Hello everyone
For as long as I can remember, I’ve been aware of the story of Nikita Khrushchev banging his shoe on a lectern at the United Nations. But when I looked deeper, I found that maybe everything I thought I knew was wrong.
The Story “They” Tell
The event is often cited as a moment of high drama in the United Nations.
The tale that is reported is that Khrushchev (the president of USSR from 1953 to 1964) was at the UN in October 1960, when the head of the Filipino delegation made a speech which greatly annoyed Khrushchev. Khrushchev responded, and while making his speech he removed his shoe, which he then banged on the lectern to emphasize his displeasure.
I’ve heard variations on this story.
One variation has it that when the camera pulled back to show Khrushchev from behind, you could see that he was still wearing both of his shoes, the clear implication being that the outrage Khrushchev showed was theatre—Khrushchev had prepared his reaction and was just looking for an opportunity.
the outrage was theatre
It was this story of the confected outrage that interested me and sent me digging. I tried to find that photo showing Khrushchev wearing both shoes and banging a third on his lectern. There was something about the drama that I thought would be interesting to talk about in Simon Says.
The Truth
However, the truth of what happened may be different.
Certainly Khrushchev attended the United Nations in October 1960. Certainly he gave an unscheduled angry speech. However, the whole shoe thing is probably not true.
Probably, because I was not there and I can only do so much research, and that research relies on secondary sources, so if you’ve got some actual first-hand evidence, I would love to hear it!
That caveat stated, the probable truth is:
- Khrushchev did not bang a shoe on the lectern
- Khrushchev did not bring a third shoe to bang on the lectern
- Khrushchev did not take off a shoe while at the lectern
The Evidence
There isn’t any evidence that Khrushchev banged his shoe.
There’s a photo a Khrushchev holding his shoe, but that photo was doctored.
there was no shoe
The original photo (of Khrushchev with his hand raised, not holding a shoe) is in the Associated Press archives. The doctored photo shows Khrushchev holding a shoe, but not in a manner that would be convenient to bang on a lectern—it’s more like he’s showing the audience his shoe.
This was an event that reportedly happened in a very public place and with many members of the press, from many countries being present. Newspapers of record (The New York Times, the Washington Post, The Times—in other words, papers which did not support the Soviet Union) reported the event, but there are no photos.
So Is There Any Certainty?
There are certain elements of truth in this story and there are unsubstantiated press reports.
Khrushchev was a fiery orator and a loud voice for the Soviet Union, and he was obviously outraged by the comments made by the Filipino delegation (since the comments were largely aimed to diminish Khrushchev/the Soviet Union). He may have banged lectern with his fist (there are reports of this action at other times).
There are also reports that Khrushchev lost a shoe while at the UN when someone stood on his foot.
So there are certainly elements brought into this story which happened. However, the combination of the elements, at this specific time, seems unlikely given that there is no photographic evidence.
Khrushchev was photographed giving the speech—did every photographer present in the UN really miss such a historic event?
Why Does the Falsehood Survive?
When we have known facts, how have these half truths been introduced to create such an enduring tale that has been regarded as fact for 75 years? Moreover, how have the provably false elements—such as the notion that there’s an image of Khrushchev wearing two shoes and banging his lectern with a third—become so enmeshed within the tale?
Further, why is the story that has passed into common currency about a shoe and not about what Khrushchev actually said and whether what he said had any merit?
When we come to look at why the falsehood persists, I have a few suggestions:
- First, the falsehood is far more visually compelling and is far more entertaining. Even if the story isn’t accurate, we want it to be true. We want the theatre and the drama. We want this fiction.
- Second, proving the falsehood—proving what didn’t happen—is incredibly difficult.
- Then there’s laziness (or something with slightly less implicit judgement). Most of us don’t have the time or energy to check, and recheck every “fact” that we think we know.
Of course, we must not forget the wider political context—the Cold War narrative that Khrushchev was a wild and uncontrollable hooligan who shouted and banged his shoe—provided an image that served Western governments well.
Fiction Rather Than Facts
As I’ve said before in these communiqués, you should never, ever believe a novelist. We make up stuff for a living.
That said, a perfect fiction—and the story of Khrushchev’s shoe is a near perfect fiction—is always far more plausible than the truth. Fiction has to make sense. Fiction has to be logical with coherent characters acting in a rational manner (even if that rationale is only justifiable to themselves). Fiction has to surprise us—but surprise us in a way that we want to be surprised.
Truth, on the other hand, can be messy and is sometimes dull or harder to believe.
Until October
That’s me for this month. I’ll be back in October.
Until then, take some time to think about those facts that you know for certain. Are you really so sure?
All the best
Simon