Take All--Gorbachev Urals Visit

Read from the scan by GLM-OCR; expect the odd misread word.

## UNCLASSIFIED

comrade Communists, and discuss them!

But why were we obliged to write that letter, against what? Communists were worried by the fact that, instead of consolidation, to all intents and purposes work had begun to split the party. This was no longer the struggle of opinions, the juxtaposition of points of view, the search for the real truth, no longer consolidation but rather an attempt on the eve of the congress--or perhaps at the Congress itself--to split the party. At this responsible and crucial stage in the development of the country, the state and society, we cannot allow the force which is the CPSU to be put in jeopardy. So the letter is directed against splitters, not against those who criticize the platform. Incidentally, this document was distributed to all Central Committee members and to first secretaries of kray and oblast committees. They contributed their remarks, and then the question arose: If someone criticizes the platform and the draft rules, what then? Should this comrade be removed from the party? If that were the case we would have had to start with the first secretary of the CPSU Moscow City Committee Yu.A. Prokofyev, given that he voiced some serious critical remarks as far back as the Politburo meeting on the draft of the platform. Of course not!

We are talking about people who are heading toward a split. At the present responsible stage the party cannot fulfil its vanguard role if it is dragged into a struggle among factions. We are for the consolidation of all forces -- those on the "Democratic Platform" and those who have proposed the "Marxist Platform." In juxtaposing all points of view things must be done in such a way that the congress is abe to fulfil its task. LD2704091990TAKE7

[Excerpts] Replying to a question about possible versions of the development of events in Lithuania, M.S. Gorbachev said: We hope to arrive at a political resolution of the problem. But I must say to you and to the country that we are up against a leadership which is displaying adventurism and is speculating on democracy. For, even for the simplest matters proposals are prepared which are subjected to preliminary examination in the soviets and are then put forward for people to discuss and it is only after this that decisions are made. Here, however, in deciding a basic question of the fate of the republic and of the people living in it, a question affecting the whole population of our multinational state -- the deputies assembled at night, raised their hands and made the decision. This does not come within any framework of democracy.

I think that the Third USSR Congres of Peoples Deputies acted correctly, and we -- the president and the government -- have only the mandate of the Congress: The constitutional structure should be restored. It is necessary to return to the position which existed in the republic on 10 March, and examine the question after this. Otherwise, what will happen? What will happen to the people who wish to return to their own republics (non-Lithuanians -- there are about 700,000)? What will be the fate of the Belorussian lands? Further for 500 years Klaipeda was in German hands and as a result of the war was transferred to the USSR and, insofar as Lithuania was a part of the USSR it was united with that republic. Today the people of Kaliningrad are putting forward the proposal to unite Klaipeda with their oblast.

Finally, how is the oil, raw material, etc. to be paid for? In foriegn currency? We shall discuss that, too. For the "divorce process" what