INT: Was the uprising in East Germany in June 1953 a particular cause of worry for your father?

SK: Well... when we talk about that I think in the 1953, my father it was not real cause of worrying of the afraid of. He thought it was the result of our mistakes. The Western countries did not ask to build Germany to pay them back the reparation and we charge Eastern Germany and we bomb everything from them, of course their level of lifes were slide down and it did result, so he decided that after that, we will not charge the reparation, we will use some economical support to them and then they will recover and will go forward. So for him it was the signal that it was something wrong, but something wrong on the short-term planning, not on the long-term planning and this surprising also help him in his fighting against Beria. Because Beria was in charge of police and at last days of the preparation and the plot against Beria, they told now you must went to the Germany and to conduct everything there. So Beria left Moscow and at that last day everything were prepared, when he came back he was arrested.

INT: Your father obviously had disagreements with Malenkov, how would you characterise his relations with Giorgiy Malenkov?

SK: My father was in good relations with Malenkov, I think from middle thirties, when I born, so it was. And they have very friendly relations. I remember when my father came back to Moscow from Kiev, we lived in the same building, we was just up on the Malenkov, we lived on the fifth floor and he lived in the fourth. And they went to walk around Moscow and spoke with about everything very closely. After the Stalin's death, it was short time where the relations... nature of the relations became worse, because just after the Stalin death, my father spoke with Bulganin and they thought that they must prevent Beria's climbing to the power. And he begin to speak the same as Malenkov and Malenkov, no, no, no, no, we have nothing to speak with you. When the meeting of the Presidium Central Committee, we will speak. So my father thought it was his first thing now that now he decided that he will support Beria. But in the short time, in months, Malenkov understood first of all that Beria is alone, isolated in the Presidium, and Malenkov he all the time supported majority. So he shifted to my father and the nature of Malenkov was the support of somebody. He was not the leader, he was the person who was looking for the consensus, who joined the majority. So I remember when he was the Prime Minister and the official leader, all the time he met with my father. For many, many days during the week in the evenings and they spoke and all the time he agreed with my father. My father thought we had to do this and this and this, even after the arrest of Stalin, Malenkov thought, you know, it was so complicated to speak with you, let's do this, I will build my dacha on the territory near your dacha. My father, thought you can't do this. At that time they built the new Malenkov dacha, which now made, now (inaudible) it was Gorbachev's (inaudible) process. And he thought because they now would go near, open the gate, I will come to you. So when he was ousted of the power, it was also he came to my father all the time, many times, and he spoke with him and he tried to accept his support. When we thought that it was real fighting between these two person, it mustn't be so simple. Yes, of course, Malenkov was not... satisfied with his position, but it was not real rivalry like with Beria, maybe not such open arguing like with Molotov. Malenkov once more joined the majority in 1957, while he was against my father. If he understood at that time that they will fail, he will be on my father side and maybe for the rest of his life. It was one of these, how to say so, the part of the Malenkov's nature. But if there was also side, I think that maybe it will be good, how to say, good solution to the future reformation of the country, because both of them wanted to reform the country.

INT: How about Molotov? That was a different relationship, I understand.

SK: When we talk about my father and Molotov, you must understand that the Molotov for my father was the representative of the older generation, of the real revolutionaries who was on the top level, much before when my father even participated the politics. So he looks at him like a student to the teacher for a long time. But then they became not rivals, but it's... appeared the disagreements. But it was the disagreements in think in the honest level. They not trying to make plot against each other until anti-party group meeting in 1957 and I cannot think that it was real plot. And they argued with each other very strong at the meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee, because my father he was pragmatic, he tried to make all the more decision, not so much depended on the ideology and Molotov was too much depended from the ideology and he was such, how to say, not even strong, but too straight maybe, I don't know this word. And it was happened when they discussed the peace treaty with Austria, the relations with the West, relations with Yugoslavia, but of course the main point, it was Stalin where they broke their relations. Because even at the personally Molotov was much more hurt by Stalin. He remained his supporter. He found that Stalin was the correct all the time and so he could not accept that when this second... Twentieth Party Congress and the secret speech which blamed Stalin and here it was the real crack between these two people.

INT: Your father often used Mikoyan as his emissary. How did he get on with him?

SK: When we talk about my father and Mikoyan, it was very special relations. I think that after the Malenkov... and maybe aftethe Bulganin, Mikoyan became the closest personal friend to my father. And theymet many times, they spoke about everything and when my father really became the first person in thea, he know how it's happened in the totalitarian country. If you claim to the (inaudible) what it will be interested to disagree with you, openly, they will tell no more I agree with you, until they will take... ousted your power and then they will talk all the time, because the different understanding. It was nature of the totalitarian state and only the Mikoyan who argued very strongly with my father on the different occasion, including Hungarian, Cuban Missiles Crisis and many others. It is only well-known these two occasion and why my father was really... was much higher feeling to Mikoyan than any others, because he thought that he really worry about what's happening, that he really try to find the solution, even they disagree. But I can tell that all the time my father was disagree with Mikoyan and many times he agreed with his proposal, don't know. I know that Mikoyan, he the (inaudible), he strong and he is also know how to (inaudible) and he used him in each occasion where it was real threat to our security, and specially so when the consequences of the Cuban Missiles Crisis, negotiating with Americas, which was much easier than the later negotiating with Castro.