Talk:Georgy Malenkov

Older

As this stands, this is awfully close to http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/georgy_malenkov.php3, to the point of raising some questions about copyright issues. Joe Mabel 2 Nov 2003

Secretlondon's change 18:58, 7 Nov 2003 replaces a link to a List of Secretaries-General of the Russian Communist Party (this may well be mis-named: I believe that should be "...Communist Party of the Soviet Union" rather than "Russian Communist Party") with a link to a List of leaders of the Soviet Union that doesn't include Malenkov! Since this is an article abou Malenkov, that seems an odd choice. It looks to me like that also means those two lists deserve reconciliation. Since I'm not expert on the 1950s Soviet Union, just middling knowledgeable, I leave it to someone else to follow up and sort this all out. Joe Mabel 8 Nov 2003

Why was the information on place of birth and death removed? -- Jmabel 07:02, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

User:Cantus was on a campaign of changing the standardized styles used for intro paragraphs. Locations of birth and death don't belong there. I just added the place of birth in the second paragraph. Everyking 16:50, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Suspicious text

The text:

"and became a commissar for the Red Army in 1919. He officially joined the party a year later"

is very suspicious, since commissars were party overseers of the army. Mikkalai 20:21, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Brittanica Concise website says he joined Red Army in 1919 and the party in 1920 but does not claim he became a commissar in 1919. I'll try to check some print sources. Andris 02:57, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

I checked the library. The printed Brittanica, unsurprisingly, agrees with Brittanica website. Bolshaya Sovetskaya Enciklopediya says that he joined Red Army as a volunteer in 1919, Communist Party in April 1920 and was a politrabotnik in the army from 1919 to 1921, when he retired from Army. (Is politrabotnik the same as commissar?)

To summarize, 1919 for joining Army and 1920 for Communist Party seem to be universally accepted. Commissar part is more obscure but Bolshaya Sovetskaya Enciklopediya seems to confirm that as well. We could either leave it as is is or rewrite to something like "He joined Red Army in 1919 and Communist Party in 1920. During his service in Red Army, he was a political commissar" if we want to be perfectly safe. Any thoughts?Andris 23:07, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

That sounds appropriate to me, solid and safe. -- Jmabel 06:31, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Since no one else has responded, I assumed that's fine with everyone and rewrote the article. Andris 20:17, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Agree with User:Mikkalai. I am removing a contradictory phrase: Although he never rejoined the party, Malenkov remained a Communist. AFAIK, it's either one or the other. --Humus sapiens|Talk 02:46, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

It could mean he remained supportive of Communist ideas. But it's better to leave it out for now. Andris 02:54, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

First Secretary?

Malenkov became Chairman of the Council of Ministers (or Premier) as well as First Secretary of the party

I think this is false. Malenkov was since 1952 and remained until February 14, 1953 one of the Secretaries of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. There was no position of the First Secretary immediately after Sralin's death. Andres 12:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Andres. Malenkov was of the Secretaries, but not First Secretary. In Russian Wikipedian article it is said he was Chairman of the Council of Ministers (председатель Совета министров СССР). No info about the post of First Secretary. As far as I know, Malenkov failed in power struggle with Khrushchev since he held top governmental post only, while Khrushchev held top partial post, i.e more powerful. -- Avia 08:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In the Russian list of General Secretaries of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Khruschev succeeded to Stalin. Avia 03:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Redundant categories

In categories Leaders of the Soviet Union|, Soviet politicians, and Communists. Surely there should be a hierarchical relationship among these categories and only Category:Leaders of the Soviet Union should be need on the article... -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

It was my understanding that Malenkov was prevented from succeeding Stalin because he was a Cossack. Does anyone know anything about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.31.226 (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Descent

"Georgy Maximilianovich Malenkov (Russian: Гео́ргий Максимилиа́нович Маленко́в, Georgij Maksimilianovič Malenkov; January 8, 1902– January 14, 1988) was a Soviet politician of Macedonian descent". The "macedonian descent" thing is a very unstable concept, as there was no such nation at the time he was born, neither at the time HIS parrents lived or were born. Even more, the source says this:

• "Не все знают, что он по национальности македонец, что по отношению к понятию болгарин означает то же, что белорус по отношению к русскому"

which roughly translates as

• "Not everyone knows, that his nationality was macedonian, which for a bulgarian means quite the same as belarussian for a russian".

Nobody says wether Russians consider Belarussians the same as themselves, or they consider them something different, or that Bulgarians consider Macedonians something different or quite the same. For now I'm removing it. - Tourbillon ^{A ?} 21:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't justify removal. There is a source saying he was Macedonian, which is conflicting with your views. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 10:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not my views. It's a fact that there was no such nation or country by that time. It's like calling the varyags russians. Besides, the source is of low quality, considering the absurd articles next to the text. And I havent fount a relevant source (or any other source, actually, except macedonist forums and cheap wikipedia copies) for that saying anywhere - if you have such, please post it. Until then it will be removed as a nonsence. - Tourbillon ^{A ?} 12:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There maybe was no such nation as in independent nation, but there was a ethnic macedonian nation existing. If there wasnt a source, id said fine, remove it. But the thing is; there is a source and a good one too, so i think this should be added to the site. There was no ireland either, but that doesnt mean there were no irish ethnic people. And for your information, being macedonian, does not mean quite the same as belorussian for russian. thats insane. Being Macedonian has nothing to do with Bulgarians or their country. I personally know the family where he had his roots from, and they are certainly not Bulgarians Makedonia (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"a ethnic macedonian nation existing" - even this is dubious and scholars are not on the same opinion about it. Your example of Ireland is not correct, as Irish culture is very distinct, while every Balkan culture is to some degree similar with another. Bulgaria and Macedonia probably have more common ground in terms of culture and history than any other entities in the world. Please do not push your nonsence of who you know here, its not a forum. Even if there is some degree of truth he is coming from the region of Macedonia, this should be sourced. And as I already mentioned, macedonian nationalist forums do not count. A reliable, confirmable source is needed. - Tourbillon ^{A ?} 20:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you have one above. A russian one. So what is the problem? It says that he is Macedonian in the first place. Then the source gives a sort of explanation, but thats not of a matter. Macedonian is Macedonian, if it means for bulgarians to be same as belorussian for a russian, that's another discussion. Makedonia (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A source must be confirmable. At this point there is no other serious source, stating that he's Macedonian. Not to mention that even this one only points out that Malenkov is Macedonian, not that he is an ethnic Macedonian. There's a substantial difference. - Tourbillon ^{A ?} 18:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Cyrillic Text

Foreign language renderings are very seldom useful in English language encyclpedia atricles. It does not benefit English readers at all to know Cyrillic form of subject name, and official Wiki policy should provide only for useful content.

Foreign language specialists should focus on other internet sites.

--NCDane (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

a better picture

could someone please upload a pic where we can actually see what he normally looked like?Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

First Secretary

Since there have been recent attempts to add info to the article classifying Malenkov as First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, I think the issue deserves some discussion here. As far as I could determine by looking at various sources, unlike Stalin and Kruschev, Malenkov never held the official title of First Secretary or General Secretary. The title of First Secretary was officially instituted in Sept 1953 and Kruschev was the first person to hold that title. By contrast, Malenkov's official position was just Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Malenkov is sometimes referred by some western sources as First Secretary, but that is purely informal and sloppy designation. Western sources are notoriously bad and sloppy in understanding the power structure and hierarchy in the USSR and they often use sloppy and informal terms like President, Premier etc, in the situations where these titles are formally incorrect. The Russian/Soviet sources are much more careful in the matters of protocol and none of them refer to Malenkov as First Secretary. Nsk92 (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are a couple of sample Russian sources with bio info on Malenkov [1], [2] - they just list him as Secretary of the Central Committee. Nsk92 (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope you know that Stalin from 1934 to 1953 did not hold an office titled First Secretary, but he was First Secretary of the Secretariat... you don't seem to understand that..... Being First Secretary means that you are the first of the secretariats, this is of major importance and this information must be included.

Again, in Stalin's and Malenkov's case the First Secretary means First Secretary of the Secretariat and not First Secretary the office, but instead the political position of First Secretary... --TIAYN (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There was never any such official thing as "the first of secretaries" or "First Secretary of the Secretariat". There had been the official position of the General Secretary of the Central Committee (held by Stalin until 1934) and then the position of the First Secretary of of the Central Committee, created in September 1953 and first occupied by Khruschev. Any designation of Malenkov as the First Secretary (of whatever) is purely informal and should not be used in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Unlike Malenkov, Stalin did hold the official title of General Secretary, until 1934. Malenkov never had the official title of First or General Secretary. I believe we should stick to official positions rather than use some kind of informal designations. Nsk92 (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Malenkov held the position of Premier, which was the position in which he ruled from along with him bein designated the title of First Secretary..... Giving Stalin the excuse of being General Secretary is a really bad reason! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trust Is All You Need (talk • contribs)

What is "giving Stalin the excuse" is supposed to mean. Stalin was the first General Secretary but after he had become the undisputed ruler, the office was left unmentioned. Still, historiography considers him General Secretary until his death. After his death, there was no General Secretary until Khruschev was named First Secretary.

Malenkov was a powerful figure, for a short while even (seemingly) the most powerful but was not First/General secretary or party leader in any formal sense. His power was not based on a supreme party office. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is another Russian source [3] with Malenkov's bio - again listing him as just Secretary. Once again, Malenkov was never officially the First Secretary of the Central Committee. If you can find any Russian/Soviet source to the contrary, I'd certainly like to see it. By the way, the ru-wiki article for Malenkov lists him just as Secretary as well. Nsk92 (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The Russian wiki [4] lists him as First Secretary; what are you talking, either you are lying or don't know Russian... I'm however pretty sure that it is the later. The article even have him succeeding Stalin as First Secretary and being the predecessor of Khrushchev. --TIAYN (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong about Russian wikipedia article - he is listed there as First Secretary in the infobox - I had been looking at the opening paragraph there where he is listed as just Secretary. I grew up in Russia and Russian is my native language, FYI. Nsk92 (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for saying that you don't know Russian, if what you are saying is true, I just made a fool of myself ;P --TIAYN (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Malenkow never occupied either the position of First or General Secretary. He was Secretary but that 1. can never justify listing him anywhere as First/General Secretary, 2. he was not the only Secretary, was he?

Russian WP is of no consequence as WP cannot be a source for WP.

Malenkow was one of the Soviet leaders (never "the party leader") in the succession of Stalin and for a while even the most powerful, as he was head of government and no single head of the party existed. This changed when Krushchev became First Secretary - then two separate heads of government and party existed that would eventually collide, with the Party leader winning the day. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that Stalin wasn't leader of the CPSU from 1934 to 1953??? Second, take Vladimir Lenin as an example, he was never officially the leader, but he was the informal leader of the Bolshevik Party. Thirdly, Malenkov led the party, he chaired both politburo and central committee meetings and sessions, which in all makes him the "informal leader of the CPSU"... Second, you can't denie that Stalin was First Secretary can you? No you can't... This is just POV nonsense. --TIAYN (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's my point exactly. Given that Malenkov never held the official post of First Secretary, that any such description of him is only informal, and given that even in that informal sense he may have been the leader of CPSU only for a few days, I don't believe that designating him as First Secretary in the article is appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

But it is appropriate to list Lenin and Stalin as party leaders? That does not make sense and defies any logic i've come over!!! --TIAYN (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, but for Lenin, and for Stalin after 1934, their leadership of the party did not come from holding a formal "leader" post. It is OK to describe them as leaders, but it is not OK to give them formal titles they did not hold. Nsk92 (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well that is a personnal opinion, which have been my point all along.... As First Secretart Malenkov did the same duties as Stalin and Lenin did when they were leaders..... Question, why are you fighting against history??? You seem to want to create a "Hot War" with me.

Oh, and after 1934 Stalin ruled the party from a formal post, just as Malenkov... Just because you want otherwise doesn't make it true. --TIAYN (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the designation of someone as "First Secretary" or "General Secretary" in the infobox of an article about a given person should only be done if the person officially held that position. For other situations, where someone exercised leadership not based on a formal title, this should be explained in the main body of the article, but not plugged into the infobox. That is the case with Malenkov. Nsk92 (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an opinion.... Saying that he was just a secretary is missinformation, and seeing the importance of him and his seat, it would be wrong to remove it from the infobox.. There is simply no other choice... But yes, his position should be better explained in the article, something you can do (instead of edit-warring)! --TIAYN (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It is explained quite well in the article - Malenkov was Secretary since 1948. He became (with help of Beria) Premier of the USSR and for a while the most powerful individual.

I have no great objection against listing his being mere Secretary from 1948 to whenever he left the Secretariat. But I object to the invention of senior offices that never existed. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That Lenin was party leader is undisputed - when he was alive, the GS was not yet the formal party leader. However, if anyone listed Lenin as GS it would be wrong.

Stalin became party leader after Lenin's death, based on his GS office and remained it until his death. So, there is not dispute about Stalin's leadership either. Neither is there dispute that Stalin was GS.

At best you can argue, that Stalin was not GS after 1934 but a) is that based purely on an argument e silentio, namely that the office was not mentioned after that. b) historiography doesn't agree with you on that, as historians simply take Stalin to have been GS from 1922 to his death. Hence, removing Stalin after 1934 constitutes OR.

It is you who is fighting against history, TIAYN, pushing your personal opinion. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

By 1953, the leadership structure of Communist parties had been established with the GS being the leader. Hence, Malenkov (in contrast to Lenin) must be measured under that criterion. And even the little party preponderance Malenkov had (not the highest office but at least no one above him) lasted only for a very short while. There can be no justification for listing Malenkov for an office he didn't hold (and in that, there's no difference to Lenin).

Str1977 ^(talk) 14:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I want to reiterate that Stalin at no point was "First Secetary" (though he was "General Secretary" - neither was Malenkov. Khrushchev however was exactly that. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Stalin ruled the country through the Council of Ministers after 1941, second were do you get that it is a common missconception that Stalin was General Secretary from 1922 until his death. There are many sources which states that the General Secretaryship was abolished in 1934. And thirdly, yes I know that Malenkov is controversial but he was still FIRST SECRETARY.. Thats a fact, and the fact that you are denying it is akward seeing that you should know this, being that you are Russian and all. --TIAYN (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The "common misconception" (it if is one) is so common that historiogaphy has adopted it and always lists Stalin as GS from 1922 to his death. Against this, your point is a personal opinion and Original research.

Even if Stalin had not been GS after 1934 - IMO he simply played down his role, contenting himself with the designation "secretary", as if he was a member of the secretariat equal to all the others - that doesn't make a mere member of the secretariat would be party leader.

You keep on about Malenkow being "First Secretary" - but that simply isn't the case. He was a secretary, maybe the most important and powerful for a short while after Stalin's death. But he was not "First Secretary", which is the title used by Krushchev to avoid calling himself GS.

Whether Malenkov was controversial is no concern to me. The fact of the matter is that he was not GS, not FS and thus NEVER held the offices formally identified as party leader. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The office "First Secretary" created by Khrushchev and the political position "First Secretary" held by Stalin and Malenkov are not the same!!!! Malenkov did not hold an office, he held, just as Stalin an informal position.... Second, I have plenty of books which states that the GS was abolished in 1934 by notable scholars such as Robert Service (historian) and Archie Brown. Get this, Stalin and Malenkov "Were the first among secretaries"; that made them First Secretaries! They NEVER HELD A OFFICE called First Secretary... Stop with your POVing and your stuborness!!!

Second, stop deleting my posts. --TIAYN (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not delete your posts except in one case of edit conflict, I told you about it beforehand and immediately restored them.

As to your claim: "Get this, Stalin and Malenkov "Were the first among secretaries"; that made them First Secretaries! They NEVER HELD A OFFICE called First Secretary... "

That is exactly your mistake: you might say that Malenkov was first among the secretaries (and that Stalin after 1934 formally was the same - but note that 1. this is OR, and 2. he was Stalin!) but that doesn't warrant inventing a special office for him, especially not one that is called just like the one actually held by Krushchev.

Str1977 ^(talk) 15:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

And whether Stalin was GS or whatever after 1934 is only relevant to the Stalin page (and the GS list), not to Malenkov and Krushchev. The latter became FS in 1953, succeeding noone but Stalin. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No, because Malenkov became the First Secretary of the Central Committee, just as Stalin had been the First Secretary of the Central Committee after the abolishment of the GS. After Malenkov ditched the party machine in early 1953 Khrushchev established the office of the First Secretary... before that, both Stalin and Malenkov were informal First Secretaries!!! Malenkov succeded Stalin, seeing that he held the post (Council of Ministers) and the political position (First Secretary) which Stalin had held since 1941. --TIAYN (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No need to shout. Being an "informal First Secretary" in Malenkov's case is not a good enough reason for sticking that designation into the infobox. Infobox is for official titles, not informal ones. The proper place to explain what exactly Malenkov's informal position was in the party right after Stalin's death is the main body of the article (including possibly the lede) but not the infobox. Nsk92 (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No, TIAYN, Stalin was never First Secretary, neither was Malenkov. The GS also was never formally abolished (at least until Krushchev revived under a different name).

What you tell me is that Stalin and Malenkov informally held a formal office. There is no such thing!!! Str1977 ^(talk) 14:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, TIAYN, Nsk and Str are right. There was no formal First Secretary office before Krushchev. Russian wikipedia is not a WP:RS. - BorisG (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi! I'm here to offer a third opinion, as has been requested on WP:3O. I agree with Str, the Russian Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, because being a wiki like this one, anyone can edit it. TIAYN, I respect that you have a claim, and that you say you have the sources to verify it, but can you please provide some links and page numbers? Until then, I'll have to concur with BorisG, Nsk, and Str.—hkr Laozi speak 22:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That the General Secretaryship was abolished

• "in effect the position of the General Secretary had been abolished
• Archie Brown, writer of The Rise and Fall of Communism; "Moreover, the post of general secretary had been formally abolished by Stalin" (p. 736)
• "The position of General Secretary was abolished and Stalin became one of a number of First Secretaries of the party"
• Robert Service (historian) "Stalin, despite losing his title of General Secretary in 1934, dominated the secretariet"
  • There are more, but these are three good examples, right?

That Malenkov was First Secretary

• "became Prime Minister and First Secretary
• Malenkov, who had assumed the twin offices of prime minister and first secretary"
  • There are more, but these are three good examples, right?
• are any more sources needed?? --TIAYN (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

TIAYN,

regarding your constant accusations I will respond assuming good faith once: I did not break the 3-revert-rule at all. I am a different user from Nsk, who broke it too, though not as egregiously as you did.

As for the issue: Malenkov, as you yourself stated in an edit summary and in talk page postings, was not "First Secretary", neither was Stalin. And you produced no sources (no surprise, they don't exist) for that claim. Whether the two informally were first among the secretaries is another matter. But informal power doesn't belong into infoboxes or succession boxes.

Now, as to the abolition of the GS in 1934: thus far your claim has not been sufficently sourced. The GS article contains info that the position was not mentioned again after 1934 and that Stalin contented himself with the designation of secretary. That the GS position was formally abolished is never stated - this would require positive proof.

Even if you bring up a few sources that cover such changes in 1934, it doesn't change the fact that historians overwhelmingly reckon Stalin to have been GS from 1922 to his death.

BTW, Stalin ruled party and state after 1934 not because of any office he held (he became premier only in 1941) but because he was Stalin.

Str1977 ^(talk) 08:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This was written before I had a look at the sources you present.

• Your first one is already a misrepresentation, I quote in full: "no longer supervising the work of the Central Commitee secretariat. This job was done by Malenkov, while Stalin remained a Secretary of the Central Commitee along with others. Although there never had been any official decision, in effect, the position of the General Secretary had been abolished." There are several noteworthy items in that passage, which you totally ignore:

• • The passage doesn't speak about 1934 but about the last phase of Stalin's life, when Malenkov was on the up and Stalin left day-to-day work to him.
  • It also clearly states that there were many secretaries, not just Stalin, Malenkov, Krushchev.
  • It also clearly states that there had been "no official decision" - hence it completely contradicts your claim that the GS had been abolished at any time (and certainly not in 1934).

I wonder whether your others sources are just as valid. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I continue:

• I cannot test Archie Brown.
• [5] talks about a party congress held in 1952 - Krushchev is also mentioned as being one of the Secretaries beside Stalin and others (including, though unnamed, Malenkov) - this again contradicts your claim that the GS was abolished in 1934 and also that Krushchev somehow succeeded Malenkov in 1953 in any office. Both were secretaries under Stalin and the one pushed the other out of the secretariat before attaining for himself the supreme office, now renamed "First Secretary". Though the book employs the term "First secretaries", we must be careful since this can be (under your wording, must be) lead to confusion with Krushchev's office. Also, thus far this is the lone source.
• Robert Service merely talks about "Stalin ... losing his title]", not of him losing an office and also states that he still "dominated the secretariat"
• [6] does claim that but, given that the "First Secretary" office was only created in September 1953, it is simply wrong, probably sloppy, thinking that the short-term leader Malenkov must have had that office. We know, he didn't.
• The same goes for [7]

Apart from quotes being partly mispresentations, party misunderstandings of what the books say, and party books being sloppy, I am onfident that there are very many books* that actually call Stalin GS until his death and do not list Malenkov as a General/First secretary. And even you confirmed that latter item several times.

Actually, one of these is the very first book you quote, which states that there had been no official changes at least some time after 1948 (when Malenkov entered the Secretariat). Another places changes in 1952 but still, does not allow for "faking" a Stalin-Malenkov-Krushchev succession in a "First secretary" office. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

See quote from Archie Brown's book The Rise and Fall of Communism:

"Moreover, the post of the General Secretary had been formally abolished by Stalin at the Nineteenth Party Congress in 1952, so that in principle even Stalin was then just one among several secretaries, though the reality was utterly different. This meant, though, that in March 1953 there was not a position of individual pre-eminence in the Communist Party in the way in which there was a slot for just one person at the top of the ministerial hierarchy". (p. 231-232)

--TIAYN (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, this contradicts your claim that the GS was abolished in 1934. In contrast to the source above it talks of Stalin formally being just one of many secretaries (no "first"s).

It also explains why nobody suceeded Stalin as GS upon his death - the office had been abolished (formally!) - hence there can be no succession as you claim in March 1953 - the First secretary position was restarted with Krushchev in September 1953.

I don't mind a note saying that Stalin's GS was formally abolished in 1952 - but no more. Certainly not in 1934, which now has been amply demonstrated by your own material to be a false claim. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll settle for that; but just to clarify, my point all along is that after Stalin abolished the GS and his death, Malenkov had become the most powerful member of the party, a sort-of-informal-leader you might say, for a very short time... My point all along is that Malenkov was the most powerful of the secretaries..... But again, i will settle for this. --TIAYN (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.

I already added the formal abolition in Stalin's article.

I also agree (and always have) with your statement that following Stalin's death, Malenkov was the most powerful secretary and (at least as long as uncontested by Beria) party member and a sort of "informal leader", a "first among equals", a "number one". But such informal things are, as Nsk has stated, something for the article text and the intro, not for infoboxes or succesion boxes (as there is no sucession that could be demonstrated). Str1977 ^(talk) 09:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, that was my point all along and I am fine with Str1977's solution. Nsk92 (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. --TIAYN (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Rise in the Politburo

Don't people think that this out of favor, in favor stuff is merky? It says Beria saw Zhdanov's allies executed. But Leningrad affair was organised by Abakumov (later executed for this), who replaced Beria's protege Merkulov in 1946 aparently due to Stalin's attempts to curb Beria's power... Do we know enough to say these things? - BorisG (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read, Malenkov never actually fell out of favor with Stalin but was tested from time to time like everyone else. It was almost unheard of to fall out of favor with Stalin and then to come back. It is almost like rising from the dead... - BorisG (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Stalin's successor

In 1946 Malenkov was named a candidate member of the Politburo. Although Malenkov was trailing behind his rivals Andrei Zhdanov and Lavrentiy Beria, he soon came back into Joseph Stalin's favour, especially after Zhdanov's strange death in 1948. That same year, Malenkov became a Secretary of the Central Committee. In the end of WWII and shortly after, Malenkov implemented Stalin's plan to destroy all political and cultural competition from Leningrad/St. Petersburg, the former capital of Russia, in order to concentrate all power in Moscow. Leningrad and its leaders earned immense respect and popular support due to winning the heroic Siege of Leningrad. Both Stalin and Malenkov expressed their hatred to anyone born and educated in Leningrad/St. Petersburg, so they organized and led the attack on Leningrad elite. Beria and Malenkov together with Abakumov organized massive execution of their rivals in Leningrad Affair where all leaders of Leningrad and Zhdanov's allies were killed, and thousands more were locked up in GULAG labour camps upon Stalin's approval. Malenkov personally ordered the destruction of the Museum of the Siege of Leningrad and declared the 900-day-long defense of Leningrad "a myth designed by traitors trying to diminish the greatness of comrade Stalin." Simultaneously, Malenkov replaced all communist party and administrative leadership in Leningrad by provincial communists loyal to Stalin. After that, in order to test Malenkov as a potential successor, the ageing Stalin increasingly withdrew from the business of the Communist party secretariat, leaving the task of supervising the Soviet Communist party entirely to Malenkov.

This Time magazine cover [8] illustrates that Malenkov was Stalin's apprentice and successor.

Malenkov's crafty activity in organizing the Leningrad Affair was important for Stalin. After killing the leaders of Leningrad, Malenkov won Stalin's full support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.147.22.105 (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)