“Game of the phenomens” in Anatoly Tchernyaev's diary.

Print PDF

Annotation / Аннотация
In article the source study analysis is presented and the multidimensional maintenance of a unique historical source – a diary 1972-1991 A.S.Tchernyaev, the assistant to the Secretary general of the Central Committee of the CPSU, subsequently the President of the USSR M.S.Gorbachev reveals.
В статье представлен источниковедческий анализ и раскрывается многоаспектное содержание уникального исторического источника – дневника 1972-1991 гг. А.С. Черняева, помощника Генерального секретаря ЦК КПСС, впоследствии Президента СССР М.С. Горбачева. Черняев А. Совместный исход. Дневник двух эпох. 1972-1991 годы. М.: РОССПЭН, 2008. 1047 с., ил.

Ключевые слова / Keywords
Historical source, source study, diary, the CPSU Central Committee, reorganisation in the USSR, A.S.Tchernyaev, M.S.Gorbachev. Исторический источник, источниковедение, дневник, ЦК КПСС, перестройка в СССР, А.С. Черняев, М.С. Горбачев.

Not to everyone it allowed to keep a diary. This kind of the document demands special organisation, observation and any, but nevertheless ability to write down seen and endured.
Not everyone is capable to keep a diary not only day by day, but especially from year to year, throughout decades, especially in a XX century with its vital speeds and inconceivable once means of communications.

Not everyone will dare to keep a diary, considering the life of quite ordinary, not subject fixing against somewhere away from it occurring historically significant events. For such person unless household messages can have any practical value.

Not everyone will dare to keep a diary in special type of the state in which ostentatious and not ostentatious like-mindedness is a basic principle of ability to live. In such state of revelation, even not public on diary pages, time and again became one of the bases for a verdict of guilty to its author.

Not everyone can or even has the right to keep a diary when its work anyhow adjoins to the state secrets irrespective of, original or imaginary from positions of our time, these secrets once were.

At last, not each author of a diary will be decided on its publication at the life and during lifetime of many contemporaries to whom it gives sometimes impartial estimations and characteristics. A diary – a thing live and direct in which events of the lived day, weeks, prove month then sometimes in very and very emotional and subjective estimations. Therefore more often authors of diaries act during lifetime as memoirists, using diary records in quieter, based on knowledge of a historical retrospective show, a genre of a historical narration.

A.S. Tchernyaev's diary, the long-term high-ranking party functionary, the assistant manager the international department of the Central Committee of the CPSU, then the assistant to the Secretary general of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the President of the USSR M.S. Gorbachev, resolutely it is not entered in the designated above and checked up laws designated above by time. The long-term speech writer or as the author, "clerk" names at the secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU B.N. Ponomarev, and then at the Secretary general of the Central Committee of the CPSU M.S. Gorbachev, the author excellent owns a feather, fixing an event often daily, sometimes with small breaks within 1972-1991 As it is possible to understand, the publication – only the diary part, which Tchernyaev conducted since the Great Patriotic War which participant it was. Already one it causes huge respect for its author for cases of conducting a diary in ХХ century, during hardly probable not fifty years of the Soviet history, we while know it is not enough.

Tchernyaev fixes "from within" the organization of work of a general staff of building of communism – the Central Committee of the CPSU, its Political bureau, Secretary and by that confirms many Soviet narrow-minded judgments about then inaccessible, little-known and even mysterious shape and the mechanism of work of this staff.

In certificates on characters and actions of the higher persons of the state the diary is ruthless, subverting from not deserved pedestal practically all what portraits flaunted on celebratory demonstrations who participated in political broadcasts of the Soviet TV or flashed in photos of newspapers "Truth" and "News". In general if from E.T. Gaydar's book “destruction of empire” we could learn how there was an economic degradation of the USSR in 1970-1980 from Tchernyaev's diary we can receive representation about political decomposition of its management.

So, according to Tchernyaev's diary, the system inevitably even after Stalin revived a cult of personality of the secretary general, selected certain type of people in a party staff.

The diary has fixed last months and days of formal stay of Gorbachev in the power, its convulsive attempts on numerous foreign trips to obtain credits as one of possible ways of pressure upon a management of the republics USSR, already resolved to run from the USSR. But politicians of the West, rendering to Gorbachev respect, should consider a real situation in the USSR where Gorbachev against Yeltsin, Kravchuk and other republican leaders was almost already anybody. And the most important thing is the back which has turned to it of the people about what the western leaders too well knew. And as the makeweight to it is disbelief in Gorbachev's based on already absolute of nothing meaning facts of life of the USSR of September any optimistic statements – December, 1991 Tchernyaev's Diary it is not simple fixing of the major events of the Soviet and world history 1970 – 1990th, its author was the witness or which participant. It, perhaps, the short abstract of this history – not only especially factice, but also estimated, strengthened by the latest weather author's conclusions. Special importance to this abstract is given by that circumstance that the author created it simultaneously with made events, instead of after any time when their retrospective estimation can be always corrected knowledge of the taken place consequences, results of these events. And to it it is necessary to add an important detail: the author of a diary was not the detached onlooker, not the ordinary participant of process, and its active organizer. And, it is necessary to tell directly, it has succeeded in a prediction of much, happened in the USSR.

Therefore inevitably there is a question on the one who and what it for the person, what motives forced it to conduct fearlessly the annals of ability to live of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the USSR last years their existence, in general – than it was guided in the actions, occupying high posts in the party-state hierarchy of the USSR?
The diary published during lifetime of its author and under its individual decision, can be considered as an original documentary self-portrait.

Looking through its pages to "show" this self-portrait, and as during old kind times in a photolaboratory, we will make it whenever possible on chronology of records of a diary. October, 1979: Tchernyaev visits the USA and among the other observes, how employees of the Soviet mission at the United Nations accept it: “Whether simply good people, whether I underestimate, as my post perceive« from outside” (p. 379). March, 1980 when the party documents connected with the 110 anniversary from the date of a birth of Lenin prepare. Record the first:« I fulfill the duty, trying to make extremely well that is entrusted to me, irrespective of, I agree with an essence of the business or not »(p. 398). Record the second: “We go in one smelly cart where all is permitted, and there is nothing overfastidiousness to be engaged” (p. 399). Impressions of plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU on June, 23rd, 1980:« And nevertheless the mythology operates: ух, as it was pleasant to listen to the words written by you in such execution (in Brezhnev's speech), in such audience and for such purpose – for history! »(P. 412). On September, 19th, 1980 numerous texts start to irritate the author of a diary and he writes down:« And every day there were instants when I again and again came back to the main note of my present existence: and I will sometime live on the present? Really all life should consist from the 10-sentry of service when it is impossible to leave anywhere! »(P. 419). In October, 1991 when from МКД practically already in general remains nothing, Tchernyaev, again marking inevitability of it, writes down:« As well as naturalness of origin of a revisionism in such links as the international departments of the Central Committee … For we knew the world and knew that anybody will not attack us, knew also that such actually МКД – that has put its dead … Not without reason and in СЕПГ and especially in the device of the Central Committee of foreign affairs specialists since Trapeznikova considered as revisionists and suffered only because without them it was "technically impossible to keep in touch with Communist Parties and to hold them in the transport» (p. 1003).

But here already other times when start to sparkle whether stars, whether already reorganization sparks from which there can be a fire, and the author of a diary writes down on January, 22nd, 1985 the impressions about the next session of secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU: “very nasty … I can not reconcile with indifference of people In any way (my colleagues in the Central Committee) to work for which they receive the big money and any other. Let you despise this business”. Perhaps it deserves that on the senselessness, unproductiveness, etc. But be fair. Leave, if it is not pleasant. But not be the cynic for it means that for you should do your work others which receive the same money, as you, i.e. do double work – both for itself, and for you!» (P. 596). On December, 14th, 1985 Tchernyaev, casually having learnt that it, the candidate for members of the Central Committee of the CPSU, at the next congress will not put forward in members of the Central Committee, writes down:« So, I, the candidate for members of the Central Committee, will not be selected in members of the Central Committee and, means, hour before congress with 300 roubles of pension has come to decide – to leave or to pull, and in a year, having visited position pushed, “to go away with two hundreds people” (p. 660). But has passed all about one and a half months and Tchernyaev's transition has taken place, speaking to its words «from a kingdom of relative freedom in an absolute necessity kingdom» - on a post of the assistant to the secretary general (p. 675). Now it is possible to forget about pension. And the truth, what rest when there was a real possibility in practical business to realize the ideas.

On May, 13th, 1989 Tchernyaev writes down meditations about the spiritual development:« I lived separately from external for me the ideological environment. And neither to, nor during time, after war a cult, Stalinism were not reflected in any way in my spiritual development. Though deafness of conscience and mind has appeared, as it is strange, already after ХХ congress, during Khruschev's deviation from it and my work in department of a science of the Central Committee – making stupid and spiritually corrupting … When M. С repeats: all of us children of time (in the sense that the past) … is necessary to all of us off rusping from itself and me in the company enlists, I "do not join". I lived all the same under laws of the Russian intelligency. Never I had hatred to “White Guarding”, never I of anybody, including Trotsky, did not consider as "the enemy of the people», never admired Stalin and always fixed for myself its spiritual poverty, never I professed official, i.e. Stalin Marxism-Leninism … So, Michael Sergeevich, not all of us children of time. Some – children of XIX century Also I am obliged, likely, by it if to the roots to go, - the mother, “from were” (c. 797-798).

Tchernyaev obviously likes a role of not public influential assistant Gorbachev. On September, 20th, 1991 he writes down the impressions of the round table which has taken place in "News" on which time and again there was a question on the nearest environment of the President of the USSR: “But nobody has recollected me … And after all – there would be not I who another in this post, new thinking and Gorbachev, its initiator, would look not how it has turned out in the opinion of all world. For the form here as anywhere is very substantial. Plus fitting ideas round the main things which belong, of course, to him” (p. 987).

Understanding themselves, autocharacteristics, proceed and in other records of a diary. On September, 17th, 1989 Tchernyaev recollects: «And it is good that I then, in 30th, did not take a great interest in a policy. And Komsomol has not entered. Also read Nitsshe and Schopenhauer, tens the books which were issued Gorki« the World literature », Dostoevsky in pre-war – till 1914, editions, Oscar Uajlda and Oldingtona, Kellermana and Zweig, the Physiognomy Marten du Gar and Andre Zhid, Romen Rollan and Anatol France, Gonkurov and Herzen … In summary has not lost about what we now cries« a front line “the press – moral standards and conscience … I was always internally free” (p. 802-803).

And, the truth, the author of a diary does not postulate the internal freedom, it shows it, let is reserved, not only in the state activity, but also in the private life, creating for it special "atmosphere". On January, 19th, 1991 Tchernyaev together with the colleagues has celebrated the next birthday – anniversary, the 70 anniversary. Next day he writes down in a diary: «Yesterday, already about midnight, after birthday celebrating, my girlfriends were both.« Pretty! ». And we till 4 mornings under one blanket lay three together. About what spoke – to recollect I can not any more. But in it and the life charm – in charm of a feminine, in filling by female beauty when corporal contact and simply an admiring improves and comprehends all your mean existence» (p. 909). And after hardly probable not in half a year after that the author of a diary gets acquainted with the congratulatory address to it from workers of the Central Committee and makes comments:« Then I was drunk. And has heard nothing. And now – it is pleasant. Have seized that image which I perfectly "play" so much years. But what means I play? Means, I can hold myself this image, and therefore – I have any fundamental bases, that so to "keep" in a life with people … »(p. 950). And, at last, hardly more low:« To morals at me the relation trifling … from the point of view of the narrow-minded. It is enough to see completely my diary, especially in its "female" part. But what the truth (not without reason Bovin has nicknamed me the count) – advantage and honour for me above all. And for this reason very seldom it was possible to whom to humiliate me »(p. 1033).

In increasing frequency last two years before “a joint outcome” Tchernyaev the event tries to measure through itself not as the official, and as the participant of the Great Patriotic War, and not easier "participant", and the front-line soldier. But also here remains by itself. Making comments on Gorbachev's meeting with veterans of war on the eve of the Victory 45 anniversary, it frankly separates from exclusively heroic and its by all means emotional treatments at a meeting of veterans of war with Gorbachev: “And why at me they are not present? More truly, they at me absolutely others, these emotions though I, as well as these generals and order bearers, was at war with Germans, instead of in Afghanistan” (with. 855).

So, before us – clever, formed, constantly watching not only behind a political life, but also behind events in the humanities and culture the person. It is obviously unusual to that bureaucratic environment in which it had to work during not one decade. It is an official-intellectual what was much in Russia XIX century, centuries which he especially loves. He is perfectly informed on “behavior rules” this environment that is why, remaining inside it, has managed to keep and the internal spirit of the Russian intellectual, and internal independence of judgements about an event in the world and the country. Both as the thinker and as the political strategist it on heads above the direct chiefs and, apparently, in paper execution, i.e. in the reflexions not only in a diary, but also in projects of various documents, was much more resolute than them, however, without wishing to connect itself with practical activities as public party and the statesman. It is capable sincerely outwardly and to change internally the belief – for example, originally the aversion for Solzhenitsynu was replaced in due course by genuine respect for it. It, certainly, the cynic, and, the cynic with strong nerves – differently it is difficult to understand, how it was possible to work in system, it not accepted, to it internally condemned and not to leave it. It is not deprived ambition, satisfying with its not public intellectual work which let even in most cases has been not realised practically.

It is how much possible to understand, the author of a diary acts in it not only and even not so much official-intellectual, how many the official-intellectual of Soviet period. As the official-intellectual it, apparently, internally quite deservedly, wishes to compare itself both to G. Kissindzher, and with Z. Bzhezinsky, and about S. Vens and D.Bekker and there is nothing to speak. And as a matter of fact, why also is not present? Posts – are comparable, knowledge degree – approximately identical, cynicism degree – similar, erudition – comparable. However, there was a difference of methodology of understanding of a life and the world, but Tchernyaev is easy and flexible in its revision in itself. However, to become level with them to Tchernyaev does not give its intelligence – purely Russian thinking, disturbing to the author of a diary at all analytical warehouse of its mind to be released from romantic illusions, for example, concerning a policy of the transatlantic colleagues or actions of some leaders of reorganization.

For centuries of the existence in Russia a diary as original "genre" of documentary fixing of an event as a way of psychotherapy of its author and accordingly as one of kinds of historical sources of the personal origin opposing or supplementing documents of an official origin, basically is presented by three versions: a diary-chronicle, a diary-reflexion and a diary-confession. Tchernyaev's diary in this sense represents not unique, but a rare exception: it both the chronicle, and reflexion, and a confession.

As chronicler the time and as it not only life writer, but also to no small degree the successful analyst, Tchernyaev deserves not simply a praise, it is not simple respect, but also admiration. Its diary, no doubt, the outstanding documentary certificate on two major periods in the history of the USSR. But Tchernyaev's diary is also a monumental documentary monument to its author - the documentary certificate on the uncommon person of the person of the Soviet epoch which have generated Chatsky and Petchorin simultaneously, moreover diluted with their Herzen, Lenin and certain, yet not very registered literary heroes and in a due measure not estimated real historical characters.

To that the reviewer in what is not inclined to criticize the author of a diary though at superficial reading politically engaged estimations inevitably arise. When, speaking to words favorite by Tchernyaev (and the reviewer – too) the civil poet of Russia N.M.Korzhavin, «reason god has not offended» when «much heard and saw», but could not change according to common sense, involuntarily you become either the cynic, or silent and not appreciable time-server, either legal or illegal трибуном, exposing customs of time. Possibly, therefore also there is “a game of the phenomen” lives, instead of the life device. "Superfluous", «not necessary» the person even if it also takes a high place in the state hierarchy, but cannot realize the ideas, - it is probable, it and is one of "features" of ability to live of many people of the disappeared USSR, infected with it and modern Russia.