Where did Stalin travel abroad? Famous foreign trips of Soviet leaders. From the KP dossier
Rutsinskaya Irina Ilyinichna
Doctor of Cultural Studies, Professor
Department of Regional Studies
Faculty of Foreign Languages
and regional studies
Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov
Email: [email protected]
The plot of “Stalin Abroad” in Soviet painting of the 1930s-1950s
The article is devoted to the analysis of paintings that represent one of the important stages of the official biography of I. Stalin. In 1905-1913, he traveled abroad five times. These short stays abroad were interpreted by Soviet propaganda as evidence of the high party status, closeness to Lenin and the international scale of the leader’s activities. However, in the conditions of the 1930-1950s, when suspicion and hostility towards everything that lay beyond the borders of the USSR were cultivated in Soviet society, and the “Iron Curtain” did not allow artists to see the scene of action depicted in the paintings, the pictorial interpretation of such subjects was for the authors serious problem. Forcibly removing any geographical or regional features from the canvases, they transferred the action to an interior that had no distinctive features, surrounded the leaders with a faceless crowd, in which there was not a single recognizable historical character. The visual myth of the young Stalin as an international figure was formed only through the demonstration of his dialogues with Lenin.
Keywords: Stalin, Lenin, party congresses, foreign trips, interior, myth, visualization.
The article analyzes the paintings that depict an important stage of the official Stalin’s biography. In 1906-1913 he traveled abroad five times. These short trips were interpreted by Soviet propaganda as an evidence of his high status in the party, affinity to Lenin and international scale of the leader’s activities. However, in the 1930-1950s, when suspicion and hostility were cultivated in the Soviet society for everything beyond the borders of the USSR, and the “Iron curtain” did not allow the artists to see the place they were to depict in pictures, their aesthetic interpretation of such stories presented a big problem. They were forced to remove from the canvases any geographical features. They moved the action to the interior with no distinctive details, surrounded by the leaders with a faceless crowd, with no single recognizable historical character. The visual myth of the young Stalin as a figure of the international scale was formed only through the paintings of his dialogues with Lenin.
Keywords: Stalin, Lenin, party congresses, foreign trips, interior, myth, visualization.
The iconography of I. Stalin in Soviet art of the 1930-1950s was so detailed, so verified and sorted that it can serve as an extremely reliable source for studying the state policy of forming the image of the leader, the state strategy for the visual construction of his “correct” biography. Stalin's whole life is divided into main and secondary, obligatory and “optional” plots. Thousands of paintings were dedicated to some, others appeared on only dozens of canvases, but in any case, their compliance with the “life” of the leader and the approved iconographic scheme was strictly monitored at all levels of state control.
At the same time, different plots presented tasks of varying degrees of complexity for their creators. And the point is not only in how much a specific verbal text could be visualized, but also in the degree of “gap” between historical reality and the created myth. In the biography of the leader there were many stories where this “gap” turned into an “abyss”. These include the plot “Stalin Abroad”. In general, it can be called a serious iconographic problem for Soviet artists, if we take into account the political situation in the country, suspicion of everything that is (or even was in the past) outside the Iron Curtain, and the inability for authors to see with their own eyes the depicted scene.
It is not surprising that this plot was not among the most common. Nevertheless, he could not be absent altogether, could not turn into a “blank spot in a great biography.” He had to carry out the most important task: to visualize the process of transformation of Stalin from a revolutionary of a provincial scale into a political figure of an international level, into a politician on the scale of Lenin .
The chronicle of Stalin’s trips abroad in the pre-revolutionary period is as follows:
In December 1905, he took part in the First Conference of the RSDLP in Tammerfors, where he met Lenin for the first time.
In May 1906 he participated in the IV Congress of the RSDLP in Stockholm.
In April-May 1907, Stalin was a delegate to the V Congress of the RSDLP in London
In November and December 1912 he came to Krakow twice, where Lenin lived at that time. He was a participant in the Krakow meeting of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (December 26, 1912 - January 1, 1913), then moved to Vienna, where he worked on the article “Marxism and the National Question.” In February 1913 he returned to Russia.
Stalin himself recalled several times his trips abroad. So, in 1931, during a conversation with the German writer Emil Ludwig, arguing that a long stay abroad “is not at all decisive for the study of European economics, technology, personnel of the labor movement, literature of all kinds,” talking about Lenin , who in emigration did not lose contacts with Russia, he gracefully inserted information about himself, about his trips abroad: “... I’m going to see him [Lenin. - I.R.] came abroad - in 1906, 1907, 1912, 1913...” The wording is indicative. It clearly reflects the existing system of priorities. It is important for Stalin When went out- and he exhaustively and accurately lists the dates of his trips abroad, as well as Where came to see Lenin. Countries and cities do not appear on this list, and specific geographic information is not considered significant or of any importance.
It was precisely this matrix that formed the basis of all the paintings of the 1930-1950s devoted to the theme “Stalin Abroad”: none of the paintings on this topic contains visual information of a geographical or regional nature. Only their names indicate the place of action. And in the names, the reference to the city was used as a way of identifying a specific event in party history: the London Congress, the Stockholm Conference are perceived in the same way as the “founding congress”, “unification congress”, etc. They should evoke in memory not the place of action, but the event itself, or rather its historical, its symbolic meaning. Determining the role and place of each of the foreign party forums became textbook quite early on. Stockholm - victory for the Mensheviks, London - disengagement with them, etc. Everyone who studied the history of the party knew and made these identifications. Other associations of the cities of London, Stockholm, Krakow, etc. in relation to history, the parties were not called and should not have been called.
And they also could not introduce any unplanned, side associations into Stalin’s biography - into this rigidly outlined system of purposeful and totally significant events. He is the most important participant in the party forum, one of the main characters in party history. Nothing more.
Stalin has never been depicted in the urban or natural landscape of any foreign country. In his paintings, he never set foot on the streets of European cities. He did not come into contact with anyone other than participants in party congresses and conferences. The “Iron Curtain” that separated the USSR from the rest of the world turned out to be applicable to the image of the leader.
It is noteworthy that with Lenin everything was somewhat different. He was depicted looking at works of art in art galleries (D.A. Nalbandyan. “Lenin in the Dresden Gallery in 1914”), communicating with Italian fishermen (V.T. Klimonov. “V.I. Lenin on Capri”) and even going out with them for fishing in the open sea (E. M. Cheptsov. “V. I. Lenin and A. M. Gorky with fishermen on the island of Capri”).
E. M. Cheptsov. V. I. Lenin and A. M. Gorky with fishermen on the island of Capri. 1932
The dead leader escaped the Iron Curtain. The leader is alive - no. And besides, it must be recognized that in the visual arts Lenin always looked more emotional, sociable and open in comparison with Stalin, despite the deliberate efforts of artists to expand the range of roles and the range of emotional states of the latter.
So, the plot “Stalin Abroad” is a plot solved exclusively as “Stalin in the interior”. The interior, as is known, is also capable of transmitting regional information. But for this, the artist depicting it (of course, we are talking about those artists who profess the principles of realism in painting) must either see the interior with his own eyes, or obtain information about it from any sources (the best option is photographs, but in extreme cases, and verbal descriptions), or allow yourself to create a fantasy on the theme of some English, Finnish, Polish, etc. interior corresponding to a specific event. The first two options represent a “classic case” for a realist artist striving for the most accurate and adequate reproduction of an event. However, the third option is used no less often, especially when it comes to visualizing historical events that do not have an exact connection to a specific place. Any of the three cases assumes that the author sets himself a certain task - the task of depicting a culturally and historically determined space. However, when it came to the subject we were studying, Soviet artists rarely considered it.
Perhaps the most clear example of this approach is demonstrated by Joseph Serebryany’s painting “At the Fifth (London) Congress of the RSDLP.”
The unusualness of the space depicted on the canvas immediately catches the eye: the Gothic lines of arches and niches, several single-tier chandeliers hanging from the vaults, the outlines of an organ in the choir. Everything points to a temple interior. Only instead of the usual even rows of wooden benches, randomly placed chairs are shown, and instead of the restrained behavior of the parishioners, there is a chaos of poses and movements of people busy with something that does not in any way correspond to the place.
The artist did not invent this space (it is impossible to even imagine that when depicting a party congress, a Soviet author could imagine the space of a Gothic temple). He started from a text well known in the USSR - from M. Gorky’s essay “V.I. Lenin". In this essay, the proletarian writer recalled: “Even now I still clearly see the bare walls of a wooden church on the outskirts of London, ridiculous in its squalor, and the lancet windows of a small, narrow hall, similar to a classroom in a poor school. This building resembled a church only from the outside, but inside there was a complete absence of religious objects, and even the low preacher’s pulpit was not located in front, in the depths of the hall, but at the entrance to it, between two doors.”
I. A. Serebryany. At the Fifth (London) Congress of the RSDLP. 1947
The meetings of the convention took place at the Church of the Brethren on Southgate Road in London. The church has not survived to this day; it was dismantled in 1934, so by the time I.A. Silver began working on the painting; the church no longer existed. However, it can be assumed that the artist addressed not only the text of the above-mentioned essay. The fact is that after the revolution, thanks to the efforts of L. Krasin, a memorial plaque was installed on the wall of the temple, designed to perpetuate the location of the party congress. So, presented from such a perspective, the Church of the Brotherhood could even appear in photographs in the Soviet press. In any case, the artist did not repeat the mistake that time introduced into the memories of M. Gorky: the temple, of course, was not wooden, as the writer claimed, but stone. And this is exactly how I. Serebryany portrayed him.
However, in the context of all other Soviet paintings that represented the space in which the leaders lived, this image looked exotic. Obviously, feeling this, the artist removed hints of its sacredness as much as possible. The only sign left was the organ, but the artist depicted it so schematically and generally that special efforts must be made to identify the musical instrument. And without the organ, the rest of the interior can be mistaken for a stylized Gothic building of unknown purpose.
This balancing act between the desire to indicate the exact location of the action and attempts to retouch reality looks surprising. The painting was painted by order of the museum of V.I. Lenin. It is obvious that long before the artist put the last strokes on the canvas, its composition and details were agreed upon and approved. The interior that he depicted had a confirmed memorial character and, nevertheless, “just in case” the author mixed its church signs. Even this - canonized - history was “adapted” to atheistic Soviet norms.
Another attempt to describe the scene of action in more detail was made in Ivan Vepkhvadze’s canvas “Meeting of I.V. Stalin and V.I. Lenin in Tammerfors."
I.A. Vepkhvadze. Meeting I.V. Stalin and V.I. Lenin in Tammerfors. 1940s
The event is depicted in the interior of the cafe. There are small round tables, visitors and a waitress with a tray are visible. However, it is quite obvious that this work is not an attempt to accurately convey a specific place, but an appeal to a technique that in museum work is called “typification”. It is widely used when, in the absence of authentic things that belonged to a historical figure, objects typical of an era, region, or people of a certain social circle are introduced into the memorial space. In a museum, this technique helps to recreate the sociocultural context and bring the viewer closer to understanding the lifestyle of a particular person. On Vepkhvadze’s canvas, his goal remains approximately the same. To enhance the atmosphere of cordiality and sincerity of such a significant event as the acquaintance of two leaders, the artist dared to place them in an extremely informal space. However, this space remained overly typified: it can be imagined as such in any country in Europe, and not only in 1905, but also in the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s. The individualization of the depicted space turned out to be imaginary, the “foreign accent” was extremely conditional. However, this approach was unusual and overly bold. Obviously, this is why the artist completed another version of the painting on the same subject. In it, the action takes place in a completely featureless interior with tables, chairs and a red carpet. Such an environment could have been created in any Soviet state or party office.
All other works on this topic are built on the same principle: leaders interact in an interior that does not contain any distinctive features. None of the details of the situation presented on them refer to anything that would not be familiar to Soviet people. The characters sit at ordinary tables, on the most ordinary chairs, surrounded by the most ordinary people. Typification, brought to complete averageness and impersonality - is this not a metaphor that characterizes the era?
Regardless of how much attention the artists paid to depicting the surroundings, it never played a significant role in the formation of the image, and never served the task of expanding the semantic field of the picture. He was assigned a purely functional role: without attracting attention to himself, to help build the mise-en-scène, to motivate the poses and movements of the characters. Everything is as simple as in S. Marshak’s children’s fairy tale: “This is a chair - They sit on it. This is the table - they eat at it.”
And here we return again to the main task facing the artists - visualization of the process of Stalin’s transformation into a political figure of international level, comparable to Lenin. In solving it, the authors deliberately placed the duet of two leaders at the center of these compositions and searched for various shades and nuances in showing their relationships.
At the same time, an unnoticed general pattern arose in Soviet painting: Lenin could appear abroad without Stalin, but Stalin without Lenin could not. A kind of one-sided dependence was established, which generally contradicted the task of demonstrating the equality of the two leaders. But at the same time, this disproportion gave Stalin an “alibi”: abroad - in this hostile space, from the standpoint of the 1930-1950s - Lenin had him, only him.
The formation of the myth about Stalin’s high party status since 1906 took place in an invisible dispute with the text of L. Trotsky. Through the first volume of his two-volume work “Stalin,” one thought ran like a red thread, one idea that was most important for the author: until 1917, Stalin was a character from the crowd, in the background. Relying on documents and statements by various party leaders, Trotsky asserted again and again: “... he was considered as a “practice,” that is, an ordinary revolutionary, suitable primarily for local organizational work. And Koba himself, who measured his strength at the congresses in Tammerfors, Stockholm and London, was hardly drawn to emigration, where he would be doomed to third roles.”
Of course, Soviet artists did not know these statements by Trotsky. All the more striking is the parallelism in the formation of the image of Stalin: the two sides spoke on the same topic, placed common accents, considered common aspects, only did it from directly opposite positions and came to exactly opposite conclusions.
For example, about Stalin’s participation in the Tammerfors Conference, Trotsky wrote: “For the first time he breaks through the provincial shell and enters the arena of the party. His appearance remains, however, little noticed." To support his words, Trotsky quoted from a text written by N. Krupskaya, where she enthusiastically listed the names of several speakers who made “very interesting reports from the field.” The surname of Dzhugashvili or Ivanovich (he attended the Tammerfors conference under this surname) did not appear on the list.
But here is a completely different “document of the era” - a painting by A.V. Moravova "V. I. Lenin and I.V. Stalin behind the development of the resolution of the Tammerfors Bolshevik Conference in 1904.” It does not even represent the conference itself, but a “meeting of the elite” - only five people gathered around the table to develop the final document of the party forum. Dzhugashvili-Ivanovich is not just “noticeable”, he is the central character. All the action revolves around him. Addressing Lenin directly, he makes a speech, and in his gestures the artist emphasizes the confident slowness so well known to Soviet people of the 1930-1950s from thousands of paintings and photographs. The significance of the main character is enhanced by the behavior of the other characters, and first of all Lenin, who not just listens, but enjoys what he hears, not just watches, but admires the speaker.
Moravov A.V.V.I. Lenin and I.V. Stalin behind the development of the resolution of the Tammerfors Bolshevik Conference in 1904.” 1940s
In the picture I.A. Vepkhvadze “Meeting of I.V. Stalin and V.I. Lenin in Tammerfors”, which we talked about above, showing the interaction of the two leaders is also the main purpose of the image. About the nature of this interaction, the Soviet critic wrote in the monograph “J.V. Stalin in Fine Arts”: “the artist chooses the theme of the picture not of the conference itself, but of the meeting of the “mountain eagle” and the “fiery Colchian” before the conference. Lenin warmly and friendly greets Stalin." The author considered all the simple messages of the artist and exhaustively verbalized them.
Stalin is again highlighted among the crowd. He and Lenin are in the foreground. Only these two people interact with each other, absorbed in each other. All other characters are witnesses, observers of the ongoing event.
All paintings on this topic were built according to this principle. In this regard, the names of the paintings are important and indicative, which often “come to the aid” of the image. As you know, the content of a painting and its title can be in different, sometimes extremely whimsical, interactions. In ideologically biased works of the Stalin era, it was often the title that determined, corrected, and conceptualized the content. Thus, in P. Bletkin’s painting “V.I. Lenin and I.V. Stalin at a meeting of the Central Committee of the RSDLP with party workers in Krakow” is the only time among the paintings dedicated to foreign party forums that the process of personal interaction between the two leaders is not presented. Lenin speaks to a fairly wide audience, and Stalin is among the listeners. Compositionally, he is in no way distinguished from other participants in the scene. But the title of the painting tells the viewer the “correct way of viewing” the painting: it forces them to look for Stalin, distinguishing him from all the others. It is thanks to the title that the film regains its division into main characters and extras. It argues with the image, transforms it, changes accents.
Bletkin P. M. V. I. Lenin and I. V. Stalin at a meeting of the Central Committee of the RSDLP with party workers in Krakow. 1939
Considering that many historical characters, such as Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev and others, could not appear on the canvases of Soviet artists painted in the 1930s-1950s, the artists had to replace them with some abstract characters, slightly “ diluting" this virtual circle with such permitted, "neutral" figures, such as, for example, Krupskaya, Sverdlov and others. The relationship between the historical and the mythological changed sharply towards the latter. If we weigh all the subjects from the cycle of pictorial Stalinism on some conventional scales, then the canvases on the theme “Stalin Abroad” will take, if not the very first, but certainly close to the first place, in terms of the weight of the mythologized and the weightlessness of the real-historical content. Only the facts of holding foreign congresses and conferences and the facts of the presence of Stalin and Lenin at them were historical. Next came the “mythologization of mythologization”: the paintings were officially sanctioned fantasies on the theme of officially canonized biographies of the leader.
Geography, history, relationships between the characters depicted on the canvas were “sacrificed” to ideology. However, this “victim” was not advertised. Moreover, not a single hint was possible that the picture contained an element of artistic fiction or even the slightest deviation from the “truth of history.” In the Soviet totalitarian space, artists were called realists only if the reality they depicted corresponded to the “state representational project.” According to V. Dobrenko, “The main function of socialist realism is to create socialism - Soviet reality, not an artifact.” The plot “Stalin Abroad” was one of the fragments of created reality.
Bibliography:
- Gorky M. At the bottom. Mother. IN AND. Lenin. Collection. Gorky, Volgo-Vyatka book publishing house, 1971.
- Dobrenko E. Political economy of socialist realism. M., New Literary Review, 2007.
- Kravchenko K.S. Stalin in fine arts. M.-L., Art, 1939.
- Stalin I.V. Conversation with the German writer Emil Ludwig on December 13, 1931 // Stalin I.V. Essays. T. 13. M., State Publishing House of Political Literature, 1951. P.104-123.
- Trotsky L., Stalin. T. 1 M., TERRA–TERRA, 1996.
In 1905, Finland was part of the Russian Empire and, accordingly, the Finnish city of Tammerfors (now Tampere) was not considered foreign and was not included by Stalin in the general list. But since in the 1930-1950s, when the paintings on this topic were written, Finland was no longer part of the USSR, we will include the Tammerfors Conference in this list.
He did not mention the Tammerfors conference precisely for the reason stated above: he did not include a trip to the Finnish city among his foreign trips.
M. Gorky wrote the first version of this essay after Lenin’s death - in 1924. In 1930, when preparing a 30-volume collected works, the writer revised and expanded the original version. The text in its final edition was reprinted many times: it was included in all multi-volume collected works of M. Gorky, was published as separate books, and was placed in various collections. It belonged to the number of canonical texts that were known to almost all citizens of the USSR.
In addition to diplomats, military personnel (Spain, Mongolia, China, and everywhere else), scientists, trade representatives, engineers, and doctors traveled abroad under Stalin. They all traveled on business. But was it different in other countries? It happened, but only in one country. In Germany, before the war, cruise ships were built specifically for the organization engaged in leisure activities for workers, “Strength through Joy,” so that ordinary German workers could travel around Europe on their legal vacation. 20 million people have traveled abroad in this way. This fact is exceptional because in the first half of the twentieth century, paid leave was a very new trend, and in Germany even seasonal workers had the right to leave.
I wish the shit of the nation would think: why the hell and where did the Soviet people under Stalin, who had a guaranteed right to vacation, have to go? For what? There was no fashion to lie belly up on Turkish beaches at that time. Wild Soviet people - they didn’t know what it meant to “get high”, “have a blast” and “stick out”. Their entertainment was somewhat primitive, mostly related to sports. It was generally impossible to get into the flying clubs - there were 10-15 applicants for one place. They also loved to dance to the accordion, go to the cinema, walk in the city park and read books. The villain Stalin bullied the poor Soviet people so much that they did not even want to go abroad. Horror!
Another question is more interesting: why did the Soviet shit of the nation consider the most heinous crime of the communist regime to be the fact that this filthy regime did not allow the intelligentsia to wander idly abroad? The fact is that the Soviet intelligentsia was plagued by a terrible inferiority complex. After all, the shit of the nation considered itself an elite, and wanted to behave like an elite - that is, to push around the cattle and enjoy the material joys of life. And the damned Soviet regime forced intellectuals to work. And in the West, there was a real elite, living a full-fledged elite lifestyle, and the Soviet shit of the nation sought to join this real life at any cost.
But this desire was expressed in the most primitive fetishism. The intelligentsia stupidly tried to imitate all Western fashions, even if they did not understand their meaning. Everything foreign was idolized, a trip abroad was perceived as a sacred act (well, like for a Muslim to perform the Hajj). What attracted intellectuals abroad - books, museums, architecture, nature? No way! The shit of the nation attracted only three things abroad - junk, junk, and more junk. Well, and also a little bit of the smell of freedom, because it smelled like junk.
Under Stalin, the intelligentsia was kept in a black body, and therefore the Soviet Union was a strong world power. Then the shit of the nation multiplied, became ugly, stank and killed the Soviet Union. The intelligentsia never became an elite. But she got the opportunity to shit with impunity, calmly degrade and jerk off to Western fetishes, which are shown to her on TV as a consolation for not being allowed into the elite.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin did not make a single official visit abroad: when the Bolshevik government began to be recognized, he remained at the head of the party and government only nominally. His successors traveled abroad, and each visit had its own characteristics.
Visits with state security
Stalin had no passion for travel. Every year, closer to autumn, the leader went to the Caucasus to rest. In the morning he boarded a specially prepared train of several cars, traffic on the line stopped, and by the evening Joseph Vissarionovich arrived at his destination. However, twice the “father of nations” still had to leave his children. Although these two visits can be called foreign rather arbitrarily. In the summer of 1943, the victorious operations of the Soviet Army aroused fears among the allies: if things continued like this, the question of opening a second front would soon disappear by itself. US President Roosevelt wanted, at all costs, to meet with Stalin. Joseph Vissarionovich, in principle, agreed. However, the issue of the location of the conference became a serious problem. The Soviet leader invited Churchill and Roosevelt to come to Arkhangelsk or Astrakhan, but the leaders of the United States and Great Britain did not want to hold a meeting on the territory of the USSR - this would be a recognition of the leading role of the Soviet Union. An exchange of telegrams followed. Churchill to Stalin: “I propose to hold a conference in Scotland.” Stalin refused. Roosevelt to Stalin: “It would be advisable to convene the conference in Cairo or Basra. If they agree, the coalition can send a ship for the Soviet delegation.” Stalin replied that he would send Molotov to the negotiations.
But this, in turn, did not suit Roosevelt. Then Fairbanks, an air base in Alaska, appeared on the map of the future conference. But the biased KGB study of the air bridge to Alaska turned out to be disappointing - the flight to Fairbanks is five to six days with all landings. Having considered the situation, Stalin responded to Roosevelt with a decisive telegram: “No matter how future generations evaluate our actions, I, as Supreme Commander-in-Chief, do not consider it advisable to go further than Tehran to the conference of the anti-Hitler coalition.”
Stalin was a homebody. Only twice did he leave the USSR
Stalin had to get to Tehran by train to Baku, and then by plane. The road to Baku went through Stalingrad, where a terrible battle had raged just a few months ago. In fact, the train with the delegation had to move parallel to the front line, so the operation was prepared with special care. Neither the drivers, nor the guards, nor the employees knew who was going and where. From the secret circular of the People's Commissar of Internal Affairs Lavrentiy Beria: “At stations and settlements along the entire route of the train, persons suspected of terrorism and sabotage are to be arrested, and all suspects at the stations are to be detained two days before the train passes. Conduct daily raids and document checks in villages adjacent to the railway.”
It was not for nothing that Stalin preferred trains to all types of transport: dozens of degrees of protection could be built on the railway. In front of the special train, the first was a control locomotive, to which a heavily loaded carriage was attached. This was done in case the path was mined. The covering train was behind.
On the evening of November 27, the government delegation reached Baku. Next, the Soviet leader had to make a short flight. According to people close to Stalin, for many years he recalled with disgust how the plane fell into air pockets. On November 28, 1943, the world's most important news agencies broadcast an urgent message: “The conference of the leaders of the Big Three has opened in Tehran.” The world breathed a sigh of relief. A real opportunity has emerged to unite the efforts of the three most powerful states against fascism by opening a second front.
Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in Tehran, 1943
The next meeting of the heads of the great powers took place in the Soviet occupation zone of Germany, in Potsdam. Both trips by the Soviet leader were accompanied by unprecedented precautions, but the July 1945 special flight was different than ever before.
The entire railway route from the USSR border to Potsdam (828 km) was “altered” from European to Soviet width, and instead of one train, three were formed at once. The main train in which the “father of nations” was traveling was guarded by 90 officers. Ahead was a control train with 40 security department operatives, and behind was a train with another 70 NKVD troops. 17,140 NKVD soldiers were allocated to guard the routes, so that there were 4 - 6 soldiers per kilometer of road from Moscow to Brest, and on the territory of Poland and Germany - one for every 150 m. In addition, for every 3 - 5 km of the path there were an operative who was responsible for intelligence and operational activities in a five-kilometer road zone. And armored trains ran in the most “unreliable” areas.
Stalin's voyage to the Potsdam Conference was guarded by 17 thousand soldiers
The last stage of preparation, the dress rehearsal, as drivers Viktor Lyon and Nikolai Kudryavkin recalled, was a test trip of the special train to Potsdam. There, everything was already ready for the conference: the meeting area of the “Big Three” was guarded by more than 2 thousand soldiers and officers of the NKVD troops, and in the crown prince’s palace itself, in addition to 1 thousand soldiers, there were 150 operatives from the NKVD and NKGB. 
Potsdam Conference: Winston Churchill, Harry Truman and Joseph Stalin, 1945
Stalin was pleased with the results of the conference and therefore forgave the special services for minor organizational flaws. And on September 15, 1945, Lavrentiy Beria presented the most distinguished participants in Operation Palma with awards “for the successful completion of a special government assignment.” A total of 2,851 people were awarded.
Visit with a “gift”
In one of his speeches in a narrow circle, one of the Soviet leaders closest to Khrushchev, Anastas Mikoyan, called himself and the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee “worldwide vagabonds”: they say, they have to travel so much around the country and abroad. And it was absolutely true. Nikita Sergeevich managed to make more visits than any other first person in the USSR.
In total, Khrushchev visited abroad about 50 times
In 1960, Khrushchev took an extremely original step - he personally headed the Soviet delegation to the UN General Assembly. And in order to demonstrate his independence and importance, he ordered to go to the United States by sea on the Soviet turbo-electric ship Baltika, surrounded by the heads of the fraternal socialist countries. On September 9, the Baltika departed from the Kaliningrad pier and, accompanied by ships of the Baltic Navy, headed west. After the English Channel, before entering the Atlantic Ocean, the military escort ships turned back. By September 14, the Baltika was halfway to New York.
These days, many countries were reviewing the composition of their delegations. Wladyslaw Gomulka from Poland, Josip Broz Tito from Yugoslavia, King Hussein bin Talal of Jordan, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Fidel Castro from Cuba and many others were going to attend the UN session. There has never been such a gathering of political leaders in the history of the UN. American authorities announced that for security reasons they would limit Khrushchev's movements to Manhattan Island, where the UN buildings are located. Similar restrictions were introduced for Fidel Castro.
At 9 a.m. on September 19, the Baltika entered the port of New York, and Nikita Sergeevich, along with other statesmen, entered American soil. The Soviet delegation was given a mansion on Park Avenue, around which there were reinforced police squads and hundreds of correspondents constantly on duty. On September 20, Khrushchev went to the African-American district of the city - Harlem, where the Cuban delegation was located in a small hotel. This was the first meeting between the Soviet leader and Fidel Castro. 
Nikita Khrushchev during the meeting of the 15th UN General Assembly, 1960
On September 23, Khrushchev read a report at the plenary session of the Assembly, which was then published under the title: “Freedom and independence to all colonial peoples. Solve the problem of general disarmament." The report caused a lot of response in the world press. Numerous receptions and meetings took place during the session. The Soviet leader met with Sukarno, Jawaharlal Nehru, Josip Broz Tito and many others.
Most heads of state left New York after a few days, but Khrushchev remained here for more than three weeks. On September 30, he delivered a speech to the Assembly on restoring China's legitimate rights in the UN. When the Spanish delegate took the floor to answer Khrushchev, the latter left the hall. Several times Nikita Sergeevich spoke at the UN on various issues, using the right of reply. Sometimes he lost patience, and instead of answering, he interrupted the next speaker with a lengthy remark from the spot or rudeness. “Whose cow would moo, but yours would be silent!” - he shouted during the speech of the American representative while discussing the problems of decolonization. The Soviet leader cursed the Philippine delegate even more rudely when he stated that the USSR should liberate its colonies and dependent countries. Khrushchev interrupted the speech of the Philippine minister, calling him “a slob, a nonentity, a fool, a lackey of American imperialism,” who has no right to raise issues that are not related to the matter.
A case has gone down in the history of the UN when Khrushchev, dissatisfied with the performance of a diplomat from one of the Western countries, took off his shoe and began to loudly knock on the table with it, interrupting a UN meeting. For this eccentric act of the First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, the Soviet delegation was fined $10 thousand. 
Khrushchev's boot, 1960
By the way, when the turbo-electric ship Baltika was still far from New York, some US politicians called on the press to ignore Khrushchev and not write about his stay on American soil. But the media were not going to follow these calls. Hundreds of correspondents were present at the press conference of the “chief communist in the world,” and reports from the UN hall often took up more space in American newspapers than the presidential election campaign, which was approaching the end. Before leaving for his homeland, Khrushchev took part in a heated discussion, which was broadcast on television. The return journey to Moscow on the Tu-114 took only 10 hours.
A visit with kisses
The unforgettable Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev did not lag behind his predecessor - he visited abroad dozens of times. The General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee not only contributed to “the cause of strengthening world peace,” but also established deeply personal and trusting relationships with heads of foreign states. And it wasn’t just about famous kisses.
During his reign, Chernenko never left the country
Old age and illness made foreign travel impossible for Leonid Ilyich's successors. Yuri Vladimirovich Andropov, before the ward at the Central Clinical Hospital became his work office, only managed to travel to Czechoslovakia at the beginning of 1983. And Konstantin Ustinovich Chernenko, during his short reign, did not even think about visits from his deathbed.
Visits with spouse
The “revival” of foreign tours of top officials of the USSR occurred after the election of Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev as General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. In December 1984, the Soviet politician, who served as Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the Council of the Union of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, went to England, where he had a very successful meeting with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
Thatcher on Gorbachev: “You can deal with this man”
Negotiations between the “Iron Lady” and the Soviet politician took place in an informal setting at the Chekkers country residence. Leonid Zamyatin’s book of memoirs, “Gorby and Maggie,” claims that Gorbachev focused on disarmament issues during the dialogue, and for greater persuasiveness he even showed his interlocutor a map with the directions of nuclear strikes on Great Britain in the event of war. The meeting was successful, and after it, Margaret Thatcher is believed to have uttered her historic phrase: “You can deal with this man.”
The success of the meeting with the British Prime Minister was predetermined by another trip by Gorbachev. The first Western politician who treated Mikhail Sergeevich with sympathy was not the “Iron Lady”, but the Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. In May 1983, Gorbachev came to Canada, where he impressed Canadian leaders with his free and at the same time careful behavior. 
Mikhail Gorbachev's visit to Great Britain, 1984
But the main individual feature of Gorbachev’s tours was that for the first time in Soviet history, significant attention was paid to the first lady of the country during these trips. Evil tongues even claimed that during each voyage Raisa Maksimovna sought from her husband to be shown on Soviet television no less than the Secretary General himself. If you believe the same sources, sometimes these disputes even ended in assault. But this is still very difficult to believe.
The first step of the Soviet government to restrict exit from the country was the Instruction to the commissars of border points of the Russian Republic “On the rules of entry and exit from Russia” dated December 21, 1917. According to the new rules, in order to leave the country, foreign and Russian citizens were required to have a foreign passport. Russian citizens were required to obtain permission to travel from the foreign department of the Internal Affairs Committee in Petrograd, or in Moscow, from the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs. Thus, strict supervision was established over all citizens crossing the state border.
New rules for the entry of citizens into the country from abroad were approved by the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs on January 12, 1918, and the decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR "On ownerless property" dated November 3, 1920 practically excluded the possibility of the return of emigrated citizens ever in the future. Thus, the Soviet government actually deprived millions of emigrants and refugees of their property, and therefore of any basis for existence in their native land and prospects for return. If before 1920 foreign passports could be obtained from the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs, then with the introduction of changes this document also had to receive a visa from the Special Department of the Cheka.
For the first time, the proposal to impose the death penalty for attempting to return from abroad without the sanction of the authorities was voiced by Lenin in May 1922 at a meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee during a discussion of the draft Criminal Code of the RSFSR. However, no decision was made.
According to the new rules introduced on June 1, 1922, to travel abroad it was necessary to obtain special permission from the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs (NKID). It is quite obvious that this further complicated the exit process, making it almost impossible. It was practically impossible for journalists, writers, or other artists to travel abroad; to travel, these people had to wait for a special decision from the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP(b).
The procedure for traveling abroad became more stringent every year, and the “Regulations on entry and exit from the USSR”, issued on June 5, 1925, became a new stage in tightening travel rules. The situation made the exit procedure extremely strict. All foreign countries were declared a “hostile capitalist encirclement.”
The logical continuation in the chain of tightening the procedure for traveling abroad and the construction of the “Iron Curtain” was Stalin’s law of June 9, 1935. Escaping across the border was punishable by death. At the same time, the relatives of the defectors were, naturally, also declared criminals.
The introduction of such a severe penalty for fleeing the country was dictated not only by the logic of total repression, but was also a kind of reinsurance. The authorities feared the start of mass emigration if famine recurred in the country.
The law providing for execution for illegal emigration was repealed only after the death of Joseph Stalin. Escape from the territory of the USSR was now punishable by imprisonment. Strict restrictions regarding the possibility of leaving the USSR lasted almost until its collapse. The first serious step towards liberalizing migration legislation was the Law “On Entry and Exit”, adopted in 1990.
The Soviet Union is often portrayed as an evil territory that did nothing but oppress its citizens. Especially now they like to speculate that the USSR en masse “preserved” its citizens within the country and in no case agreed to release them abroad. As usual, in all such legends there is truth and fiction together.
Here, as they say, there is a double-edged sword. In the country of the Soviets it was possible to travel abroad. But there were several BUTs here.
Did you have a USSR passport?
YESNO
Firstly, diplomats (they were required to do so as part of their duties), cultural and sports figures (although this was not without its own nuances) and also, of course, intelligence service employees, traveled more or less freely abroad. Even without much delay, high-ranking party members were given the right to travel. Well, this is not surprising. But with ordinary citizens everything was completely different.
Does the director mind?
One of the first things that needed to be resolved was with the authorities. The director of the enterprise where a citizen who wanted to travel abroad worked, regardless of the place of travel - to the countries of the socialist camp (although here it was simpler) or to the countries of the camp - had to obtain permission and a positive reference from his boss.
Then it was necessary to get the same from the head of the trade union committee and the political committee. Here, basically, they could not do without bribes and “souvenirs”. This is when someone who wanted to see the world obliged to bring all this brethren some souvenirs from distant and not so distant countries. He obliged, of course, unofficially. If everything went smoothly and no one put a spoke in the wheels, we could move on to the next stage.
State passport
In the USSR there was such an amazing institution - OVIR, or in its entirety - the Department of Visas and Registration. It was there that you had to go with permission from your superiors, characteristics, your own passport, as well as a detailed and detailed explanation of why you, a citizen of the best country in the world, were going to go somewhere abroad, especially to the countries of “decaying capitalism.”
Expert opinion
Mercury Stepan Igorevich
A prominent historian, expert in the field of research into the history of the USSR, member of the archaeological society, academician.
Quite often, without such an invitation, the application might not be considered at all. But still, they deigned to satisfy your desire and considered your application to travel abroad. But that was far from the end of the story. Applications had to be submitted very in advance - 45 days before the date of intended departure to capitalist countries, 30 days if a person wanted to travel around the socialist bloc.
Subject to all the bureaucracy, the citizen’s request was transferred to the Moscow department of the KGB, where it was carefully considered on an individual basis. Otherwise, maybe you’re dysfunctional, or you might even have valuable information for the enemy. By the way, people working at state-owned enterprises associated with the military or space industry, and all others, were not allowed to go abroad at the official level. When they started working, they signed a written undertaking not to leave the place.
When the decision was positive, a foreign passport arrived in the mail of the Soviet citizen who expressed a desire to visit abroad. He had to be approved by the same OVIR, and also had to pay 105 rubles - 5 for the foreign trip itself, another 100 for the work done.
It is forbidden to talk to strangers
But even here the influence of the Soviet system on the life and leisure of its people did not end. When visiting abroad, USSR residents were accommodated only in certain hotels, wandering around “anywhere” was forbidden, and it was also forbidden to enter into conversations with foreigners.
During the rest of the time preceding Gorbachev’s rule, even though a Soviet person could travel around the world and see distant countries, all this was connected with such a bureaucracy that only the most persistent remained.