Green Beryl

At the time of Stalin's death, yes there were many who hated him or had trauma associated with his leadership, but he was also widely understood as a national hero throughout the Soviet Union. That's why there were mass protests against de-Stalinisation, such as in Georgia where the protests caused massive unrest and anti-Soviet sentiment

In attributing all crimes to Stalin as an individual, in denouncing Stalin in his entirety, Khrushchev and his government were essentially forcing the Soviet people to abandon pride in all that they had achieved throughout Stalin's leadership. Writings about the experiences of the Soviet people in the 20s and 30s, with the exception of the Great Purge years, have demonstrated such an astronomical degree of hope and passion for socialist development

They defeated the Nazis under Stalin's leadership. They modernised their country, turning it from a feudal empire to a world superpower with powerful industry and welfare services hitherto inconceivable

To then suddenly denounce that entire period of leadership is to destabilise the people's connection to those achievements and create widespread disillusionment in communism. It's also just reductive, feeding great man theory which is anti-Marxist anyway

Soviet leadership should have done what China did, and assessed Stalin's leadership more fairly. They should have admitted to the mistakes and abuses of power yes, but not abandon Stalin's legacy completely, and they should have analysed it within context in order to understand how better to improve

Further, the work is critical of attributing these critiques to Stalin alone. That is Great Man theory, not materialism.

I do also like what Carlos Martinez had to say about this topic in his book The End Of The Beginning: Lessons Of The Soviet Collapse. Sorry if what he says is redundant but I like the quotes he adds.

[Khrushchev’s] methods, however, were disastrous. It should have been possible to make political changes without launching a severe frontal attack on Stalin and all that he represented. Stalin was the most prominent Soviet leader from 1924 until his death in 1953. In other words, Stalin led the USSR for twenty-nine of the thirty-six years of the USSR’s existence. To criticize him so harshly, to tear down a personality cult so suddenly, meant to cast doubt on the entire Soviet experience to that point it meant to delegitimize the extraordinary achievements of the CPSU and the Soviet people during the Stalin era. Even Vladislav Zubok – an anti-Stalinist by any measure – observes that ‘the destruction of Stalin’s cult wounded the Soviet ideological consensus’.

The situation demanded a more balanced, nuanced assessment of the Stalin period (although we should note in passing that, even now, such a thing is rare). The post-Mao leadership in China had criticisms of Mao that were not entirely dissimilar to the Khrushchev leadership’s criticisms of Stalin. Some of the changes they introduced had parallels with those envisaged by Khrushchev. And yet it did not occur to the Chinese leadership to try to destroy Mao’s legacy. Deng Xiaoping made an insightful comment on this subject in an interview given to the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci in 1980,

We will make an objective assessment of Chairman Mao’s contributions and his mistakes. We will reaffirm that his contributions are primary and his mistakes secondary. We will adopt a realistic approach towards the mistakes he made late in life. We will continue to adhere to Mao Zedong Thought, which represents the correct part of Chairman Mao’s life. Not only did Mao Zedong Thought lead us to victory in the revolution in the past it is – and will continue to be – a treasured possession of the Chinese Communist Party and of our country. That is why we will forever keep Chairman Mao’s portrait on Tiananmen Gate as a symbol of our country, and we will always remember him as a founder of our Party and state. . . . We will not do to Chairman Mao what Khrushchev did to Stalin.

Nearly four decades later, Mao’s portrait still occupies pride of place on Tiananmen Gate.

Khrushchev’s speech created widespread confusion and doubt anger, in some places. A report from 2015 on a recently rebuilt statue of Stalin in the village of Eski Ikan, Kazakhstan, contains a thought-provoking quote from a Second World War veteran who, along with his fellow villagers, had resisted attempts by the local authorities to dismantle Stalin’s statue in the late 1950s in the wake of Khrushchev’s speech,