, and by publications in various languages, denounced before the civilized world the atrocities performed by Yezhov, Beria, Khrushchev, and other hangmen of Stalin in the Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkestan, Northern Caucasus, Georgia, and other subjugated countries.

As a member of the “almighty” Politburo since 1939, Khrushchev is one of the instigators and executors of the barbarous massacres of the Ukrainian Vinnitsa, of the Polish Katyn, of the cruel, merciless expulsion of the Caucasian nations—Chechen-Ingushes, Karachay-Balkars, Crimean Tartars and Kalmyks—from their native countries to Siberia and Central Asia.

His really bloodthirsty nature was revealed at the time of the Hungarian uprising. Surprised and terrified by the worldwide significance of the national movement, he and his government issued, on October 30, 1956, a declaration where they solemnly pledged to fulfill the Hungarian nation’s demand, and to withdraw the Russian troops from Budapest and Hungary. This declaration contains such gems as:

The countries of the Socialist nations, joined together by their great friendship, can build their relations only on the principles of the whole equality, on the respect of territorial integrity, on the recognizing of the state’s independence and sovereignty, on the nonintervention in the inner affairs of the other nation.…

According to this official declaration, the Hungarian revolutionary government and her freedom-fighting military forces were invited to negotiate with Russia to bring about the realization of their proposal.

The whole world knows what happened then, how Khrushchev “fulfilled” this promise that he had made public.

Before the congress of the Hungarian Communist Party, and also before the factory workers last December, Khrushchev boasted that he, against the fear and opposition of some government members, had ordered the Russian tank divisions against the freedom-loving people.

And this man, when he spoke before the United Nations, before Senators, and others, without ever blushing, played the role of fervent defender of the sovereignty of every nation.

If we all pledge to respect the principle of nonintervention in the other states’ inner affairs—which means the recognizing of every nation’s right to elect its own state’s form, its own system, its own order which pleases it—the peace in the world will be secured, and we want nothing more.

In pronouncing these and many such phrases, had Khrushchev forgotten about Poland, about Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Bulgaria, the Baltic States, Albania? And had he forgotten about almost 40 years of uninterrupted struggle for national freedom by the Ukraine, Turkestan, Northern Caucasus, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and others?

We know the Communist regime was forcibly introduced in Poland, Hungary, the Ukraine, Georgia, and other countries, which were treacherously occupied by the Russians. Were not the puppet governments created long before, for every one of these nations by the Russians, completely disregarding the wishes of the nations?

We will only cite here some words from the declaration of the leader and ideologist of the Georgian Communist Party, Philip Makharadze, to the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party, on December 6, 1921:

The arrival of the Red Army and the establishment of Soviet power in Georgia had the outward appearance of a foreign occupation, because in the country itself there was nobody who was ready to take part in a rebellion or a revolution. And at the time of the proclamation of the Soviet regime, there was in the whole of Georgia not a single Communist member capable of organizing action or providing leadership, and this task had been accomplished mainly by doubtful, or sometimes even criminal elements.

And such was the situation in every other country that the Russian bolsheviks forcibly occupied.

Khrushchev knows it very well, because all his vertiginous career he owes to his merciless fight with millions of Ukrainians and others who struggled bitterly for the restoration of independence of their enslaved nations. He knows that. But notwithstanding, he speaks about the sacred rights of nations, nonintervention, respect of the national freedom, because he knows very well that nobody will bother him with inappropriate questions, and that the Western democracies prefer to hear and be delighted by great words about lofty ideals than to see sorrowful, tragic facts, such as they are.

Mr. Arens. Has anything changed in the policy of Russian Communists since the death of Stalin?

Mr. Nakashidse. No. The “collective leadership” was only a repetition of the triumvirate of Stalin, Zinoviev, and Kamenev, which was created after the death of Lenin as a consequence of their struggle with Trotsky for heritage. Soon Stalin outmaneuvered his allies and became the almighty dictator of the Soviet Union.

Has Khrushchev acted otherwise, in spite of his assertions about the unwavering fidelity to the principle of collective leadership?

Even the degrading of Stalin by Khrushchev in the 20th congress was nothing new. Stalin used to do it almost systematically when he wanted his and his Communist Party errors passed over to his potential rivals, and often to completely innocent people.

It is enough to mention here these processes with every kind of absurd accusation, against Trotsky, against Kamenev, Zinoviev, Radek, Piatakov, against Rykov, Bukharin, Tukhachevsky, just to name only some of the more familiar names, and not worrying your ears with the thousands of similar processes in the cities and provinces of the whole Soviet Union. The difference was only that Stalin accused and degraded the living, and Khrushchev did it with the dead.

Mr. Arens. Was this resolution of the 20th congress to rehabilitate unjustly condemned party members anything new?

Mr. Nakashidse. No. Almost in every congress which followed the terrific purges there were similar resolutions. For instance, on the 26th of January, 1938, we have the resolution under such a title as “Rehabilitate the Unjustly Purged and Severely Castigate the Calumniators.” It served usually to the slackening, the relaxation, of the overstrained explosive situation. Khrushchev only repeated a known and tried precept.

Khrushchev’s era brought no relief to the peoples of the Soviet Union.

Mr. Arens. Were there any liberal policies previously carried on in the U.S.S.R.?

Mr. Nakashidse. Yes. From 1922 to 1929, under Lenin himself, the New Economic Policy (NEP) was introduced for the purpose of saving the country from complete ruin and destruction. NEP gave economic and national freedom. The peasants could own as much land as they were able to cultivate, only they were obliged to turn in a certain portion of their produce to the central government. National freedom was so unlimited that almost all of the Communist parties and governments in the Soviet Union demanded from the central government full freedom in their respective States.

Mr. Arens. Do you have information respecting economic exploitation of Soviet Georgia?

Mr. Nakashidse. Yes, I do.

The colonial policy of the exploitation of Georgia’s rich natural resources exclusively for Moscow’s aims is continued.

The mining industry—manganese, iron, copper, lead, zinc, barytes—has been even more expanded. Metallurgical works, iron and steel plants, machine building, the automobile industry, the chemical industry, find markets for their products only in Russia. The same is true of agriculture. The Georgian tea, citrus and other fruits, tobacco, and wine you can find almost everywhere in the Soviet Union. But it is difficult to buy even 1 pound in any Georgian city.

According to the 21st congress, in Georgia as everywhere in the Soviet Union, measures are taken to reduce drastically the private plots of the collective farmers, depriving them of a unique source of additional income, so badly necessary for their existence. That this decree has evoked general discontent among the population is easy to understand.

Mr. Arens. Is there an exploitation in the cultural life in Soviet Georgia?

Mr. Nakashidse. The answer is yes.

On the cultural front, after the enthronement of Khrushchev, the forced “Russification” of the Georgian youth stepped in and became a nightmare for both teachers and the alumni. In an article entitled, “Measures Necessary to Improve the Teaching of the Russian Language and Literature in the Schools of the Georgian Republic,” Communisti N3 1954, such shortcomings are enumerated: “Notwithstanding, a whole series of measures such, for instance, as the introduction of an 11-year period of study of Russian, the foundation in Tbilisi of a Russian pedagogical institute, the state of teaching the Russian language and literature in the schools of Georgia is unsatisfactory.” “Too many students and pupils fail in Russian examinations.” “Georgian schools seldom arrange meetings devoted to Russian literature.” “They do not hold conferences in Russian.” “No Pioneer meetings in Russian.” “Not a sufficient number of textbooks in Russian.” And so on.

The top Georgian Communist leaders demand steadily from the Georgians to cultivate the feeling of love and friendship toward a great Russian nation, to stress—the enormous progressive significance of the unification of Georgia with Russia as a political, economic, and cultural development for the Georgian people.

They scorned severely the works of the known Georgian historians who dared express just an opposite opinion. Recently the State University of Tbilisi published the fifth volume of the history of the Georgian people, by academician I. Dzhavakhishvili. The leaders of the University committed a rude political mistake by publishing this book. It was published without regard to contemporary Soviet historical achievement, without a critical preface or commentary. And yet the materials and sketches of the fifth volume contain mistakes of a national character, since facts telling of the relationship between Georgia and Russia in the 17th and 18th centuries appear in a distorted form. The book ignores the enormous progressive significance of the unification of Georgia with Russia.

In the History of Georgia, published in 1950, the centuries old ties between the Georgian and Russian peoples are not fully elucidated. Moreover, despite the historical truth the authors assert that the alliance with Russia was of little use to Georgia and did not justify the hopes of King Irakli and his followers. This bourgeois nationalist point of view was expressed with even more frankness in the book of Sh. K. Shkhetia, Tbilisi, in which the consequences of joining Georgia to Russia were described in the darkest colors.

Professor Kultadze, on the basis of certain compiled facts, has tried to prove that the orientation of Georgian leaders toward union with Russia was a mistake, adversely affecting the fate of Georgia.

The whole history of the Georgian people, especially concerning the relations with Russia, is completely distorted. Every time, and everywhere, the great Russia appears to be the disinterested “protector” of the Georgian people.

It is impossible to enumerate all the examples of the falsification of the historical facts.

But to make it more clear to the Americans how history is written in the Soviet Union, I cite here some sentences from the Georgian daily “Communisti” for August 15, 1959:

The Popular-Democratic Republic of Korea had suffered great hardships. She held out in Korean history unprecedented war, and went out victoriously. Sixteen imperialistic powers under the leadership of the United States attacked her in 1950, and for more than three years, using the most barbarous means, had conducted the bloody and disastrous war.

That is how the Russians described a historical event of some years ago. So there is no wonder that our history and literature are so distorted that no Georgian can recognize his past and present, and discern the truth from the absurd falsifications.

The trials for “nationalist-patriotic deviations” go on as before. The executions and deportations continue. The colonization of Georgia by Russian elements is even accelerated.

Mr. Arens. Do the people of Soviet Georgia have freedom as we know it here in the West?

Mr. Nakashidse. The economic exploitation has persisted so that, just as in the Soviet Union, there is no right of free election, no free speech, no free press, no free assembly, and there is no right to strike. Some naive American and European tourists assert that Georgians and others must love their government. Why they should think that is something quite bewildering to me.

Mr. Arens. What is the attitude of the people of Soviet Georgia toward Khrushchev and his Communist regime?

Mr. Nakashidse. There is almost universal hatred of Khrushchev and the Communist regime which holds the people of my native state in subjugation.

Yesterday it was Stalin and his terror. Today it is Khrushchev and his brutality. Tomorrow it will perhaps be some other Communist. May I comment that the change in name or in leadership will in no sense lessen the terror mechanism so long as the Communist regime is in power.

As we see from the speech of Khrushchev in the 20th congress, Stalin was hated by the people, and even by his most faithful disciples and collaborators. Whether Khrushchev has more luck, I cannot say. But why enslaved nations must love Khrushchev and his government is for us completely unnatural.

Have any oppressed people ever loved their oppressor?

The United States has never experienced occupation by a foreign nation. But such nations as Denmark, Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland, Norway, France, only have recently been freed from foreign domination. As far as I can tell, all these people had hated not only Hitler, but even each German at the time of the occupation of their countries.

We know that European powers had given liberty to India, Burma, Malaya, Indonesia, Tunis, Syria, Morocco, Ghana, Guinea; and many others are fulfilling the desire of peoples to be free and independent. Why should the Western statesmen think that the satellites and other oppressed nations love their oppressors and have no desire to reestablish their lost sovereignty? Is the feeling of national dignity the privilege only of the Americans, the Europeans, and some Asian and African peoples? Or are they convinced of the superiority of the Soviet Union’s regime where everyone is content and happy?

Had not the Second World War clearly demonstrated the true feeling of the Soviet peoples toward the Communist regime, when even the Nazi conquerors were enthusiastically greeted everywhere and millions of soldiers voluntarily surrendered to the enemy?

Is it any different today, after the tragic events in Georgia in March and May of 1956, after Poznan, after responding to the petitions of the concentration camp prisoners in Karaganda, Kengir, Norilsk, Vorkuta, and others, with machineguns and heavy tanks, after treacherously crushing the heroic Hungarian nation under the wheels of tank divisions?

Mr. Arens. After the experience of Soviet Georgia is it possible to peacefully coexist with the Communist regime?

Mr. Nakashidse. One of the top Communists in Soviet Russia, Pospelov writes in Pravda for July 30, 1953, as follows:

The Party and the government go out from Lenin’s directive about the possibility of long-time coexistence and peaceful competition between two systems.

But we know from the speeches and writings of Lenin that he advised his followers to do all that could cause conflicts and disorders in the capitalistic world.

Stalin, the staunch coexistentialist, always preached the taking advantage of the international conflicts for expanding communism.

It is necessary to benefit every opposition and conflicts among the capitalistic groups and governments in order to bring in the capitalistic world the putrefaction. (This is from volume 5 of Stalin’s works.)

At the same time, Stalin’s aim to build socialism in one country was founded on the principle of coexistence. He gave concessions to foreign financiers, he made trade contracts with many foreign capitalists, he preached peace, and subscribed, almost with every state, the pact of nonaggression. His government in 1936 entered pompously in the League of Nations, pledging solemnly to fulfill the noble principles of the League. Everyone knows what really happened. They all know what happened during World War II, and after the Soviet Government signed the Atlantic Charter, the United Nations Convention, and many others. How it fulfilled its obligations before the democratic world is very well known. What guarantee has the free world that today will be otherwise? Is the Communist Party today more democratic, more peaceful, and less totalitarian?

Mr. Arens. Have the Communists abandoned their goal of world conquest?

Mr. Nakashidse. All you have to do is to read the Communist press to prove the fallacy of this naive hope.

Mr. Arens. Is Khrushchev really a humanitarian man, one who can achieve wonders and give the world peace and happiness?

Mr. Nakashidse. This is Khrushchev: the man who made his career by the massacre of millions of Ukrainians and other peoples, who was the most faithful and beloved servant of his master, who proved to be such a hypocrite that he fooled Stalin, Beria, Molotov, Kaganovich, Bulganin, Zhukov, Malenkov, and others, who after the funeral of his deified boss and infallible leader, slandered him and ascribed to him all the basest qualities, who treacherously shot, without a trial, his friend Beria, and ousted from the collective leadership and government his loyal collaborators such as Kaganovich, Malenkov, Bulganin, and others. Will he respect any treaty with the democratic world?

Only gullible and incorrigible idealists can believe and confide in such a wonder.

For 40 years we, the Georgians, observed the policy and methods used by the Russian Communists: They recognize without any reserve the independence of any state and conclude with it the pact of nonaggression and friendship, then, in the suitable moment, attack and occupy the very same country. This is the way they conquered the previously recognized countries of Ukraine, Turkestan, Armenia, Northern Caucasus, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Baltic States, eastern Poland, et cetera.

For instance, Georgia was recognized de jure by the great Entente—England, France, Italy, Japan, Belgium—in January 27, 1921. At an official banquet to celebrate that event the representative of the Soviet Union expressed his satisfaction that finally the capitalistic Entente had followed the example of the socialistic Soviet Union and recognized Georgia de jure. While delivering the most sincere greetings from Lenin and Trotsky, and assuming everlasting friendship between the U.S.S.R and the Republic of Georgia, Soviet troops were gathering at the Georgian border.

Informed about it, Lord Curzon, then the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, sent a telegram of protest to Moscow. This is what Chicherin, the Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs, replied:

Russia has recognized the independence of Georgia. Russian policy supports the principle of self-determination of small nations. We have made no demands on Georgia. Soviet Russia has not committed, and will not commit in the future, any hostile acts against the Republic of Georgia.

On February 11 the Russian Red Army attacked Georgia from five directions. The result is known.

That almost 40 years ago we, the small nations, were fooled by the Russian bolsheviks, is no wonder. But why, having such experience regarding how Moscow respected its obligations before and after World War II, the democratic world hopes that the Communists will ever renounce from using lies, provocation, treason and force in achieving its ends, that is for us really incomprehensible.

That Western democracies do not wish war is known to everyone in the Soviet Union. Khrushchev knows perfectly well that Americans have always had, and have today, peaceful intentions.

From a military standpoint you were the mightiest state in 1945. With your allies you could have forced Russia to fulfill all her obligations toward the satellites and toward the Soviet nations. But you trusted Stalin and hoped that he would honestly fulfill all his interior and exterior obligations.

Will you repeat this mistake with Khrushchev only because he assures you of his peaceful intentions?

He knows, in spite of his boastings and menaces, that the democratic world even today is more powerful than that of the Communists. The only aim which he pursues is to lull you, to disarm you morally and materially, in order to attack you unexpectedly, as is their tried and ever-successful custom, and achieve their dream of world domination.

Mr. Arens. What percentage of the people of Soviet Georgia are members of the Communist Party?

Mr. Nakashidse. Based upon current sources of information which I have described to you, I am confident that not more than 5 or 6 percent of the people of my native Soviet Georgia are members of the Communist Party. And may I say, too, that even of this 5 or 6 percent, many are members of the party only because of opportunism. If tomorrow Georgia had the chance to enjoy free election, there is no doubt she would vote for a democratic government, freeing herself from Russian imperialism which is expressed today in world communism.

Mr. Arens. Mr. Nakashidse, how then does the regime maintain itself in power, if only 5 or 6 percent are members of the Communist Party?

Mr. Nakashidse. By terror, by force, by intrigue, under the bayonets of Moscow.

As a good illustration, I may as well note that the commander in chief of the Russian occupation armies in Georgia is automatically a member of the cabinet of the so-called Georgian Socialistic Republic. And at the yearly meeting of the cabinet he makes the speech which is equivalent to the State of the Union Speech of the President of the United States.

Mr. Arens. Can you give us further illustrations of this?

Mr. Nakashidse. Yes. At the present time, as in the past, people of my native Georgia are not accorded even the semblance of trial for any trespass which they may allegedly commit against the state. In times of unrest they are tried by military tribunals which are sent in by Moscow and composed entirely of Russians.

Mr. Arens. What is the reaction of the people in Soviet Georgia to the new look on the international scene, of sweetness and light, and the entertaining and international conferences held by the free world with Khrushchev?

Mr. Nakashidse. All the evidence which is available to us, all the reports of foreign tourists and journalists who have lately been traveling in Georgia in increased numbers, point to the fact that the Georgians are extremely amazed, resentful, and astounded by the friendly treatment which has been accorded to Khrushchev in his visits to the countries of the Western democracies.

Usually, the Georgians show extreme friendship and good will towards America, and the only criticism that the visitors to Georgia ever hear about America are two: One is the efforts to have friendly relations with Khrushchev and his like; and second, the fact that the Hungarians in the revolution were not aided by the United States.

It seems to be inconceivable to Georgians that a man like Khrushchev, who has quite definitely been responsible for some of the most atrocious crimes committed in the Soviet Union, is being treated as an equal by the best representatives of Western democracy.

The Chairman. Gentlemen, we thank you for the splendid contribution which you have made in this series.