Rulers change, Archipelago remains. (1) Such was final judgment of preeminent Gulag chronicler, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, after his brief description of Soviet penal under Nikita Khrushchev. At first glance such a broad condemnation seems counterintuitive, in light of well-known reforms of mid-1950s that freed vast majority of political prisoners in Soviet Union, noticeably ameliorated conditions in camps, and put in place mechanisms to ensure that neither staggering numbers of prisoners nor terrible abuses of Stalinist Gulag would return. Yet Solzhenitsyn's primary contention is that after these pitiless blows of liberalism staggered and rocked camp system during mid-1950s, the whole cast of practical workers that staffed Gulag, fearful of their jobs, fought zealously to restore Gulag to its former, repressive state. (2) The initial reforms of 1953-56 were followed by potent ground-up counterreforms, most notably 1961 statute governing corrective-labor colonies and prisons; and as a result, living conditions for prisoners in 1960s rivaled those of late Stalinist period. Solzhenitsyn is not alone in making such claims. A number of scholars and memoirists have echoed view that, in words of Anne Applebaum, the neo-Stalinists had triumphed, and that, according to Anatoly Marchenko, Soviet penal institutions of 1960s were just as horrific as in Stalin's time. (3) A few historians, however, have recently questioned, at least in part, Solzhenitsyn's characterization of conservative counterreforms in penal of early 1960s. Marc Elie, in a brief account of the conservative shift in penal sphere, for instance, ignores Solzhenitsyn's mid-level Gulag officials, portraying counterreforms rather as a product of struggle between high-level reformists and conservatives. Moreover, he sees reaction occurring because of a brief crime wave in 1959--60, which conservatives blamed on recent laxity in repression in Gulag. (4) Thus motive was not restoration of jobs and privileges but rather anger at criminal actions of ungrateful and unreformed released prisoners. Miriam Dobson, by contrast, finds press and especially general public to be influential actors in shaping national debates. More specifically, she posits that reeducation theme of mid-1950s failed to resonate with broader Soviet population, and as a result, Khrushchev and his peers in late 1950s turned instead to optimism for future as a ruling technique, a trope that was inseparably coupled with intolerance for those unwilling to move forward toward communism. (5) There are important reasons for investigating transformation of Gulag under Khrushchev: not only does it reveal much about nature of Soviet society and officialdom in 1950s and early 1960s as they grappled with legacies of Stalinism, but penal that Khrushchev left behind when ousted in 1964 continued without substantive alteration until fall of Soviet Union and then persisted beyond 1991 in successor states. (6) Certainly subject deserves far more attention than it has received, a lacuna this essay remedies only partially. Indeed, present work makes no claim to providing a comprehensive narrative of penal reform under Khrushchev but instead focuses on motivations for creating harsher living conditions in early 1960s, specific policies that ensued, and result of these reforms. As Sohhenitsyn rightly notes, Stalin's death was followed by a period of theoretical and substantive liberalization in regard to inmates' living conditions that persisted into late 1950s. Likewise, there certainly was a campaign that began in late 1950s and culminated in 1961 to make living conditions in Gulag harsher. Moreover, there were many continuities between Gulag of 1950 and that of early 1960s that would seem to support Sohhenitsyn's contention: basic organization of camps and colonies remained relatively unchanged (barracks, barbed wire, guards); production by means of inmate labor remained a serious if not overriding concern for camp administrators; corruption continued unabated; stool pigeons and trusties were always being recruited; ethnic distinctions among prisoner groups remained, and so forth. …