Compared to the situation in 1947-48 on, the party was still relatively tranquil in 1946. The absence of political confrontations could make it seem as if the disagreements were merely personal or due to the ``generation gap''. Most conference delegates probably regarded the situation as natural and transitory, bearing in mind especially the integration problems created by the massive increase in membership in 1945-46. If opinion in the party became even more divided, things might look different, indeed extremely difficult. Who would then be ``the party''? The general secretary, the central party secretariat, and a minority of the central committee? Or the party chairman and the majority of the central committee? How was party policy to be determined? On the basis of a non-existent party programme, or by a majority in any of these bodies? In short, although few realised it in 1946, the NKP conference had created more problems than it had solved.