Mr K. Threatened To Resign Earlier

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30578, 22 October 1964, Page 21

Mr K. Threatened To Resign Earlier

(N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) MOSCOW, October 21. Reports from East European sources in Moscow say Mr Khrushchev threatened to resign in February because his colleagues disapproved of his handling of relations with Communist China, British United Press said.

The reports also said the men who overthrew Mr Khrushchev last week were accusing him of squandering foreign aid money and of initiating irresponsible farm programmes.

According to the reports, Mr Khrushchev in February demanded the immediate publication of a blistering attack on China which was made to the Communist Party Central Committee by Mr Mikhail Suslov, the chief Russian party theorist. The Party Presidium—the handful of men who rule Russia—rejected Mr Khrushchev’s demand to publish the attack. Mr Khrushchev had to be talked out of resigning because of this vote of no confidence the reports said. They said the Presidium—as well as Russia’s allies—wanted to give China a last chance to soften its uncompromising attitude in the Sino-Russian dispute. Publication was delayed. The attack was sent to China. The Chinese replied with a counter-attack. Only then was Mr Suslov’s document published in Moscow. The reports said the new masters of the Kremlin are circulating a memorandum to party members ‘hroughout Russia. The memo accuses Mr Khrushchev of these sins:— (1) Wasting foreign aid funds including a £lOO,OOO loan granted to the United Arab Republic after Mr Khrushchev’s visit there in May The reports said the memorandum claims Mr Khrushchev granted the loan without consulting the Presidium. (2) Irresponsible and ill-con-sidered experiments in agriculture. Example: his corn campaign several years ago which resulted in corn being planted in areas not fit for its growth. (3) Nepotism and undue favours to close friends. The reports said this referred to such things as Mr Khrushchev’s son-in-law, Alexei Adzhubei, be-

ing promoted to editor of the Government newspaper “Izvestia” and his being given membership in the Party Central Committee and in the Supreme Soviet (parliament). Adzhubei has been dismissed from “Izvestia” since Mr Khrushchev’s dismissal. (4) Self-glorification and oneman rule. Mr Khrushchev in spite of his campaign against the personality cult of Stalinism, tended to glorify his own position during his last days in power, the memorandum said. It said he acted without consulting the Presidium and more and more publicly emphasised his own role in Russion leadership. The reports said the memorandum —being shown to local leaders throughout the nation —accused Mr Khrushchev of hare-brained schemes, arm-chair leadership and high handedness. The new Russian leaders have hinted at more flexible tactics toward Peking since dismissing Mr Khrushchev. But Western observers say there is little chance of healing the Sino-Soviet rift caused by big-power rivalry as

well as Communist ideology. The reports said the Kremlin might not publish the fivehour speech indicting Mr Khrushchev made by Mr Suslov to the Central Committee meeting which ended in Mr Khrushchev’s dismissal last week. But its message was contained in the circulating memorandum and fast was becoming common knowledge in the Soviet Union, the reports said. This would follow the example of 1956 when Mr Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin was allowed to spread by word of mouth. At the same time it was learned that Russia’s new rulers—the party leader, Mr Brezhnev and the Premier, Mr Kosygin—personally have made assurances to the United States Ambassador, Mr Foy Kohler, that the new regime desired friendly relations with the West. Except for a milder tone towards the Chinese, the new leadership has pledged to carry out Mr Khrushchev’s policies, ranging from peaceful co-existence with the West to increasing the production of consumer goods. Only Mr Khrushchev’s methods and style were objected to, the new leaders have made clear.