Caesar 48 - Brezhnev's Struggle for Dominance: Annex to Leonid Brezhnev: The Man and His Power

8/2/2019 Caesar 48 - Brezhnev's Struggle for Dominance: Annex to Leonid Brezhnev: The Man and His Power

1/44

1. .. . .

. . ..... . . .. . . . .. . .~.' ' '1 APPROVED FOR RELEASE

I DATE: JUN 2 0 0 7

.......T.:?:Z:>


2/44


3/44

, .

. .

.. . .. ......_._.. ....... ....._._....._. ~..... . .*..:.:c:. ..... . . .,. .. ..

. . . . . .. . . . ._ . , . ........ - . . .

BREZHNEV'S STRUGGLe FOR DOMINANCEANNEX^ CAESAR xxxvlr(Leonid Brezhnev: The Man an d H i s Power)

MEMORANDUM TO RECIPIENTS:T h i s Annex l a y s o u t a nd a n a l y z e si n d e t a i l t h e ev i dence concern ing B rezhnev 's modusoperandi i n ach iev ing and cons o l id a t in g power i n t h eS o v i e t h i e r a r c h y .The Annex is publ ished f o r th os e who might des i r et o pursue t he s u b j e c t i n some depth . The an a l ys i s andconc lus ions found i n t h i s Annex a r e con s i s t en t w i t h t h eb a s i c s t u d y , b u t , u n l i ke t h a t s t u d y , t h e Annex has notbeen c o o r d i n a t e d or r e v i e w e d in d e t a i l by o t h e r o f f i c e s .

I

.. ....


4/44

. . ... . . . . . ............. - .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..---: . ._._.. .......... . . .-...._._... _I I

BREZHNEV'S STRUGGLZ FOR DOMINANCEANNEX To(Leonid Brez hne v: The Man and His Power)

ContentsPage-

INTRODUCTION........................................ 1 THE MAIN ARENA: THE PARTY SECRETARIAT.. . . . . . . . . . . . 3

A . Ear ly A dvers i ty f o r Brezhnev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B. Responding t o t he Cha l lenge rs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C. The December 1965 Breakthrough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7D. Dominating the 23d Party Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . 8E . Ferment Among t h e Se ni or s : S he le p in ' sI s o l a t i o n ................................... 20F. K ir il en ko 's Emergence a s "Second" S e c r e t a r y . . 2 5THE COMPETITION WITH PREMIER KOSYGIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

A . Sta k ing a C l a i m t o "Number One". . . . . . . . . . . . . 27B . Keeping a R e i n on Kosygin .................... 29THE DRIVE FOR MILITARY AND POLICE SUPPORT. . . . . . . . . . 1

A . Uneven Relations W i t h a D iv ided M i l i t a r y . . . . 3 1B. Dominat ing the Se cu r i ty Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

........ -.-____

. .


5/44

. ... .. .. .. . ,.. .. .,. . .-... .. . . . .

.. .... . .. ... . ...:


6/44

........

.-....- ......- a+


7/44

. .. ., . . ..__..._...-... ..... ......._.__^..: I . . . . -----. _i_.i---

I .

I

. I

. . ..... ....._._..... ...... .... .. .-._... .. . ..... ..._. . .. .... . ......L. .

Brezhney!) . i k e k h r u s h c h e v b e f o r e h im , was boundt o show a h e a l t h y 'res&t - f o r the_'po l i t i ca l ' t h r e a t whichh i s s e n i o r secretar i a1 -cdlleague&,p a r t i c u l a rfy h i s"second in-cmyan d', ' ' 'cou ld pose. - A t t h e time of Khrush-c he v ' s ouster; the S e c r e t a r i a t i n cl u de d three full-membersof t h e P o l i t b u r o i n a d di ti 'o n to Brezbnev:("second i n ' cominand" .b y - d i r t u e.of h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o rp a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n ) , Suslov, and Kir ' i lenko.o u t s e t , Podgornyy m u s t hirve f i g u r e d i n B r ~ z h n e v ' s h i n k -ing a s t he one to watch. A f a v o r e d membe r of W r us hc he v ' sleadership, Podgornyy had had a n o p p o r t u ni t y t o b u il d as t r o n g power ba se w it h i n t h e p a r t y , and h i s p a s t p o l i t i c a lviews were somewhat a t odds with Brezhnev' s . Thus, t h ep o t e n t i a l f o r r i va l r y be tw e e n t h e t w o l e ade r s was a l readyhigh. Sus lov , desp i tecc ont inuo us membership on t h eSe c r e t a r i a t s i nc e 1947 a nd conse que n t p r e s t i ge and i n f l u -e nc e among pa r ty f u nc t i on a r i e s , had s pe c i a l i z e d i n f o r e ignCommunist po l i cy - - h is v i ew s be ing qu i t e c lo s e t o B r ez hnev ' s,j udg ing by t h e publ ic record--and seemed t o l ac k t h ea m bi t i on t o b i d f o r t h e t o p p a r t y p o s t . K i r i l e n k o , t h ei n d u s t r i a l watchdog w it h whom Brezhnev had worked c l o s e l ythroughout most of t h e i r c a r e e r s , a pp ea re d t o p r e se n t t h el e a s t immediate cause for concern , s i n c e much of h i sp o l i t i c a l bas e was a l s o B r ez hne v 's . The ba l anc e w i t h i nt h e S e c r e t a r i a t w a s , t h e r e f o r e , i n h e r e n t l y u n s t a b l e , andm an eu ver in g f o r p o l i t i c a l power i n t h a t body would occuri n i t s most concentra ted form.

PodgornyyFrom-, he

Ear ly Advers i ty for Brezhnev

Podgornyy showed h i s hand ear ly, jus t . :one montha f t e r K hr us hc he v's o u s t e r , i n m on o po li zi ng t h e f i r s t C e n t r a lCommittee plenum without t h e deposed leader . The plenum,on 16 November, heard Podgornyy deliver t h e o n l y r e p o r t--on re un i f ic a t io n of t h e p a r t y a s i t e x i s t e d b e f o r e Khru-shchev s p l i t i t i n t o i n d u s t r i a l and a g r i c u l t u r a l o r g an i-z a t i o n s i n 1962. Brezhnev d i d n o t s pe ak a t t h e plenuma t a l l . T h u s , a s spokesman for t h e new regime, Podgornyy

-3-


8/44

1

. . .. . . .. .. . . .. .

.......... -.. .. ...... .....................

.I.. ........... 3. ................................. ..-.......... . . . . .. . . .

. .-.............. t-.a,..

. . . . .

garne red th e c red i . t. . fo r .ove r turn ing one of the most un-popu lar a c t i on s o f t h e o ld r eg im e.. .Podgorpy-y's inqlueqce a t ,t he plenum, a;so was in-Byd i c a t e d i n ,.the @ersonnel akt%bG,which i t ' approved.f a r t h e. most iulporta'nt ,of, these';was ' t h e .pro mot ion ofPa r ty Se c r e t a r y She l e p in t o' fu l l; ,m e mbe rs h ip i n t h e P o l i t -bbro, t h p i n c r e a s i n g th e numb,r ,.of s e n i o r secre ta r iesudder B rezhd ev t o . f o u r . S h e l e p i n ' s a d d i t i o n t o t h e e l i t egroup of pa r t y a dm in is t ra to r s compl ica ted Bre,zhnev $ 8po sgt iop cons idera bly. Brezhnev w a s n o t extremel$ .popularw i t h i n the . pa r ty a t t h e l ow er l e v e l s , and Sh e l e p in had

t h e r e p u t a ti o n of a b r i l l i a n t young "comer.*'* MoreoverS h e l e p i n ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in t h e S e c r e t a r i a t f o r s upe r v i -s i o n of t h e " a dm in i s t r a t i ve o rgans" -- includ ing t h e s e c u r i t yf ,orces , t h e l e g81 qppa r a tus , a nd t h e m i l i t a r y -- a l r e a dyhad .made: him a f i g u r e t o reckon w i t h , and h i s promotionhad the e f f e c t of se r io usPy impinging on Brezhnev 's au th or i t yi n these areas i n t h e Po li t bu ro. Taken to ge th er , Pod-gornyy and She le p in repres ented a r e a l t h r e a t t o B re zh ne v' sp o s i t i o n . *** S e v e r a l r e p o r t s ' d u r i n g t h e f i r s t months of t h e regime

even c la imed tha ttook t h e l i n e t h a t Brezhnev and Kosygin were c a r e t a k e r sBrezhnev had agreed t o s e r v e as n e m e f on ly one year .and would soon be r e p l a c e d .While unconfi rmed, t h i s r epo r t would tend t o exp la i n t h eo r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t a l e m a t e of Brezhnev unt i l t h e l a t e s umme rof 1965.

**A coal i t ion be tween Podgornyy and Shelepin was moretha n a t h e o r e t i c a l p o s s i b i l i t y , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e circum-s t a n c e s of S h e l e p i n ' s r i s e . H i s s pe c t a c u l a r l e a ps up t h ep a r t y l a d d er i n t h e e a r l y 1 9 6 0 s wece d u e , no doub t , t oKhrushchev' s boost ing, but t h e y c o inc ide d w i t h s i m i l a rsu pp or t from Khrushchev f o r Podgornyy and w i t h a pe r iodof a d v e r s i t y for Brezhnev. Two c l o s e a s s o c i a t e s of Pod-gornyy--V.Y. Churayev and V.N. Titov--had dominated p ar type r s onne l m a t t e r s du r ing t h i s period, when Khrushchev wasl oo k in g ' f o r new b lood t o r e p l a c e t he o ld i n t h e bodyp o l i t ic . Thus, "Young Turks" l i k e Shel epin and Demichev( f oo tno t e c on t i nue d on page 5)

-4-


9/44

. . .. _. . . ._ _ ,. ., .._.. .. .... ..-.. ..... .. ... .. . . . - .... ... .. . . . .... . ... . .. . .. _I.L.. . . -...A.. 2 i'.... :.: . ._. ...-. . ~ ~ , - ~ - - ~ L . A : ,

....... . C__-.- . .. . ......... .. ... .-.. .... . .... .. . .

In f a c t ' ] t h e common denominator in , t+e careers ofo f f i c i a l s whom the'8November plenum p$omote'd.,was a n ap pa r-e n t a s s o c i a t i o n w i th Podgornyy or Shelepin--more than w i t hany o t he r t o p leader.a s s o c i a t e , Pe t r S l i e l e s t , " adva nc ed ' f r om ' c a nd id a t e t o f u a lm em b e r of t h e P o l i t b u r o .. Pa r t y ' S e d e t a r y Demichev r e c e ive dt h e r a n k of P o l i t b u r o c a n d i d a t e .membkr. E i g h t o t h e r o f -f i c i a l s a t a l o w& l e v e l formed :something of a mixed bagbu t i nc lude d s uc h known *'or resumed associates of Podgornyya nd She l e p in as ' V. Ye. Semichaatnyy, . A .A . Yepishev, I.K.Lutak, and P:Y. Masherov.* In any case, Brezhnev' s in-f l u e n c e i n t h e p e r s o n n e l a c t i o n s of t h e plenum was s l i g h t .f i rmed, the appoin tment of A.M. Rumyantsev a s e d i t o r - i n -ch ie f of P r a tda , a l s o t r a d e d t o the inf luence of Podgornyy.Rumyantsev had been associa ted with Podgornyy in th eUkra in ian pa r t y organiza t ion ., , and dur ing h i s 10-months t i n t a s e d i t o r of Pravda t h e n ew sp ap er 's e d i t o r i a l l i n emos t c lo se ly re f l ec te d t h e v iews of Podgornyy. I t shouldbe no ted , however, t h a t Rumyantsev a l s o worked f o r s e v e r al

Thus Podg(ppyy's close Ukra in ian

A n imp orta nt a c t i o n which t h e November plenum con-

( footnote cont inued f r o m page 4 )jo in ed Podgornyy i n gi vi ng Khrushchev h i s s t r onge s t s up -p o r t a g a i n s t p o l i t i c a l o p p o si t io n , w h i l e more senior ,o r t hodox l e a de r s l i k e Brezhnev and Suslov withheld s u p -p o r t o r equivoca ted .on a number of c on t r ov e r s i a l i s s u e s .(However, during 1965 She-lepin to ok a more c ons e r va t i vep o s i t i o n a n d , as t h i s s t u d y shows, d i d n ot h e s i t a t e t os a c r i f i c e some of P o d g o r n y y ' s p o l i t i c a l c s u p p o r t e r s . )

*Two o t h e r s , V.F. Zhiga l i n a nd V.I. Konotop, have hadno known d i r e c t t i e s w i t h Podgornyy or She lep in , b u t eachhas a connection--however s m a l l - - w i t h Podgornyy ' s ba i l iwickof Khar 'kov: Zhigalin i s a Supreme Sovie t deputy w i t ha Khar 'kov const i tuency, and Konotop graduated f rom ani n s t i t u t e there . The p o l i t i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n s of t h e o t h e rtwo, G.I. Popov and G.F. S i z o v , a r e u n c l e a r . -

-5-

.


10/44

. . ..

. .. .. . . . ._ . .

.;. ........_....... :> ................................ _ ..................... . . . . .. . . . . .. .

y e a r s w i t h Sus lov a s a p a r t y t h e o r e t i c i a n , s p e c i a l i z i n gi n f o r e i gn Communist r e l a t i o n s d u ri n g t h e l a t t e r p a r t o fKhrushchev's r u l e . $ , - ,-shchev s p r o t e g e , ,V. . Polyakov, as p a r t y s e c r e t a r y andc h i e f of the , Central Committee.Department of A g r i c b l t u r e ,t h u s c r e a t i n g t w o open ings i n t h e apparatus . Brezhneva ppa r e n t l y made u se of h i s p r e r o g a t i v e . a s p a r ty boss t oappoint Fedor Kulakov t o head t h e Agricul ture Depar tment .The c i r c um s ta nc e s s u r r ound ing t he pos t i ng of Kulakov, whoworked c lose ly w i t h P o l i t b u r o member Polyanskiy dur ingt h e 1950s ,and probably owed h i s rise t o h i m , a re no t c l e a r . **Concei vably, Pol yan skiy recommended t h a t Brezhnev app oin tEulakov be fore the November plenum i n order to smooth t h eway f o r t h e 2eilease of Polyakov f r o m t h e S e c r e t a r i a t .On t h e ot he r hand , they c o u l d have t r i e d arid f a i l e d titt h e plenum t o win Kulakov 's acceptance i n both t h e d e p a r t -m e n tal and t h e s e c r e t a r i a t pos t s ; t h e p lenum migh t haveapproved t h e f i r s t p o s i t i o n f o r Kulakov b u t r e se r v ed j u dg -ment on t h e second. Or Brezhnev may simply have waitedu n t i l a f t e r t h e plenum had approved t h e p a r t y r e u n i f i c a -t i o n bef or e making any appointments . I n any ca se , Kulakovf a i l e d t o win e l e c t i o n t o t h e S e c r e t a r i a t A t t h e nextoppor tuni ty- - the March 1965 plenum--and, l i k e h i s p a t r o n ,Deputy Fremier Po lya ns k iy , he m arked t im e p o l i t i c a l l yu n t i l t h e fo ll ow in g September, when Brezhnev s t o o k onf i rm er ground.

The November plenum approved the d i smissa 1 of Khru-

I n a no the r h igh - l e ve l pe r s onne l a c t i on , B r e zhnev ' sf i r s t d e p u t y f o r a g r i c u l t u r e on t h e RSFSR Bureau , Pol i tburo

*The f a c t t h a t Rumyantsev was one of Brezhnev' s f i r s tv i c t i m s i n t h e f a l l of 1 96 5, when t h e l a t t e r had c o n s o li d a te dh i s p o s i t i o n , i n d i c a t e d t h a t no lo ve was l o s t between t h et w o .**Sov ie t b iog r a ph i c s ou r c e s i nd i c a t e on ly t h a t i t be-came effective sometime i n November.


11/44

1 i I. . . . . , . . .cand i da t e member Leonid'Yefremov, went t o S t av ropo l ' i ne a r l y December t o t ake -ove r as , p a r t y c h i e f i n p l a c e oft h e t ra ns fe r red Kulakov.* 1t"was unclear who among thetop l e a d e r s h a d . t h e closest !ties t o Yefremov and there-fore su f fe re d m os t ' d ir ec t l y ' f rom t h i s m an i fe s t dem otion .Yefremov 'S 'promotion'to deputy chairman of ' t he RSFSRBureau i n D e c e m b e r 1962, a f t e r a p a r t i c u l a r l y zealousdef ens e of' .Khrushchev'-s p o l i c i e s - i n November, may havebeen ldue t o ' t h e i n f l uen ce o f V.N. -Titov and!.ul t imatelyt o Podgornyy- ( t h e Podgornyy-Ti tov rela t ionship i s d i s -cussed.below). In any ca se , -B rezhnev ' s a t t i t u d e tow ardth e a rde n t Khrushchev supp or t e r cou ld w e l l have been un-favorable.November 1964 plenum i n Sel 'sk ay a Zh iz n' , a C e n t r a l Com-mittee newspaper which has u s u a l l y r e f l e c t e d t h e v ie wsof ,Polyanskiy. I t I s conceivable that Brezhnev connivedw i t h Polyanskiy t o g e t r i d of Yefremov. In any case,Brezhnev d i d not appoin t a rep lacement f o r h i m a s deputychairman of t h e bureau . Po l i tburo m em b e r Voronov, whowas a l s o a mem b e r of t h e RSFSR Bureau, may have blockedsuch an appointment , being denied i t h i m s e l f . * *

Yefremov had come under a t ' ta ck j u s t a f t e r t h e

Responding t o t h e C ha l l enge r s

I n c o n tr a s t t o h i s i n co n s pi c uo u s r o l e a t t h e November1964 plenum, Brezhnev was prom ine nt a t t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l

* T h i s was one of seve ra l pe r sonne l changes i n Decemberw h i c h w e r e to f i g u r e i n l a t e r m an eu ve rin g a s Brezhnevconso l i da t ed h i s p o s i t i o n . See ahead , pp**In one re sp ec t , t h e e n t i r e i s s u e of t h e RSFSR Bureauwas t a n g e n t i a l t o t h e power equa t ion , s ince of t h e t o pl eaders on ly Ki r i l enko func t ioned f u l l - t i m e on i t a f t e rYefremov depar ted. Brezhnev nev er appear ed i n pu bl ic

- a c t i v i t i e s of t h e bureau and w a s n o t e ve n i d e n t i f l e d a scha i rman un t i l July 1965--again, only a f t e r he beganv i go rous l y t o a s s e r t h i m s e l f against Podgornyy and Shelepin.

-7 -


12/44

...... :....._.............. - .... . . . . . ............. . .... . . . . . . ......... . . . . . .. . _........

. . ..-, .. .... - ...i

plenum in March 1965. He opened the plenum, de l i ve red'the r ep o r t , . an d gave a c l o s i n g , s p e e c h a f t e r d i scus s i onby C e n t r a l Committee m em b e r s ;i n t e r r u p t e d . s p e a k e r s (as K$rushchev used t o do i n ad i s p l a y of au t h o r i t y ) w it-h h i s pe r s ona l j udgm en ts , andhe was e l ec t ed , t o , . cha i r t he . com m i ss i on f o r drawing upth e plenum's .forma1 decree. ' A t t h e s a m e time, however,Podgornyy 's ' p os i t i on of " second in -command" w a s r e f l e c t e din h i s p r e s id i ng a t , e a c h s e s s i o n o f the plenum.* It isa l s o no tewort hy t h a t the f a c t . o f Brezhnev 's dominance a tthe plenum was on l y r evea l ed i n t h e s t e n o g r a p h i c r e c o r d ,w h i c h w a s s igned t o t h e p r e s s on 7 August and did notappear unt i l Sep tember .D esp i t e h i s p romi nent r o l e a t t h e plenum, Brezhnevmade few i f any o r g a n i z a t i o n a l g a i n s f r o m i t s dec i s i ons .T he t r ans fe r of USt inov and the e n t i r e defense- indus t rycomplex from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e Co u nc il of M i n i s t e r st o t h e Secre ta r i a t seemed t o have t h e e f f e c t of making h i maccountable t o Brezhnev r a t h e r th an Kosygin. However,t h i s move did not pe rc ep t ib ly improve Brezhnev 's po si t i onvi s -a -v i s t h e sen i o r s e c r e t a r i e s . The p lenum' s app rova lof t h e d i s m i s s a l of P a r t y S e c r e t a r y I l ' i c h e v s er ve d t h ei n t e r e s t p r i m a ri ly of Su sl ov , whom Khrushchev had t r i e dt o unde rcu t t hrough I l ' i c he v . I t became apparent soona f t e r t h e March plenum t h a t Demichev had assumed I l ' i c h e v ' s

s e c r e t a r i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r i d e ol o g i ca l ma t te r s, andal th ou gh Brezhnev pr obab ly viewed Demichev a s a t rus twor thysubo rd i na t e , tlle move d i d n o t d e t r a c t f r o m t h e cons ider -ab l e i n f l uen ce S he l ep in had i n t h e propaganda apparatus. **

0n : t h r ee occas i ons he

*In t h e p a s t , t h e number t w o man u s u a l l y had pres idedf o r t h e f i r s t s e s s i o n o n l y , a nd t h e h onor of p r e s i d in gover subsequent se ss io ns was share d b y o t h e r P o l i t b u r omembers.**I l ' i c hev ' s p ropaganda app ara tus had been s t a f f ed w i t ha number o f She lep in ' s fo rmer as so c i a t es , esp ec ia l ly from

t h e Komsomol. I n e a E l y 1965, these i nc luded t h e heads ofTASS, Nov ost i Pr e s s Agency, Tr ud, and t h e government com-m i t t e e s for Radio and Te lev i s ion , t h e P res s , and C u l t u ra l( foo t no t e con t i nued on page 9 )

-8 -


13/44

. . . . .

.. -~

,

1.

..........-....... __ _..................... . . . . ........................~ :? . . . .I

~

........ . .. ,.. . .

-Moreover , the o the r major p e r s o n n e l a c t i o n w hich t h e Marchplenum a pproved , w h i l e o u t s i de ' t he Secre ta r ia t , a l so ap -peared t o t h e p o l i t i c a l a dv an ta ge of She i e p in : t h i s wasthe promot ion of K i r i l l Mazurov t o ful1,membership on t h ePo1itburo"ana h i s advancement; ove r the : head of th e sen io rdeputy premie r Polyanskiy , t o f i rs t deputy premier .*I t w'as,:.nevertheless;I clear t h a t by March th ebalance ' -of power had s h i f t e d -somehow i n Brezhnev' s favo r .The power r e l a t io ns hi ps which had been t a k i n g s h a p e i nt h e Secretar iat i n e ar ly - 19 6 5 were m a ni f e s t e d i n a sharpen-i n g o f p o l i c y l i n e s in o p e n < d e b a t e son a v a r i e t y o f i s sues ,b u t n o t a b ly e conomic p o l i c y - a n d S t a l i n ' s p l a c e i n h i s t o r y .In ge ne r a l t e r m s , t h e d e b a t e s r e v e a l e d a s p l i t amongpolicymakers between "moderates" who favored a cont inua -t i o n of Khrushchevian p o l ic i e s and "neo-Sta l in i s t s " whoadvocated a r e t u r n t o more o rt ho d ox y i n p a r t y p o l i c y .In Khrushchev' s t i m e and through m o s t of 1965, Podgornyywas a le adi ng spokesman fo r t h e moderate l i n e , w h i l eShe lepi n and Suslov adopted a m o r e or thodox pos i t i on .Brezhnev apparent ly de termined e a r l y t h a t t h e ba lancew i t h i n t h e l e a d e r s h i p , i n t h e r e a c t i o n a g a i n s t K h r u s h c h e v ' sp o l i c i e s , would tend toward a c o n s o l i d a t i o n of t h e more

l f o o t n o t e c o n t i n u e d f r o m page 8 )R e l a t i o n s With Fore ign Cou nt r i e s . Wi th in t h e C e n t r a l Com-mittee a p p a r a t u s t h e y dominated t h e RSFSR Ag it pr op .Depart-ment; i n ad d it io n , one was RSFSR d e p u t y premier f o r ' i d e o -l o g i c a l q u e s t i o n s , and two o t h e r s h e l d t h e p o s i t i o n s ofMin i s t e r a nd Deputy M i n i s t e r of C u l t u r e RSFSR . AlthoughDemichev replaced t h e heads of a l a r ge pe r c e n t a ge o f t h epropaganda pos i t ions by l a t e 1965, most of t h e s e S h e l e p i na s s o c i a t e s r em aine d. Thus , de s p i t e s o m e a d d i t i o n s o fBrezhnev and Suslov pr ote ge s t o these p o s t s dur ing 1965,Demichev ' s r e s ta f f ing d i d n o t p e r c e p t i b l y r e d u c e S h e l e p i n ' ss t r o n g i n f l u en c e i n t h e pu b l i c m ed ia ..:Wdazurov had worked c l o s e l y w i t h Sh ele pin f o r a numberof yea rs i n t h e Komsomol, and t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p betweent h e m could d a t e even t o t h e 1 9 4 0 s , w h e n t h e y were i n v o l v e di n w a r t i m e p a r t i s a n a c t i v i t i e s .

-9 -


14/44

i

. . . . .:.. : ::::...-. ....;.::>.:.:.;,< 2:............! :

+@&.--.. -.>x .-*.x 3; "::........... :-\..y ....I . . . .

. .. . .- ... . .

. . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. ... ................. ...... . . . . . . .- . . . . ._..._ _._-..-: A


15/44

I - . - - .. . . . . . . . . . -... . . ... . .... .. .... . . . . ..--.~ _. .- .- . .--.. - .- > _ _ _..-_ -. .- -. . ._ - :LALOI

. ......... . . . ..... >....... . . .

. ...,,. .......:.-:*.

I~

, . c . . The most se r ious p o l i t i c a l s e t b a c k f o r P od go rn yy,however, came w i th t h e A p r i l t r a n s f e r of his fellow secre-t a r y a nd p r o t e g e, V.N. T i t o v , t o t h e p o s t of Kazakh Cen-.t r a l Comm i t t e e s ec ond s e c r e t a r y . Th i s was a clear demo-t i o n f a r T i t ov , who would consequent ly lose h i s p o s i t i o non t h e Secre t a r i a t a n d, e q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t , h i s p o s t a sch ie f of th e Par ty Organs Depar tment.no min all y "second i n command" b u t l a ck e d T i t o v ' s s u p p o r tin t h e Secretar ia t and appa ra tus , which became an arenaf o r maneuvering between Brezhnev and Sh el ep in . Althoughone of T i t o v ' s d epu t ie s , Ivan Ryazanov, soon dep a r tedf o r " t h e pe r ip h er y " t o a r e l a t i v e l y m inor s t a t e p o s t ,Podgornyy ma in ta ined a foothol d i n t h e depa r tment throughT i t o v ' s f i r s t d ep ut y, P e t r P ig al ev .*t h a t i t was a power play by Brezhnev which , a s i n t hecompromise appointment of Kul@kov in November, was intendedt o b y p a s s t h e normal decisionmaking machinery f o r suc hhi gh -l ev el moves--the Ce nt ra l Committee plenum. The ground-work had been l a id i n December f o r T i to v ' s eve ntu a l r ep lac e -m e n t, a l t h o u g h t h e r e was n o d i r e c t e v i d e n c e of a d e s i g non Brezhnev ' s pa r t t o p r e se n t a f a i t ac co m pl i t o t h eMarch plenum. Thu s, Iv an Kapitonov was br ou gh t t o Moscowfrom the provinc es t o head t h e Ce nt ra l Commit tee ' s Depar t-ment f o r RSFSR Party Organs , one of t h e f i r s t moves,

I

Podgornyy remained

The c ir c um sta nc es su r r ound ing T i to v ' s s h i f t s ugge s t

*T i t ov ' s po s i t i on s r em ained va c a n t u n t i l I van Ka pi tonovwas o f f i c i a l l y c on fi rm ed i n them i n December 1965 a t th esame plenum w h ich abol i shed Sh e le p in ' s Pa r ty -S ta t e Con-t r o l C ommittee and t r a ns f e r r e d She l e p in t o f u l l - t im e worki n t h e S e c r e t a r i a t . P i g a l e v h i m s e l f remained i n t h e de -par tment u n t i l t h e 23d P ar t y Congress , when he became chiefof a department of Podgornyy ' s Supreme Sovie t Pres idium--a good example of a Sov ie t lea de r look ing a f t e r his own.Organs Depa tmen t s ign a led an end t o t h e e r a o f i t s con-t r o l by Shelepin and Podgornyy.The removal of T it ov , Pig al ev , and Ryazanov from t h e P a r t y -

-11-mT


16/44

. .. .. . . . . . . . . ...... . . . ..... _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . __. -1 L - : - ; L L - - 2 . ; __.. "..d . X2"G-. .c

i n c i d e n t a l l y , t o f or es hadow na r e t u r n ' t o f a vo r of o f f i c i a l swho had s u ff e re d p o l i t i c a l se tbacks under Khrushchev.*Also i n December, V.V. Skryabin was removed as 'Rostovp a r t y chief and placed "at t h e d i s p o s a l of t h e C e n t r a lC o mm i t t e e ," h i s po s i t io n be ing adsumed by t h e seconds e c r e t a r y of theOKazakh C en t ra l Committee; Mi kh ailSolomentsev. ** /Aga ins t t h i s background , t h e b e l a t edt r a n s f e r of T i t o v t o Kazakhstan, l e ss t h a n t w o w e e ks a f t e rt h e March plenum, bore t h e s i g n s of a n - a d m i n i s t r a t i v ed e c i s i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e P o l i t b u r o o r t h e G e n e r alS e c r e t a r y h i m s e l f . Neve r the l ess , Kapi tonov was not-o f-f i c i a l l y confirm ed i n T i t o v ' s s e c r e t a r i a t and depar tmenta lpo s i t i on s u n t i l Podgom yy ' s " el eC t ion" t o t h e pres idencyi n December 1965.Sinc e T i t o v ' s re mova l d i d n o t imimediately r e s o l v et h e dead lock i n t h e Sec re t a r i a t , uneasy maneuvering con-t i n u e d . I l ' i c h e v ' s a nd T i t o v ' s s e c r e t a r i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e sf o r i d e o l o g i c a l matters and p a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n were re-as s ig ne d , r e sp ec t iv e l y , t o Demichev and (probably) Rudakov.T h i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t Brezhnev i n t e n d e d ' t o c o n t i n u e , f o r

*Former Moscow O b l a s t F i r s t S e c r e t a r y Kapitonov hadbeen e x i l e d t o Ivanovo i n 1959, a t i m e when t h e then- '" second i n command," A l e k s e y K ir ic he nko , a s w e l l asBrezhnev and others , were l o s ing g round t o s u c h r i v a l sa s Kozlov and Podgornyy. Kapi ton ov's r e t u r n probablywas d u e t o t h e patronag e of Brezhnev, S us lo v, and pos-s i b l y K i r i l e n k o .**Skryabin had been a c l o s e a s s o c i a t e of b o t h Brezhneva nd K i r i l e nko i n t h e U kra ini an pa r t y o r g a n i z a t i on and wasw e l l p laced f o r advancement; however, he has not r eap-peared i n any prominent po s i t i on and_ f a i l e d of C e n t r a l

Committee r e e le c t io n a t t h e 23d P a r t y C o n gr es s i n A p r i l1966. Like Kapitonov, Solomentsev appeared t o owe h i sa l l e g i a n c e p r im a r i ly t o Brezhnev a nd Sus lov .

-12-


17/44

i .... ;. . :,.p. ..

. .. ._...A_.._.... ._..... I.. .-....- .... .. .-..... ..-.. . .

. ... .

t h e t i m e being a t any r a t e , t o c u l t i v a t e - t h e . u p p or t ofc e r t a i n of t he younger genera t ion of secretaries mostc l ose l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e r i se of Shelepin. .*In addi t ion, Brezhnev began in the summer of 1965t o make ex tens ive changes i n th e Centra l Committee ap-p a r a t u s , e s p e c i a l l y where Podgornyy or S he l ep i n had hads u p er v is o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . N o t a l l t h e changes re-s u l t e d i n t h e displacement of t h e i r p r ot eg e s, bu t s e v e r a lclose a s s o c i a t e s of Brezhnev took command of importantdepar tment s . Brezhnev 's i n f lu enc e i n th e moves was-p a r t i c u l a r l y c l e a r r e g ar di ng t h e two depar tment s mostd i r e c t l y in vo lv ed i n a dm i ni s te r in g i n t e r n a l C e n t r a lCommittee affa iqs-- the Gene ral Department and t h e Adminis-t r a t i o n o f A f fa i r s . K ons t an ti n C he rnenko became ch ie f o ft he G enera l Departmen t o f f i c i a l l y i n Ju l y , havi ng se rveds i n c e 1 960 a s c h i e f o f B re zh ne v' s s e c r e t a r i a t on t h eSupreme Soviet P r e s i d i u m and (probably) of Brezhnev'sp e r s o n a l s t a f f on t h e C e n t r a l Committee S e c r e t a r i a t . I nt h e Administ ra t ion of Affa izs , Georg iy Pav lov rep lacedK.P. Chernyayev a s c h ie f , perh aps i n Ju ly when Chernyayevl a s t appeared i n t h i s r o l e . Pavlov had s t u d i e d and workedw i t h Brez hnev 'h Dneprodzerzhinsk i n t h e 1930s and prob-a b l y m a i n t a i n e d p o l i t i c a l t i e s l a t e r ; f o r example, he be-came party c h i e f i n an RSFSR o b l a s t soon a f t e r Brezhnev 'sp o s i t i o n o n t h e S e c r e t a r i a t and P o l i t b u r o im proved i n t h eshowdown w i t h t h e "an t i -par ty g roup" in 1957. Brezhnevapparen t ly was s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e pe r sonne l i n t he C en t r a lCommittee departments involved i n def ens e-r ela ted ands e c u r i t y work, s i n c e t h e y were v i r t u a l ly un touched. Most

*Rudakov for year s had super v i sed heavy ind us t ry ,and t h e ev i dence t ha t h e t ook on T i t ov ' s d u t i e s i n p a r tyo rgan i za t i on i s tenuous. In A p r i l , Rudakov received aCzech d e l e g a t i o n which had been in t h e Soviet Union s t u d y -i ng CPSU e x pe r ie n ce i n p a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n a l matters. I nJ u l y , he a tt e nd ed a Turkmen C e n tr a l Committee plenum whichd i s c u s s e d t h e r ec ru i t m en t , a s s i gnm en t , and t r a i n i ng ofl e ad i n g p a r t y o f f i c i a l s .

I -13-


18/44

, ... . .. .. .................-...................... ...............................-.& . .?.,.......... .

. .. . .

. ... .. . ...... . .. ~ .. .- ... - .. . -.-... ...... I; . --....

. ..___.........

of t h a i r . c h i e f s had been s i n c e t h e l a t e 1 95 0s i n , t h e s a m epos t s , - w he r e t he y may have I . een- s u p e r v i s e d - o r even nomin-a t e d by Brezhnev.During the summer of.1965,Brezhnev and Suslov ap-p a r e n t l y t r i e d t o pr e ve n t She l e p in f r om inc r e a s ing .h i si n f luence 'over the propaganda media. i n l a t e June, threeof S h e l e p i n ' s c r o n i e s from h i s K om s om o l reign--S.K.Romanovskiy , N.A. Mikbaylov ,' nd A.M. ,Subbotin--wererumored t o be l e ad i n g c a p d i d a t e s , t o f i l l t h e v a can cy ofIz ve s t y a ch ief edi tor"whAch. Stepakov'.s.transfer tAgi tprop Depar tment c rea ted . By t h i s accou nt , th e f i n a l

d e c i s i o n was pending Demichev's re t u r n from v a c a t i o n inmid-quly, but as i t tu rned out a d e c i s i o n w a s announcedo n l y a t t he e nd of September, when Lev Tolkunov was t r a n s -f e r r e d t o t h e I z v es t iy a p o s t fro m t h e B l o c Department (inwhich he had r i s e n t o prominence under Su slo v and Andropov).Le s s t ha n t w o w e e ks e a r l i e r , P r a vda ' s e d i t o r - i n - c h i e fRumyantsev had been rep lac ed i n t h e wake of a cont rove r -s i a l a r t i c l e e s pousing t he m ode ra te l i ne . R um ya nt se v'sreplacement , Mikha il Zimyanin, appeared t o be a compromisec a nd ida t e , ha v ing career ties with Shelepin Idazurov, andSuslov among t h e P o l i t b u r o m e m b e r s .By the end of s umme r , numerous rumors c i rcula t ingi n Moscow sugg ested t h a t t h e " ta l en t ed" She l ep in was about

t o t a k e o v er from a pas si ve and incompetent Brezhnev i na major upheaval of t h e t op l e a de r s h ip . The o r i g in oft h e s e rumors was usu al ly obsc ure , a l tho ugh s o m e t r a c e dt o dubious sources of t h e KGB or t o e l e me n ts h o s t i l e : , t ot h e S o v i e t begime. Many may have been pu re ly sp ec u la ti v eopi n io ns based on a pro je c t io n of She lep in ' s me teor icc a r e e r . I n any case , t h e o n ly t a n g i b l e i n d i c a t o r t h a the might , i n fac t , have been b idding for t h e supreme partyp os t a t t h a t t i m e was the publ ica t ion of s e v e ra l a r t i c l e si n t h e s p e c i a l i z e d p r e s s f a v o r i n g an u p gr ad in g of S h e l e p i n ' sPa r ty -Sta t e Cont ro l Committee. These a r t i c l e s implieda t h r e a t t o t h e pa r ty c on t r o l a ppa ra tus- - al r ea dy s i g n i f i--ca n t l y a t r oph ied from Khrushchev' s t ime--by arg uin g th a tt h e p a r t y - s t a t e c o n t r o l a p p a r a t u s s h ou l d co o r d i n a t e t h ee f f o r t s o f a l l o r g a n i z at i o n s i n vo l ve d i n " c o nt r o l" a c t i v i t y ,r a t h e r t h a n s e r v e i n tandem w i t h t h e p a r t y c o n t r o l o r g a n i -z a t i o n as t h e r e g u l a t i o ns s t i pu l a t e d . W hatever t h e a c t u a l

-14-


19/44

- .

.. .. ., . ..... I i. .~..- .......-... ................ .. .... ........ - .

1 . , , I . *a,: ,.,.. , . .

. . .c i r c& $ances . surrh$nding th e' rumoreh ,Shelep in '--which"re&iin" unclear to t h i s day-FBreqhney :.sof ' -prof;'eges: in, he e n t r a 1 Committee,appa.+atus*t r a d i c t e d t h e ' c d a & c f e r i e a t i o n ' o f him ,as a pashead. , .' In t h i s h ig h ly : i l u i i , s i t u a t i o n , when .She,lep$n.,ap-peared t o be. pres s i.@:' fo r . advant age , . - , ~ ezhn ev , j be cam ~ ' ,~ n -crea ' s ingly. asser t ive , i n e s ta b l i s h in g : t h e a u t h o r i t y , qf t h eGenera &% ,S ec re ar p. ' : W i l y . n September, .Brezhfiev w e n t 'a l o n e . t o ' P o i a n d ' f o r ; h i s f ou rit h round 'of alks wi th .Gomulka

since Khruslicpev's ouster ; Kosygin.had.chaperoned him' thef i r s t t h r ee ,.t$qes. -The s t eno graph ic , account.of the. .MarchC e n tr a l Committee plenum, which showed,Brezhnev i n a veryf a v o r a b le l i g h t , .a p pe a re d . a t . he same . t i m e ( i t &.a.beens ig ne d t o . t h e p r e s s on 7 A ugus t, a f t e r an appa ren t . del ayi n paqs ing t he ' censo r , siynce i t had been s e t i n t y p e ,by3 June)..which con t a i ned t he f i r s t i d en t i f i c a t i on o f .Brezhnev a schairman of the RSFSR Bureau, w a s av a i l ab l e abou t tw o'w eeks l a t e r , on t h e e v e of a C en tr al Committee plenum a tw h i c h Brezhnev would fu rt h er co ns ol ida te h i s p o s i t i o n .

, . I . . > < I , . 1 -. ' > & L ' , ... . . . . . . : . , , :" 1 . - ". . ' ../ . - . .

The 1965 Yearbook of th e h r g e So vie t Encyc lopedia ,

The outcome of the September Central Committee plenumand th e Supreme So vi et se ss io n which immediately fol lowedt h e plenum indicated that Brezhnev w a s a b le f i n a l l y t osurmount t h e e a r l i e r o bs er ve d o b s t a c l e s t o c o n s o l i d a ti o n .The plenum approved t h e e l e c t i o n of A g r i c u l t u r e DepartmentChie f Kulakov t o t h e S e c r e t a r i a t , f i l l i n g t h e vacancyt h a t had ex i s t ed a l m os t one year . I t a l s o f o r ma l ly d i s -m i s s e d T i to v a s p a r t y s e c r e t a r y f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l qu es-t i o n s , wi th out , however , des igna t in g a rep lacement . I tprobably a l s o conf irmed t h e app oin tme nts of Zimyanin andTo lkunov a s ch i e f ed i t o r s o f P ravda and I z ves t i ya , a l t hought h i s was not o f f i c a l l y announced, and approved t h e organi -za t iona l changes which t h e Supreme So vi et s es si on was t or a t i f y . T h e m o s t important of t h e s e s s i o n ' s a p po in tm e nt swas t h e p ro mo ti on o f . P o l ya n s k i y t o f i r s t d ep ut y pr e m ie r ,p res um ab ly r e f l e c t i n g a s h i f t i n t h e l e ade r sh i p i n B rezhnev ' sf avo r . One o f B r ez hn ev 's o l d e s t a nd c l o s e s t a s s o c i a t e sfrom t h e Ukraine, Nikolay Tikhonov, w a s among t h e threenew d e p u t y prem iers whom th e se ss io n appointed. Less im . -p o r t a n t , b u t s t i l l s i g n i f i c a n t as i nd i ca t o r s of B rezhnev 's

-15-


20/44

I - i n m e a s e d s t a t u r e i n t h e p a r t y . l e a de r s h+ p , were. the p lenum' s(f..i i r i f g r e t i o n . of .7gi$yas'she'Pdbk?!:Congress ;@Qc months 'lir'ter,&arid'-he s e s s i o n l s.. I . . :;elec-t i o n 'of him .as'-'a'%ember b$'-'the 'S up re me .S ov ie t' Presidium.'*,. . i ; * i . .,, ;:, J -8 : :.:.,.:-:>. 'C.? -9 . " 3 1 '"" ! ,< I : , ! . . .,. . , .... One of th e minor perso nnel changes a t t h e s e s s i o nf i t l n t o a l a rg e r scheme of maneuv ering between Brezhnev* an d ' Podgornyy'. 'T@s was the"nam&ng'bF'Ukrainian PremierXazanets t o t h e p os t of Minf s t e r - o f nFe r r ous Me ta ll u r gy,'"which opened th e door t o th e app6intment o f V.V.;Shcher-b i t s k i y t o ' t h e U k ra ik ia n p r e m ie r sh i p , t h e p o s i t i o n h eha d l o s t t o K a za ne ts i n 1963. A lthough it w a s Khrushchevd h o , h a d a t t a c k e d S h c h e r b i t s k i y a t t h a t t i m e and probablyi n s i s t e d on h i s t r a n s f e r t o t h e lesser p o s i t i o n o f oblas tp a r t y boss i n Dnepropetrovsk, Podgornyy had seemed t o bethe main bene f ic ia ry of t h e 1963 move among t h e m e m b e r sof t h e P o l i t b u r o a nd S e c r e t a r i a t . * * I t seemed c l e a r , a ta n y r a t e , t h a t S h c h e r b i t s k i y l o o k e d t o Brezhnev fo r s uppor t .The f a c t t h a t S h c h e r b i t s k iy fo un d refuge i n Brezhnev ' sba il iw ic k of Dnepropetrovsk may have been more t ha n symbolic

* .Brezhnev's po s i t i on on th e s t a t e P r e s i d i u m , a s w e l la s t h e e l e v a t i o n o f h i s a d op te d a l l y P ol ya ns ki y t o f i r s tdeputy premie r , may have inc r eased Brezhnev ' s l eve rage ont he .g o ve rn m en t s i d e s u f f i c i e n t l y t o a l l o w s e t t i n g up t h es h i f t s of Podgornyy and Sh ele pin , di sc us se d below. Thepubl i she d dec i s ion t o hold t he 23d Congress i n ear ly - 1966marked t h e s t a r t o f j oc ke y ing f o r C e n t r a l C omm it te e- posi -t i o n s a t b o t h hi gh and low l e v e l s .

**K az anet s, p r i o r t o d i s p l a c ing Sh c he r b i t s k i y , had beenPodgornyy ' s second sec re ta ry . 'Anothe r Ukra in ian pa r t yle ad er who ro se t o prominence under Podgornyy and presum-a b ly ga ve h im p o l i t i c a l s u p p o r t , P e t r S h e l e s t , becameU kr a in i a n f i r s t s e c r e t a r y . S h e l e s t d i d n o t a c h ie v e t h es t a t u s of f u l l P o l i t b u r o member t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l l y w e n tw i t h t he t o p U kra ini a n pa r t y po s t , pe r haps be c ause U kra in -i a n s a l r e a d y h e l d s e v e r a l v o t e s on. t h e body. Thus, t h ecand ida t e membersh ip s l o t which S hc he r b i t sk i y had he ldw ent t o S h e l e s t r a t h e r t ha n t o Ka za ne ts .

-16-


21/44

. . . I. .. . ..._. . . . . ..- . ._ ...._ _. . : __.,- .. . - . . . '.. ..- ..-.. .,. _. .. . . .. ._ .__..

of t h e i r p a s t "career a s s o c i a t i o n . ' S h c h e r b i t s k i y , who hasbeen a n outspoken' advocate of Brezhnev' s p o l i c i e s , , r e g a i n e dhis candida te ' nkmbership on - the PSl i ' tburo a t t h e f i rs to p p o r t u n i t y a f t e r reappointment , :as,W a s n i a n .p r \ h i e r - - a tthe same Dec embe r 1965 Cen t ra l Committee p le num , tha t e as e dP od go rn yy i n t o t h e r e l a t i v e l y t o o t h l e s s , p re si d en c y.c o n t r a s t , ' h e a n e t s had f a i le d -- p re s um a bly due t o Brezhnev' soppos i t i on - - t o a c h ie ve Po l i t b u r o s t a t u s e v e n a ' f t er S h e l e s t ' sadvance i n November 1964 had c r ea t ed a *vacancy a t th ec a n d i d a t e l e v e l .By

The December 1965 Breakthrough- .-... .. .. ..-... ..._.. . ._... . ... ..., .. .'... . ... . 'The December 1965. C en tr al Committee plenum sig na le da major breakthrough for Brezhnev i n h i s d r iv e f o r t o t a lc o n t r o l of t h e S e c r e t a r i a t , I t a b o l i s h e d S h e l e p i n t s P ar t y -S t a t e Con t ro l Committee in c i r c um s ta nc e s s ugge s t i ng arubber-s tamp approval of a f a i t accom li. Thus Brezhnevde l i ve r e d a n i n f o r m a t iona l --e--e p o r t "soobshcheniye")r a t h e r t h a n the normal r e po r t for discussion (" d ok l ad " ) ,and t h e plenum communique l i s t e d no one a s having spokenon i t . Regarding pe rsonne l ma t te r s , t h e plenum approvedt h e appointment of Kapitonov as p a r t y sec re ta ry (and c h i e fof t h e Party -Org aniza t ion al Work Depar tment) and re e l ec te d

S h c h e r b i t s k i y a candida te m e m b e r of t h e P o l i t b u r o .A Supreme Sov ie t s e s s ion s ubs e que n t l y t i d i e d upt h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p i c t u r e , of which t h e plenum' s d i s -s o l u t i o n o f t h e Par ty- Sta te Co ntr ol Commit tee had beenon ly one pa r t . Podgornyy's replacement of t h e semi- re t i r -i n g Mikoyan, . whose departure from t h e pr es id en cy a numberof s ou rce s had p r e d i c t e d s i n c e l a t e 1964 , meant givingup h i s "second i n command" position on t h e S e c r e t a r i a t . *

* Altho ug h n ot o f f i c i a l l y r e l i e v e d of h i s s e c r e t a r i a ld u t i e s u n t i l t h e 23d Party Congress t h e f o l l o w i n g A p r i l ,Podgornyy had ceased t o fun ct io n i n t h i s c a pa c it y a f t e rbecoming p r e s i d e n t .

-17-C W


22/44

. .. . . . . . . . . ..-_......... .... r - r i..... .. . ...-. . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. ....... . . .C . . :. . . . ...... :......._....


23/44

. ,. . ........ ~. ._ , . . . , , , _ _ _ _ ,__. _ .. . . . . .__.:._ _____._.--.- ...-.. _.__ .. _ __ .._- .. .. -. . . - .-I -... .

I I

t h e res t of t h e P o l i tbu ro: - and t he Secretaria t i n h i e r -a r c h i c a l o r d e r . - c

Brezhnev 's list;-kf t h e t o p l e a d e r s was o u t ofa l p h a b e t i c a l o r d e r arfdord er . The s tenograp h r e c o r d of t h e cong ress , whichg av e a l s o t h e o f f i c i a l l y 'dpptoved r e g i s t r a t i o n of a pp 3au se( no t n e c e s s a r i l y a c c u ra t e l y r e f l e c t i n g a c t u a l a p p l au s e ),showed t ha t Brezhnev ranked Sus lov h ighe r than e i t h e rShe lep in or K i r i l e n k o i n b o th t h e S e c r e t a r i a t and t h eP o l i t b u r o :

esumably represente-d the pecking

8 ,

&%era1 Secretary of t h e C e n t r a l Gnunittee,and memb e r of t he Po l i t bu ro : Brezhnev (s tormy,long unaba t ing applause) .Mem b e r s of t h e P o l i t b u r o :Kosygin (s tormy, prolonged applause);Podgornyy (s tormy, prolonged applause);Suslov ( s to rmy, p ro longed applause) ;Voronov (applause) ;K i r i l enko ( app l ause ) ;Shelep in (app lause) ;h z u r o v ( a p p l a u s e ) ;Polyansk iy (app lause) ;S h e l e s t ( a p p l a u s e ) ; andP e l ' she ( app l ause ) .Candidate m e m b e r s of t h e P o l i t b u r o of t h e CPSUCentral Committee:Demichev (applause) ;G ri sh i n ( app l ause ) ;Mzhavanadze (applause) ;Rashidov (applause) ;Ust inov (applause) ;S h c h e r b i t s k i y ( a p p l a u s e ) ;Kunayev (applause) ;hlasherov (applause).

-19-


24/44

. . . . . . .. . ............................ ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. c. . .;: _-..:~ . - ~ - - ~ ~ ~.

. .Secretarjes. .f t h e C en tr al C.ommittee:*I: t . . ..t Brezhnev An dropovponomarev

' - .hpi.ton.ovShege+n' . ' "$uslov . .,,iri&enko'' ' ' . , ; Xula.kDv' . .. " .Rudakov ,.. ..I dI '( .: .D&tiiefiev.; ;. . . . . .. " l js t inov .. . .2 _ _ .' .. "" .An e a r l y . s t g n of Sus Pov's h i gh r a nk i n ' h e ' Secre-t aq i a t had a pp ea re d a t t h e . b e g in n i n g of t h e congress - , i nh&q. p r e s i d i n g a.t t h e f i r s t sessimn--a f u nc t i on t r a d i t i o n -

d.'J;lsy. ssocia ted with the "second. in command. " H i s s t a t u s. thus. . lyeceived a. f u r t h q r boast .from t h e ' f a c t t h a t i n Brezh-.nev'.:s.l i s t , She l e p in r anke d . h ighe r t ha n K i r i l e n ko . i n t h e: .secretar iat b u t lower i n t h e P o l i t b u r o . T h i s t r ea tm e nt0f::t:he l ong- time s p e c i a l i s t i n i n t e r n a t i o na l Communista f f a i r s vis-a-vis t h e tw .0 or g a n i z a t i on a l . st r ongm en on t h e:Sec r e t a r i a t served t o heig hten Brezhnev's prominence b yp la c in g t he G enera l' Se c r e t a r y a n e x t r a s t e p above t h es e n i o r s e c r e t a r y (or.S e c r e t a r i es ) i n l i n e f o r c o n t r o l ofper .sonne1 ass ignments .Ferment Among t h e S en io r S e c r e t a r i e s : S h e l e p i n ' s I s o l a t i o n

K i r i le n k o ' s a d d i t i o n t o t h e S e c r e t a r i a t , w h i c h re-s u l t e d f r o m t h e a b o l i t i o n of t h e Bureau f o r t h e RSFSR andt r a n s f e r of i t s f un c t i o ns and pe r s onne l t o t h e c e n t r a la p p a r a t u s , r e q u i r e d a r e s h u f f l i n g of p o r t f o l i o s w i th i nt h e S e c r e t a r i a t . In t h e immediate post-congress p e r i o d ,She lepin devoted more and more t i m e t o s u p e r v i s i n g p a r t ywork i n l i g h t in du s t ry and consumer goods ( d u t i e s w h i c hPodgornyy had had a l s o b u t which were s e c onda r y t o h i sp a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a ss ig nm en t) . The a c t i v i t i e s of Suslovand K ir i l e nko t h r oughou t most of 1966 be t rayed noth ing?

*I nd iv idua l a pp l a us e fo r s e c r e t a r i e s w a s no t r e g i s t e r e di n t .he s t e nogr a ph i c record .

-20-


25/44

. . ...- ........ I..... ... ._.-. .. ......__.. ...._.. .,.. . , ._.... .-... . .. ... . . . .

very new. about t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s b ut seemed t o i n d i -c a t e t h a t t h e two c m t i n u e d t h e i r p r e v i o u s involyementi n r e s p e c t i v e l y f o r e i g n . Communist re la t ions , and RSFSRi ndus t ry .achieved Po1i''buro agreement on a "second i n c k n d " a tt h i s t i m e . .Brezhnev apparen t ly d id not f i n d a way o u tof t he dead lock among t he s en i o r s e c r e t a r i e s fo r .som et i m e , dur ing which th e r i v a l s fo r und i spu t ed s econd p l acejockeyed - incon c lus ive ly for p o s i t i o n .'Brezhnev and 'K iri le nk o may have j o i ned fo rce s

a g a i n s t S h e l e p i n i n l a t e J u l y 1966 t o f o r e s t a l l t h e ap-poi ntm ent 'of Vadim Tikunov a s ch ie f of t h e new l y cen t r a l i z edm i l i t i a . Tikunov, m o s t c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h S h e l e p i n ,Mazurov, and:Delhichev i n th e p a s t , had been a shoo-in fort h e p o s t . A s t h e t o p m i l i t i a o f f i c i a l b e fo r e t h e c e n tr a -l i z a t i o n was announced on 26 J u ly , Tikunov had le d a majorcrime campaign during l a t e 1965 and e a r l y 1966 and hadwon Kosygin ' s pu bl i c suppor t fo r incre ased an t i -c r imemeasures . Neve r the le ss , t he 2-3 August sess ion of t h eSupreme S ov i e t , i n r a t i f y i ng t h e es t ab l i shm en t of t h enew m i l i t i a m i n i s t r y , f a i l e d t o a pp o i nt T ikunov i t s head.A f te r alm ost two months' de la y, t h e pos i t i on w en t t oNikolay Shchelokov, whose career in t h e Ukraine andMoldavia m u s t have brought h i m t o t h e a t t e n t i o n of Brezh-nev and Ki ri l en ko . Tikunov d i s c r e e t l y f a d e d i n t o t h ewoodwork.

Conceivably J . Brezhnev had .noti prop osed or

The appointment of Mikh ail Solomentsev i n November1966 a s c h i e f of t h e Central Committee's Heavy IndustryDepartment i n pla ce of t h e deceased S ec r et ar y Rudakov wass ym bolic of t h e s t a n d s t i l l i n t he S e c r e t a r i a t . S ol om en tsevhad appea red c l o s e r t o S us lov t han t o Brezhnev and K i r i l -enko. Brezhnev may have had dou bts abou t Sol ome nts ev 'sl o y a l t i e s s i n c e 1962, when a purge of Brezhnev 's protegeKunayev i n Kazakhs tan resu l t ed i n t h e promotion of Solomentsevi n t h e new Kazakh regime. Also, Solomentsev replaced ac l o s e a s s o c i a t e of Brezhnev and Kiri lenko, V.V . Skryabin ,a s R os tov pa r t y ch i e f i n l a t e 1964; S usl ov p re s i ded ove r

-21-~ . _ . . .. ...


26/44

. . ... , ...... ... . , - .. . . . . .. .. _..\

. . . . .. . . .. . ,: ' . ? ' ;

. .- _.--.---...Ia. -.- .......-.._....: .:


27/44

.__.__:.-c: ..--.. . . . . .'I ................ ..i:.......... .-


28/44

... , , . . .*-- 1I I

. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .

. . . . ... ...... . .. ......_.- .. - ............... . . . .~................. .-.. . . ._.................1.5-. .. .. . . . .

r e t e n t i o n of h i s Central Committee membership. A , t h i r df i r s t deputy' premier' thus ' was c rea ted in ' tlie 'Ukraineunder 'Shche rb i t sk iy ; a t - leas t t w o 'of ' them, Semichastpyyand Nikolay Sobol ' , have ' independent po l i t i c a ' l suppopta n d 't h e - p o t e n t i a l f o r ' ca u s in g trouble f o r S h c h er b i ts k i y. .. . . - .(and thus . Io r h i s presumed, p a t r o n , . rezhnev). . . .' The June 1967 C e n t r a l . Committee plenum approvedAndropov's re lease ' e x o s t - f a c t o f r o m h i s s e c re t a r i a l 'p o s i t io n and p r c p o t aktm o l i tb u r o a s a ' c a nd ida t em e m b e r . However; it named no s u c c e s so r t o t a k e u p Sisd u t i e s i n s u p er v i si n g r e l a t i o n s ' w i t h t h e r u l i n g C o s u n i s t

pa,rties. T h i s i n a ct i o n a t f i r s t appeared t o r e f l e c t anotma1 de la y i n f i l l i n g t h e sudden vacancy ra the r thans e r i ou s d i sa g re em e nt on a replacement . Two j u n i o r f u n c -t l o n a r i e s , how ever, I i n a l l y succeeded him i n t h e C e n t r a lCommittee p o s t s a f t e r a lm o st one y e a r ; t h i s p r o c r a s t i n a-t i o h and t h e d i v i s i o n o f h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s s u g g e s t e dp o l i t i c a l com promise.The Sem ic ha stnyy a f f a i r a pp a r e n t l y d i d n o t s i twell w i t h an important echelon of the p a r t y - - t h e y o u n gs u p p o r t e r s of She lepin . A l e a d i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h i sgroup, Moscow party chief Yegorychev, attacked Brezhnev'sl e a d e r s h i p a t the June plenum, which had be en c a l l e d t o 'put a s tamp of a ppr ova l on t he r e g im e ' s m i l i t a r y a nd

d i p lo m a ti c e f f o r t d ur in g t h e A r a b - I s r a e l i c o n f l i c t . Thee v e n t s a n d i s s u e s sur rounding t h e plenum a re r e l e v a n tt o ' B r e zh n e v ' s o v e r a l l p o s i t i o n and a r e t r e a t e d e ls ew he re .Tffe impor tan t po i n t r ega rd ing power re l a t io n s among t h es e ni o r s e c r e t a r i e s is t h a t t h e d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n t ak e na ga ins t B r e z hne v ' s c r i t i c , Yegorychev, began a chain ofe v e n t s e nd in g i n S h e l e p i n ' s o u s t e r from t h e S e c r e t a r i a t .Brezhnev began h i s power play w i t h t yp i c a 1 i n d i r e c t i o n ,t r a ns f e r r i n g Y egorychev t o a m i n i s t e r i a l pos t and e ngine er -i n g t h e " e l e c t i on" of Pol i tburo candida te member G r i s h i nas Moscow p a r t y boss i n l a t e J une , a f e w d a y s a f t e r t h eC en t r a l Committee plenum had en d ed . I n J u l y , S h e l e p i nwas i n s t a l l e d i n G r i s h i n ' s p l a c e a s ch air ma n of t h e A l l -Ungon Central Council of Tra de U nions, v i r t u a l l y t h e lowestpogt c a r r y i ng Po l i t b u r o m embersh ip . ( I n f a c t , G r i s h i nm b on ly a Po l i t b u r o c a n d ida t e , a nd She l e p in c ould c on-c e iva b ly be downgraded a t t h e next p a r t y congress i f he


29/44

. .

.. . . . ... ... .. . . .. ... . .. . ... .. ... . . . . . .._.. ... . ..I...... .. . .

I , , .s t a y s i n t h e pos t; .) She l e p in ' s -of i d a ' l ' . d i s m i s s a l ' - f r o mt h e 'Secretar ia t a t ' t h e September ...1967~'.C6ntral'.,COiujittee. f -. I . -.plenum was'. 'a..foregone conclusion. . , . , .\ 1 .;... . . e. . - . . - .' I. , .. .. .. . I. . '.:.. 2 , ' . ,K i r i l e n k o * s _..Emergence- i . , ..as "Second" Secretary' , L '. . .. . -

After sidetracking,.,Sheleqin,rezhnev had only twosen ior secre taries to cont,end wit h--S usl ov 'a'nd K i r i enkoS i g n s t h a t K i r i l e n k o s u p e rv i s ed t h e Department of Pa r ty -O r g an i za ti o na l -W o r k s u gg e st e d t h a t , d e s p i $ e - t h e f a c tt h a t S u s l ov s u pe rv i se d S h e l ep i n 's i n s t a l l a t i o n a s t r a d eu n i o n c h i e f , * Kirilenko may have become:;Brezhnev' s "secondi n command" by t h a t t i m e .p a rt y -o r ga n iz a ti o na l r e s p o n s i b A li t i e s s i n c e . u s t a f t e rt h e 23d P a r ty Congress . A t t h a t t i m e , h i s l ong- timesubordina te f rom the Cent ra l Commit tee appa ra tus ( re spon-s i b l e f o r a pp oi nt me nt s t o RSFSR i n d u s t r i a l p oS ks ),Voronovskiy, became deputy and then f i r s t deputy t oKapitonov.

In f a c t , he may have had

The o f f i c i a l who f i n a l l y , i n A p r i l 1 96 8, pi ck ed u pA nd ro po v's s e c r e t a r i a t p o r t f o l i o f o r s u p e r v i s i n g t h e BlocDepartment was Kon stan tin Katushev, a young au to de sig ne rturned pa r t y adminis t ra tor :- f rom Gor 'k iy . Katushev ro ser a p i d l y i n t h e G or 'k i y p a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n a p p a r e n t l y duet o K i r i l e n k o 's i n fl u en c e i n t h e RSFSR Bureau. He probablya l s o owed something of h i s c a re e r t o t h e promoted M.T.Yefremov, whom h e r ep l ac ed a s G or 'k i y p a r t y c h i e f i n l a t e1965. Brezhnev has re g i s t e re d app rova l of Katushev i ns e v e r a l ways , no ta b ly i n h i s unus ual a ppea r a nc e a t t heprovinc ia l pa r ty p lenum which r a t i f i e d t h e Yefremov-K atus he v s h i f t . D e s p it e K a tushe v 's you th f u lne s s , thereis no th ing i n h i s bac kground t o s u gg e st p a s t p o l i t i c a l

*On t h a t occa s ion , Sus lov revea led how low She l epin .had f a l l e n i n t h e consensus of h i s P o l i t b u r o c o l l e a g u e s ,e xp r e s s in g t h e i r hope t h a t he would p r ove t o be a "worthy"l e a d e r of t h e t r a de un ions .

-25--


30/44

. .., . ..- . .I_*.,_._ .. .. .__ . . ______..._...I-. .- ~~ .. .

a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h S h el ep i n; ,.much';e s s. d id . he. have ,disceSn-ab le . . . ies;w$fh' eu s lo v lo? d,ropbv, srnce';he h$d v i$ tua l l y .no. expe r ience i n '.foi+ign f a i r s . p r%or"'.to','becoiuing,.m e m b e r of t h e Brezhnev team:'.' His'a ssig nme nt,. ' t o' , t h i s a r e ab or e. a l l t h e s i gn s of a n a t t e m p t by Brezhnev. and K ir il en kot o dlace a t r u s t e d - , aTty adminis t rae ns u r e t h e implement'alt'ion ' of' : ' the%'e S e c r e t a r y ' s -d a i l y !d e c i s i o n s i n B lo c a f f a i r s . *an .d . S~ ez ep in , 'ro m t h e ' , S & c r e t a r i a tand . p : lacing Ki r i l sn koin;:charge' of . 'cadres wa.s:re$lected: i n k li e, -p ro mo ti ono.f . .f Y.e..Cente al Committee can d.i dat es w i t h a. m i l i t a r y , orR8BSR..'background t o f u l l .meQbership a t %he- pril 1968, 'plenum;" They rep lac ed: deceased l ea d er s whose b ackground,i n c i d e n t a l l y , ' su gg es te d t i e s maLnly w k t h Shelepin, Pod-gornyy; and Mazurov.i n g. p o s i t i o n s w i t h Central Committee s t a t u s s i n c e K i r i l en k ohas . t aken ' cha rg e , bu t i n mos t case s they have. . e i n f o r c e dt h i s t r e n d .

a.:,pos;_ition, o

': .; .* BI;&+~ t .appar&t. g u ~ c ~ & ~T,&.i&diig. ...pddgorqyy

There 'have been f e w cGanges i n l ead-

*Andropov?s o th e r p os i t io n a s ch i e f of t h e Bloc Depart-ment went t o Konstant in Rusakov, one of Andropov's de par t -m e n ta l de pu t i e s He f i r s t appeared i n p u b l i c a s c h i e falmost two weeks before t h e A p r i l p lenum t h a t e lec t edKaTushev a secre tary. This w oul d sugg es t t h a t Rusakovwas i n l i n e f o r b o t h p o s t s b u t l o s t o u t t o K atush ev i na l a s t minute move a t t h e plenum.

-26


31/44

. .

. . . . .. .: ; . _.:. .

.. ..:>-::..:...e. ~.. .>:.. ... . ... .,. .._........ . . ...... . . .. . ..... ... .

._ . :. .'-THECOMPETX,TION.-W.ITm-P-IER. 'KOSYGIN 'r .i . . I , . '.. . - l e . ,;" : . -; .-.*;'..t.,!.. . .: 1 _ - .. . . .. - . . .. .. - .. ." :.;,$'.:,x. E!, r , *-.,.\: '. ;>y:.l " ' . ., , . .. . . . One of. rezlh'nev'-s.


32/44

. .. . . .. .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . .. .

...........,::.- ..... . >:< :+ .v.:..%...................^.-.. ......-.,.... ."...................

... ......

. . . . . . .-7 -.,:_"I Is a y d i d no t s uppor t the,:h-pagp .-of:o l l e c t , i v i t y - nh .ich t h eregime had been a t t e m pt ing t o f o s t e r . A no the r c u t a tKosygin's "equal" s t a t u s o c c u rr e d i n p r o t o c o l a rr an g em en tswhen ,the .two - l e a d e r s ,went +p :zooland . .in e a r l y Ap r il t o re-

c -ew, ,a f r i e n d s h i p ,*act*, Desp*t.eJ:repor.ts from Marsaw a se a r l y a s , Jll,,&trq~,$ha-t- Kosygin::aa-s. acc om pa ny ing Breehnevt o t h e signin g-cerqm ony, , t h e f irs t eTA SS announcement on&7j March did not , me$ion Kosygin; . i t d i d reveal, however,$hait Brezhnev .would:.head the ,de lega t ion . . I This prominencecolitrasted w i t h ear l ier p r p t o c o l r t 's i n c e t h e two . l eaders?nembersof a, team, .with n e i th e r , s a g l e d o u t a s a delega-tiion head .

, ,-ha$,gone to Poland . i n October 1.964 a nd J a nua r y 1965 ; a s

, The September 1965 C e n t r a l Committee plenum, whichme.t t o d i s c u s s a ref-orm of th e sys tem of plan ning andi n d u s t r i a l management, should have been Kosygin ' s show.I n s t e a d , i t was a "ba lanced" a f f a i r . I t h e a r d Kosygind e s c r i b e h i s compromise version of economic reform i n th emain report and Brezhnev present t h e p a r t y ' s t a s k s i n as e p a r a t e speech. I n t h e a br id g ed o f f i c i a l v e r s io n of h i ss pe e c h , Brezhnev p ropose d s e ve r a l i n s t i t u t i o n a l checkson the govepnment w i t h i n t h e framework of g e n e r a l l y i n t e n -s i f i e d p a r t y c o n t r o l . H e d e l i v e r e d a second speech ons c he du l ing t h e 23d Pa r ty C ongr es s f o r s i x m on ths l a t e r .The plenum decree confirmed Brezhnev a s t h e main rapporteurt o t h e c ongr e s s f o r t h e C e n t r a l Commit tee , w h i l e Kosyginwas named t o de l i ve r a r e po r t on t h e 1966-1970 economicp l a n .Brezhnev and Kosygin remained on a f a i r l y even k e e l f o ra b o u t a y e ar a f t e r t h e September 1965 plenum, during w h i c ht i m e t h e press gave each roughly equa l t r ea tment . How-e v e r , t h i s changed i n e a r l y November 1966 t o t h e d e t r i m e n tof Kosygin . Espe c ia l ly no t ic eab le was t h e prominent cover-agg gi ve n t o a speech Brezhnev made a t an award ceremonyin ' G e or g i a o h 1 November; by c o n t r a s t , a few column i n c h e swere d ev ote d t o K os yg in 's a c t i v i t i e s t h e s a m e day i nDonetsk, where h e a d d r e s s e d a par ty-economic a kt iv . O t h e rspeeches by Kosygin a t th a t t ime--a t a 2 November confe r -en ce i n Krivoy Rog and a 26 November al l- u n io n semi narof t r a de union l e a d e r s i n Moscow, f o r example--have n e v e r

Despite a number of u p s and downs , r e la t ions -be tween

-28-


33/44

. . . . . . . ... .I , . I ........... il.:.. . . . . . . . . . --I.-.' . 2 .- L ....... ........ :-...--- .- ................ . .r.r.-

. . . .~... .

. .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. . ...

, 'd . .. ,

been published. kosyg$n"continued t o s t a y - i n t h e back-ground"in-*Deceihbt?r, f a' iz ih g "even t o speak a t the SupremeSevi-et' -'session'iwhich approvdd th e 1967 p l a n and, budget .Brezhnev ,--Jgn:'the o t h e r : a n d , r ece i ved t h e ) coun try's: high-e s t m i l i t a r y ' o r d e r on *hi$ 60'th b i r t h d a y a t a s p e c i a l cere-m on y.a t - t ~ e . & n df t h e sdss i on (which accord ing t o onerepo r t ' w as de l ayed ' t o prov'ide a f i t t i n g ' o c c a si on for t h eaward? .--niJEar l ierin th e -month I Kir i l en ko had broken ataboo ctjf c o l l e c t i v i t y *by p r a i s i n g Brezhnev 's personalq u a l i t i e s a s a wartime p o l i t i c a l l e ad e r .* W hatever t h er e a s o n s f o r K os yg in 's e c l i p s e i n l a t e 1966, Brezhnev tookadvantage of h i s own ascendancy in t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t oe x e r t more v i go rous l e ade r sh i p of t h e c o l l e c t i v e .. . ...-.._..-- .-_....-..-... .................... _ _........ .-. ........_. _.__.._I.__ _... Keeping a Rein on Kosygin-.. . ... ......_.." .. ... . .

S i nce 1967, Brezhnev has combined a w atchf ul a t t i -t u d e toward Kosygin w i t h a w i l l i n g n e s s t o accommodate himon some policy i ssues . While he has remained t h e dominantof t h e two, Brezhnev has been c a r e f u l t o keep a r a t h e rt a u t r e i n on Kosygin i n orde r t o p revent a runaway i n h i sp r e s t i g e a nd a u t h o r i t y . I t was probably Brezhnev, forexample, who i n F eb ruary 1967 was respons ib le f o r t h econ tr e t em ps i n P ravda ' s hand l i ng of a sta tement Kosyginhad made w h i l e i n London on Moscow's w i l l i n g n e s s t o c on-s i d e r n e g o t i a ti o n s on l i m i t i n g s t r a t e g i c arms, i nc l ud i ngdef ens ive weapons. The j o u r n a l i s t whose a r t i c l e r e i t e r -a t e d t h e s e n s i t i v e st at e me n t ( n o t p re v i ou s l y a i r e d i n t hedomest ic media) rep ort edl y rec eived a reprimand, and Pravdatook t h e unusua l s t e p of denying t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e a r t i -c l e . Such an ac t i o n cou l d on l y have r e f l e c t ed t h e i n t e r -fe rence of t h e S e c r e t a r i a t , and p r e s n m i b l y of t h e GeneralS e c r e t a r y h i m se l f .

* T h i s v i o l a t i o n o f t h e unw r i t t en r u l e a g a i n s t i n d i v i -d u a l g l o r i f i c a t i o n , a t l e a s t i n Br ez hn ev 's c a s e , h a s n otbeen r epea t ed i n any s i gn i f i ca n t way s i n ce t h e n .

-29-7-..*.JAY


34/44

I I. . .. . .. . . . . . .. ...... 2. .. , ... . . . . . ........... . . . . . .

. . ..........2.......,.. 4.. ..........{:i$s.q?;i:?$?*?j...


35/44

. . . . . .

. . . .. . .......... j. . ................... ....

A,:.. ..... -*........... .~ ......... . ........... ...........I.. ..._....... .-.< :54I

. . . . .I - - '

. .

mat'DRI~,OR- ILITARY AND POLICE- U ~ PORT-I . . .- An, impor tan t fac tor i n Brezhnev,'s assumption ofa .power'and a neces sa ry cond i t i on of h i s c o n ti n ue d rule h a sbeen., the support of two main ins t ruments of power i n t h eSov ie t Union--the se cu r i ty po l i c e (KGB) and m i l i t i a (m ,fo rmer ly ' MWP), - and t he m i l i t a ry . (Mi n i s try of Defense).T h rough . t he i r , benign in fl ue nc e, Brezhnev achieved Khrush-chev ' s ouster wi th a,maximum of e f f i c i e n c y a nd a m i n i m u mof danger t o t h e p l o t t e r s . F or a w h i l e a f t e r t h e coup,however , h i s ho ld over them was tenuous due t o t h e s t r o n g

i n f l uence S he l ep i n exerted.Uneven Relations With a Divided Mi l i t a ry

Brezhnev cour t ed t he m i l i t a r y f rom the very beg in-n ing , red res s ing th e abuses which t h e armed fo rc es hadsuf fe r ed a t Khrushchev' s hands . H e cons i s t en t l y advoca t eda h i g h p r i o r i t y f o r d ef e ns e i n b ud g et ar y p o l ic y . More-ove r , he s to pp ed d i c t a t i n g d o c t r i n e t o t h e m i l i t a r y a n dencouraged m i l i t a r y profess iona l i sm. A s a r e s u l t , Kh r u -shchev ' s one- si ded emphasi s on s t r a t e g i c rocke t f o rc e sgave wa y t o a more balanced policy, w i t h g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o nt han be fo re t o conven t i onal fo rc e s and a f l ex i b l e r e sponses t ra t e gy . Such a po l i c y probably had t h e suppor t o f amajor i ty o f t h e m i l i t a r y a nd c i v i l i a n l e a d e rs h i p .

Relations between Brezhnev and t h e m i l i t a r y t o o ka t u r n f o r t h e worse, however, a f t e r tk de at h of DefenseMi n i s t e r Mal inovsk iy i n l a t e March 1967. Malinovskiy 'sf i r s t deputy, Marshal Grechko, was associated w i t h t h eUkra inian " cl ique " which Khrushchev had brou ght i n t o t h ePol i tb uro-- prima ri ly Podgornyy, Polya nskiy , and Kir i lenko--and w a s t h e r e f o r e on a n i n s i d e t r a c k f o r t h e vacancy.N e v er t he l es s , n d ic a te d t h a t a t l e a s tsome Poli tburd m e m b e r s backed the ' secre t a r i a t 's armamentsa d m i n i s t r a t o r D m i t r i y Ustinov for t h e pos t , p resumablyi n o rde r t o b r ing a cos t - consc i ous app roach t o ques t i onsof force s t ructure . I t is conceivable t h a t Kosygin, whoi n F ebruary had r evea l ed an i n t e r e s t i n open i ng nego t i a t i ons

-31-

I I I


36/44

. ... .. .. .----_ ... .- ._ _ c _ _ .'. . .. ... __..--.

w i t h t h e U.S. on s t ra te g ic a rms l i mi ta t i on s , pe r suadedBrezhnev t o nominate Ustinov. -. I n 'f h c t , a maj'ori'ty of t h ePo l i t b u r o c ould have s ee n a n a dva nt a ge i n a p po in t i ng ac i v i l i a n who c ou ld f i n d " hidden r e s e r ve s " i n t he m i l i t a r ybudget and t&us f r e e c - a pi ta l f o r o t h e r s e c t o r s o f t h e- economF i z e p o r t e d that' BrBihnev had proposea -ttmmmv uubehalf of t h e e n t i r e P o li t b ur o , b u t t h e m i l i t a r y h ig hcompland ("th e So vi et marshals") had in s i s t e d 'on : pr o f e s -. - s i o n a l m i l i t a r y man, an d t h e P o l it b u ro . u l t i m a t e l y liad"g i v e n i n and appo inted Grechko. -]reported that , -G r e c h k o ' s r e l a t i o n s w i t h Brezhnev were n o t g o o d ;' t hg a t -tempt t o i n s t a l l Ustinov may have been permanently damag-i ng i n t h i s rega rd .

J

Brezhnev appeared t o be u n de r s t r o n g p r e s s u r e f r o mt h e m i l i t a r y a t t h e J un e 1967 plenum, where: Moscow p a r t yboss ykgorychev a t t ack ed Brezhnev' s dip lom ati c approacht o the Middle Eas t cr is is . Apparent ly , t h e a c t i o n sBrezhnev unde r took i n Ap r i l and May 'aga ins t th e i n te re s tof t h e m i l i t a r y ( t h e a tt em pt t o i n s t a l l a c i v i l i a n M i ni st erof Defense ) and th e younger pa r ty mi l i t a n t s ( t h e removalof Semichas tnyy a s KGB chairman) caused t h e two-groupst o j o i n f o r c es i n c ha l l e ng ing t h e r u l i n g g ro up o r am a j o r i t y w i t h i n i t on t h e i s s u e o f s l a c k n e s s ixi i t s defensepo s tu re . Although Brezhnev 's r ep or t a t t h e J u n e plenuniw a s no t pub l i s he d i n t h e p r e s s , a sec r e t Soviet documentr e v e a l e d t h a t i t conta ined a def ense of t h e r e g im e ' sd i p l o m a t i c e f f o r t t o s e t t l e t h e c r i s i s b y peaceful means .Thus, Brezhnev was quoted a s s a y i n g t h a t t h e regimeavoided l ou d t h r e a t s and s a b r e - r a t t l i n g because " t h e , ag-g r e s s o r s a n d t h e i r a l l i e s w e l l unders tood t h a t t h e S o v i e tUnion co ns i s te n t ly comes out f o r a s t a b l e peace i n t h eNear E a s t a nd . . . i f ne c e s s a r y w i l l r e s o l u t e l y come t o t h edefense of t h e v ic t im s of aggress ion . " The q u o t a t i o n ,which a ppea r e d s e ve r a l m onths a f t e r t h e f a c t , p ro ba bl ywag se le c ted t o i n d ic a te t h e nature of Yegorychev' scrl;ticism and Brezhnev's answer.

-32-


37/44

, A l l r e p o r t s on t he . su b j ec t were An agreement t h a tYegorychev had demanded a t ougher Soviet m i l i t a r y pos t u re .Soviet o f f i d i a h .who' deal t withMiddle E a s tAccording t otha t Yegorpchev had complained a t t he : p lenum of mi l i t a ryunpreparedness and had claimed t h a t t h e r eghe f a i l e d t or e a c t d e c i s i v e l y b e c a u s e t h e Soviet Army w B s - i { l l prepared .T h i s l i n e of argument would have appealed t o a t l e a s t 'some of t h e . h i g h command, since it suggested the inadequacyof masures . taken by th e- civl l i an-d omin ated Defense Coun-c i l . I t may a l s o have r e f l e c t ed some s tock- t ak ing oc-cas ionGd by th e e f f i c i e n t l y p l anned and execu ted I s r a e l im i l i t a r y o p e ra t io n s .

ed a CPSU r e p o r t c d h - a s s e r t i n g

I .

....... _.._.............- .., ............................................ . . .. ....... :......_.. An e la bo ra te bu t garb led v er s io n of th e Yegorychevi n c i d e n t t h a t made t h e rounds i n Moscow tended t o confi rmt h e e s s e n t i a l p o i n ts of t h e a l le g e d CPSU report : Accord-i ng t o t h i s accoun t , Yego rychev 's speech con t a i ned s t a t i s t i c sbacking up h i s charge t h a t Moscow w a s inadequately defendeda g a i n s t a m i s s i l e a t t a ck . B rezhnev r epo r t ed l y i n t e r ru p t e dYegorychev to ask when he had l a s t a t t ended a s e s s i on o ft h e M i l i t a r y Counci l of t h e Moscow M i l i t a r y D i s t r i c t , towhich Yegorychev r e p li e d "never." Brezhnev the n req ue ste dan in t e r mis s io n and convened the Po l i t bu ro ; Sh e lep in issa id t o have defended Yegorychev there. Back a t t h e g e n e r a lpa rt y meeti ng, Brezhnev accused Yegorychev of r ev ea l i ngs t a t e secre t s .

B rezhnev ' s r eac t i on t o t h e c r i t i c i s m was t o denyt h e charge w h i l e undertaking t o c o r r e c t t h e c r i t i c i z e ds i t u a t i o n . S e v e r a l m ea su re s w e r e t ak en i n a d d i t io n t oYegorychev 's demot ion on 27 Jun e, inc lud ing mi l i ta ryexe rc i s e s and changes i n a l e r t p rocedu res . The S ov i e tm i l i t a r y p r e s s reported t h a t G r i s h in , who w as i den t i f i eda s a member o f t h e M i l i t a r y Council of the Moscow PVO( A i r Defense) M i l i t a r y D i s t r i c t , had spoken a t a meet ingof t h e PVO c o u n c il on 2 1 November 1 967 , commending t h ef in e work of th e d i s t r i c t ' s " rocke t gunners , a i rmen ,and personnel of s i g n a l s u n i ts " b u t warning aga ins t c om -placency . I t would appe ar , t h er e f or e , t h a t Brezhnevd e c i d e d t o p reempt t h e p o s i t i o n w h i c h t h e young mi l i t an t sand, presumably, t h e m i ss i l e - fo rce advoca t e s i n t h e m i l i -t a r y Had adopted.

-33


38/44

An a d d i t i o n a l factor$,which may have r a i s e d t h e m i l i -t a r y ' s ba c k a nd , f o r a - t h e - , complica ted Brezhnev' s pos i-t i o n was, t h e p a r t y ' s ( th a t. ; is , the %litburo:.ma,jority's)a t t e m pt . to.relax the; s t rbrig de fens e -or ie n ted , p o s h r e oft h e Soviet Union through, canc'el'lation


39/44

. .. . .. . .. , . .

. .I . .. - ... -

. .' . ?.. .. . .....-. - .-.. ... ...-.. ... ::

. '.. . .. .. . .._. .. .. .. .

. . .. .

, , :: +. E) [ f *-,In c o n t r a s t ' t o h i s f luc tua t ,ing" ,fqqtuge ,s. iq . -de a l i ngwith the ' -nillitari, Brezhnev has. ucqe&d,efi,,i$.:establishinga r e l a t l y e l y .f ir m g r i p on t h e KGB andne v ' s ' te puous c on t r o l ove r t he m i l i - t a r y.&;s r e f l e c t e d . t h econ tinu ed s tr en gt h of h i s opponents -wj.$$&q.,the Po li tb ur o,h i s s tea ;dy. ,coqsol ida t ion *of,nf luence GW@JP t:he s , e c u r i t ye s t a b l i s hm e n t has r e f l ec t ed -the gradua l , r e d u c t i o n inShe l e p in ' s ' real 'power si n c e 1965. Another rea so n -f o rBrezhnev's success in making o r g a n i z a t i on a l i n r oa ds i nt h e KGB and MVD probably has been h i s . g o o d f o o t i n g i nt h e C e n t r a l Committee Department of Adminis t ra t ive Organs ,which s u p e r v is e s t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s . I n addi t ion , Brezhneva p p a r e n t ly h a s a vo id ed t a k i n g a ny a c t i o n s t h a t woulda n t a g o n i z e t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l c o r p s of t h e s e o r g a n i z a ti o n s .On t h e c o n t r a ry , u nd er B re zh ne v' s a e g i s th e y have e n j o y e 6g r e a t e r p r e s t i g e a nd, material s u p p o r t . I n a ny c a s e , t h ekey t o t h e u s e of t h e s e o r g a n i z a t i o n s a s i n s t r um e n t s ofpower l i e s i n t h e p o l i t i c a l a d m in i s t r at o r s who s upe r v i s etheir work, and in this respec t Brezhnev has ensured t h a tt h e men i n c ha rg e a r e a s t r u s tw or thy as c a n be expectedi n t h e Soviet scheme of t h i n g s .

. J u s t , a s Brezh-

The f r o n t a l a t t a c k on She l e p in ' s e n t r e nc he d pos i -t i o n s i n t h e s e c u r i t y f o r c e s and m i l i t i a f o l l ow e d s e ve r a lminor s k i r m i s h e s and r e ar guard ac t ions . . P r i o r t o remov-ing Tikunov from t h e t op MVD p o s t i n l a t e 1966 and Semi-chas tnyy f rom t h e KGB i n May 1967, Brez hnev had t akeni mp or ta nt s t e p s t o s t r e n g th e n h i s hold on t h e pa r ty a ndgovernment ap par a tu s which s upe r v i s e d t h e i r work. However,he w a s f o rc ed a t f i r s t t o s h ar e i n f lu e n ce i n t h i s appara-t u s w i t h S h e l e p i n , s i nce t h e two of them toge the r hadc o n t r o l l e d t h e s e c u r i t y f o r c es p r i o r t o Khrushchev'so u s t e r . When N.R. Mironov, c h i e f of the Central CommitteeDepartment of Adm inis t ra t iv e Organs , d i e d i n an a i r c ra sha few d a y s a f t e r t h e ouster , Brezhnev and Shelepin bo thl o s t t h e s e r v i c e s of a long- time as so ci a t e . Yironov hadr i s e n f r om w i th in t h e KGB a f t e r (o r a b o u t s imul taneous lyw i t h ) She l e p in ' s a ppo in tm en t a s i t s c h i e f , to t h e C e n t r a lCommit tee depar tment pos i t ion, where h e became Shelepin'snominal s upe r v i s o r . His r i s e might have been d u e t o t h e

-35-


40/44

in f lu en ce of Brezhnev, w i t h whom h e had w orked,+ n t h e1930s . Mironov continu edEin:- hts .Centra'l.Committee -pos twhen Shelep$n became a p a r t y s e c r e t a r y i n c h ar ge o f t h edepar tment ; he i s presJumed t o have p layed-an impor tan t* role-4111. supp'r t-i'= %B$ezWriev:: 'and, ' She l e p in , du r in g p re pa ra -' t i o n s of ' t h e coup aga+ix$t"Khrushchev. As a measure oft h g s t a nd o f f in t h i s are& d?%er' Khqushchev's removal, nosuccessor t o t h e 'deceased Mi'roxiov app ear ed du ri ng t h epe ri od awhen Sh el ep in Cprb$aQ'ly su pe rv is ed ' i t -- th at i s ,p r t o r 'ti5 t h e 23d ' Party'-Congress--or f o r *two yea r s a f t e r -ward when BrezhnTv ap@rent . ly ~d d i r e c t r e s p o n s i b i p t yfor it. . : , ..--I *. .

%I .

Brezhnev never the less began' to undercut She lep in ' si n f l u e nc e i n, t h e " a @ i n i s t r a ti v e " o r g an s a s e a r l y a s Se p t -e m b e r 1965. He probably was i n f l u e n t i a l i n br ing ing a bou tKosygin ' s ch oic e of Polyansk iy over She lepin to f i l l t h evacancy of f i r s t deputy premier which had re su l t ed f romU s ti no v 's t r a n s f e r t o t h e S e c r e t a r i a t i n March. Polyan-sk iy , who had concent ra ted a lmos t exc l us iv e ly on ag r ic u l -t u r a l ma t te r s , may have assumed the a dd i t io na l r e spo ns i -b i l i t y for o v e rs e ei n g t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of s e c u r i t ya f f a i r s on t h e government s i d e . This was sugges ted byt h e c i rcums tances sur rounding t h e subsequent promotionof P o l y a n s k i y ' s c l i e n t , M.T. Yefremov,' t o deputy premiera n d ' t h e t r a n s f e r of She lepin from h i s deputy premier pos ti n t h e g overnment t o f u l l t i m e work i n t h e S e c r e t a r i a t .Brezhnev worked w i t h K i r i l e n k o i n t h e S e c r e t a r i a tand with Polyanskiy i n th e gove rnment t o s t ren gth en h i shold on t h e s e c u r i t y f o r c e s a f t e r t h e 23d P a r t y C o ng re ssi n 1966. By t h a t t i m e , She l e p in a l r e a d y had l o s t h i ss e c r e t a r i a l r e s p on s i b i l i t y f o r s e c u r i t y a f f a i r s and ap -p a r e n t l y was coun ting on Kosygin and Demichev t o s up po rtTikunov ' s candidacy f o r th e head pos t i n t h e reorganizedm i l i t i a . The appointment of Brezhnev's c l i e n t , NikolayShchelokov, to t h e pos t i n September 1966 revea led th a tShe lep in ' s fo rc es had dwindled t o a dec ided mino r i ty .The assign ment o f Andropov a s KGB ch ie f i n May 1967,was, of course , a n e s s e n t i a l move t o s t r e n g the n B r ez hne v 's

po s i t io n . P r i or t o l a t e 1966, when Brezhnev began t h erenewed dr ive to hold t h e in te rn a t io na l 'communist confe rence ,

-36-


41/44

. ... . . .. . . . .......... . _. . . . .

.........- ...._..-......... * ........--. . .............. - ........................... _.._.. . . . ............- ........

. .. IL . . . . . . . .

Andropov had appea red c lose t o Shelepin. Whatever h i sp o l i t i c a l t i e s ( i dc lud ing some t o Suslov), Andropov ap-pa ren t l y had suppor ted th e General Secre tary from t h es t a r t . M oreover, S h e l e p i a ' s g r a d u a l p o l i t i c a l d e c l i n ethrough Brezhnev's maneuverings presumably d i d l i t t l et o enhance t h e Andropov-Shelepin re la t ionship. A t t h e-hose primary responsib;k i t y w a s f o r r e l a t ro n sAndropov's appointment t o t h e KGB.r e po r t e d t h e op in ion o f. R uuan i a n Pa r y e c r e t a r yw i t h fo re ig n Communist p ar t ie s ) t h a t Andropov was lo ya l* L Z 2ons oetweent o and t r u s t ed by Brezhnev., when queried aconf i rmed tha t t h e two men once had been c lose b u t nolonger were. I n any case, B re zh ne v' s s u b s t i t u t i o n o fAndropov f o r Semichas tnyy appeared ca lc ul a t ed t o gu aranteea he igh t e ne d r i va l r y betw een t h e f o r me r a s s oc i a t e s .Andropov probably had Brezhnev's f u l l backing fort he o r ga n i z a t i o na l c hanges he i n t r oduc e d i n t h e KGB soona f t e r t ak in g ove r . The main emphas i s of t h e reorganiza -t i o n was a n e xp an si on of t h e c o u n t e r i n t e l l i g e n c e e f f o r t .The changes began a t t h e v e r y t o p , w i t h t h e a d d i t i o n o fS .K . Tsvigun, an exper ienced CI p r o f e s s i o n a l w i t h tenuousc a r e e r t i e s t o B re zhnev , a s a second f i r s t d e p u t y t oAndropov, The o t he r f i r s t deputy cha irman, N.S. Zakharov,r e m a i n s a c t i v e d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t he s e r v e d a s c h i efof t h e 9 t h (Guards) Di re c t or a te when Sh ele pin headed t h eKGB, and moved up t o KGB deputy chairman u n d e r Semichastnyy.

S o v i e tI""rh e l e p i n s h o r t l y a f t e r Semichastnyy's removal,

Brezhnev 's in f lu ence i n t h e KGB personnel changeswere e s p e c ia l l y c l e a r i n t h e case of G.K. Tsinev, who bya t l e a s t March 1968 had taken on m a j o r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ,a lm os t c e r t a i n l y a s c h i e f , i n t h e Second Chief D ir e c to r a t e(co un te r in t e l l i gen ce and counte re sp ionage ) .* Brezhnev ' s

*Tsinev probably 'had been d i r ec to ra te c h i e f for somet i m e . H i s press a r t i c l e i n December 1967 on broad a sp ec tso f c o u n t e r i d t e l l i g e n c e , t o g e t h e r w i t h h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o na s a c o l o n e l g e n e r a l , s u gg e st ed t h a t he had such respon-s i b i l i t i e s t h e n . I t is e ve n p o s s i b l e t h a t he assumed t h evacancy of KGB deputy chairman t h a t was crea ted when S.G.Bannikov became a deputy chairman of t h e USSR SupremeC o u r t i n October.

-37-


42/44

. . . .1 . . . ...:.A*. . ......... .-_..-.-._........... . . .. . . . .

8/2/2019

Caesar 48 - Brezhnev's Struggle for Dominance: Annex to Leonid Brezhnev: The Man and His Power

Documents