Myth About Lenin's Help To Trotsky
These letters are united by a history of origin, as well as a single political position. They are dedicated to the conflict in the Communist Party of Georgia and appeared, according to the traditional version, as a result of Lenin's long study of this issue and the preparation of a "bomb for Stalin" *.
The archival version of Lenin's letter to Trotsky, dated March 5, 1923 [1043], exists in one copy and is a typewritten text printed as a carbon copy ("leave") **. It has an inscription: “True: M. Volodicheva” made on a typewriter. The archive version of Lenin's letter to Mdivani (copies to Trotsky and Kamenev) is dated March 6, 1923 [1044] The letter is presented in two carbon copy copies***. There are no traces of work on the texts of the letters. Archival texts fully correspond to published ones [1045]. There are no traces of registration on them, there is no registration in the book of outgoing documents of the secretariat of V.I. Lenin [1046]. There is no information about their registration in the secretariats of Trotsky and Kamenev or about the presence in them of texts received from Lenin. Also missing are the envelopes in which documents were usually sent and which were returned to Lenin's secretariat with a receipt for receipt. All this makes the question of proving their belonging to Lenin relevant.
The memoirs of Trotsky, Volodicheva, Fotieva, Glyasser and Kamenev contain information about the transfer of these letters to their destination. There is not much of it, but it often repeats and varies, which, on the one hand, creates the illusion of a wide source base, and on the other hand, it makes it possible to reveal a lot of contradictions. In the fabricated part of the “Diary of secretaries on duty” there is an entry by Volodicheva for March 5:
“Vladimir Ilyich called about 12. He asked me to write down two letters: one to Trotsky, the other to Stalin; hand over the first personally by telephone to Trotsky and informed him of the answer as soon as possible... I felt unwell” [1047].
Doctors confirm that on March 5, Lenin once spoke with his secretaries and dictated something to Volodicheva. The same version is set forth in the so-called "Help" Volodicheva, dated March 5, 1923, which says that in response to Lenin's proposal, made on his behalf on Volodicheva's phone, Trotsky said that he could not take it upon himself to "defend the Georgian cause." And on March 6, Volodicheva wrote in the Diary of Duty Secretaries, without indicating the exact time, that Lenin called her and “asked about the answer to the first letter (the answer was taken down by phone)” [1048]. Consequently, Trotsky's answer was received by Lenin****.
So,
there was one meeting with the secretary, the letter to Trotsky was read over
the phone, nothing is said about its dispatch. The publishers of the Complete
Works of Lenin accepted Volodicheva's version and accompanied the text with the
following explanations:
"Dictated by telephone on March 5, 1923." and "Printed from a typewritten copy" [1049].
On March 6, Volodicheva, according to her, wrote down a letter for Mdivani [1050]. An important role in substantiating the Lenin’s authorship of this letter belongs to the entry in the Diary of Doctors on Duty, which records Lenin's dictation to Volodicheva on the morning of March 6, "a few words, only 1 1/2 lines." There is nothing similar in the previous records of doctors - no one calculated the lines of Lenin's letters and notes. Why such precision? Previously, as a rule, they did not even indicate the topics of dictations; at best, sometimes they did not fix their duration very clearly. And how did they get such accurate information? Have you seen the recording? Were they shown a secret document? Hardly. Or were they looking over Volodicheva's shoulder? It's hard to believe they were allowed to. For some reason, an insignificant detail turns out to be necessary when they talk about Lenin dictating Mdivani's letter. One way or another, but perhaps Lenin really dictated something that fit into two lines. But what is important for us is that this record of the doctors destroys Volodicheva's version of Lenin dictating a letter to her for Mdivani and others, which in printed form takes 4-5 lines. Trotsky also testifies against the identification of the dictation recorded by the doctors with the letter for Mdivani, who wrote that on "the last day before Lenin's second decisive illness", i.e. March 5 received a letter from Lenin to hand it over to Mdivani [1051].
The
question arises: how could he get a letter that has not yet been written? One
of them - Trotsky or Volodicheva (perhaps both) - is telling lies. You can't
take Volodicheva's word for it, Trotsky even more so. Without limiting himself
to the story of the receipt of the still unwritten letter (it is dated March
6), Trotsky states that the handover of the notes "On the Question of
Nationalities ..." took place two days before "the situation of
Comrade Lenin worsened", therefore, approximately March 2-3. And the
handover of the letter for Mdivani took place on March 5th. In his "Letter
to Eastpart" he, contradicting himself, asserts that the notes on the
national question and the letter for Mdivani were given to him on the same day.
Obviously, noticing this "overlay", Trotsky in his memoirs "My Life" corrects the situation - he dates the delivery of the letter for Mdivani to March 6 [1052].
An analysis of the content of these letters only reinforces doubts about their authorship OF Lenin.
In a letter to Trotsky dated March 5, its Author "very much" asks him "to take upon himself the defense of the Georgian case on the Central Committee of the Party", since it is under the "persecution of Stalin and Dzerzhinsky", on whose impartiality the Author of the letter could not rely - "even quite the opposite ". Trotsky's consent meant for him the opportunity to "be calm." In case of disagreement, the author asked to return “the whole file” [1053].
Judging
by the text of the letter, it is an accompaniment to this "whole
business" sent to Trotsky. Volodicheva, in Spravka, which records this
conversation*****, recorded that she had read a letter to Trotsky over the
phone, he "asked me to send him materials (if no one needs them) for
review." An agreement was reached, and at the end of the "information"
it is reported:
“Materials with a letter from Vladimir Ilyich will be sent to him today” [1054].
This entry is important for traditional historiography, as it is used as documentary evidence confirming the stories of Trotsky and Fotieva about the transfer of Lenin's notes to him "On the question of nationalities or "autonomization"".
But it is difficult to imagine these notes as “the whole thing”, especially since, according to Trotsky, the condition for handing it over was the prohibition to show it to anyone [1055]. "The whole thing", on the contrary, should have been used by him. In addition, Trotsky in April 1923 denied receiving this “case”, but spoke of sending him “notes “On the question of nationalities ...” [1056].
Consequently, he himself claims that this entry by Volodicheva is not evidence that Lenin's dictation on the national question was sent to him. So, the documents of the Leninist secretariat do not confirm the fact that notes on the national question were handed over to Trotsky.
The
incomprehensible story with "the whole thing" ****** cannot be
attributed to poor wording or a defect in the recording. It finds its
continuation in a letter to Mdivani, which says:
“I follow your case with all my heart. Outraged by the rudeness of Ordzhonikidze and the indulgence of Stalin and Dzerzhinsky. I'm preparing notes and a speech for you."
This phrase provides arguments in favor of the assumption that the letters of March 5 and 6 to Trotsky and Mdivani do not belong to Lenin. Lenin's state of health at the beginning of March precluded his work on "notes" and "speech"********. We have to reject the assumption that we are talking about a document that was prepared by the "Leninist Commission": they can hardly be characterized as "notes", especially since there is nothing resembling a "speech" in them.
Finally, it is impossible without argument to correlate with Lenin the statement that the most important question of changing the leadership of the Communist Party of Georgia and the formation of the USSR is "your business", i.e. the case of Mdivani, Makharadze and others. The same should be said about the story of the assault on Ordzhonikidze.
All this makes it impossible to accept on faith the Leninist authorship of the letters to Trotsky, as well as Mdivani. It is impossible to prove it on the available material. This gives us the right to consider these letters as not belonging to V.I. Lenin.
It would seem that a simple matter is to pass a letter or text of an article from hand to hand. But here, too, the participants in this story are confused in the testimony, they contradict each other and themselves.
Volodicheva records only one - her own - contact with Trotsky: she handed over the text of the letter to Trotsky by phone and took shorthand of his answer [1057].
Volodicheva does not say anything about the fact that the notes “On the Question of Nationalities or “Autonomization”” were handed over to Trotsky, as well as about Fotieva’s participation in contacts with Trotsky about letters and “notes”. And Fotieva herself “in hot pursuit” of these events - in letters to the Central Committee of the RCP (b) on April 16, 1923 - talking about sending Trotsky notes “On the question of nationalities or about “autonomization””, she also did not say anything about her participation in contacts between Lenin and Trotsky on March 5-6. Consequently, the only clerical document of the Leninist secretariat devoted to contacts with Trotsky testifies that Trotsky did not receive the text of Lenin's letter from the Leninist secretariat. Or, at least, it does not confirm this transfer.
Only Fotieva and Trotsky testify to the fact that letters and notes on the national question were sent to Trotsky. But their evidence is full of contradictions. Fotieva in a letter to the Central Committee of the RCP (b) dated April 16, 1923, for the first time informing the Central Committee of the party about the existence of these notes (she called them an article), uses a very vague wording: “the article” “was communicated to Comrade Trotsky” [1058].
What does "reported" mean? Read out? Given for reading? She also does not indicate the exact time of the “message”. Trotsky on the same day, in a letter to the Central Committee, on the contrary, definitely states that on March 5, 1923, he negotiated with Lenin through Fotieva and from her he received the text dictated by Lenin on December 30, 1922. [1059] But even after Trotsky’s direct instructions about the time and the fact of the transmission of Lenin’s article to him, Fotieva, in the course of the ensuing correspondence, never confirmed either the time of transmission (March 5) or her involvement in this act [1060].
Later,
Trotsky, speaking about this story, kept silent about any contacts with
Volodicheva regarding Lenin's orders and worked out the version of mediation in
his contacts with Lenin on March 5–6, Fotieva and Glyasser. One of them (from
the context it can be understood that it was Fotieva) brought a letter
addressed to him from Lenin. Having received the letter, Trotsky suggested:
"shouldn't you show" this letter to Kamenev? Fotieva replied: “I don’t know ... but I can ask him.” "A few minutes later she came back saying, 'No way.'"
Consequently, on March 5, Fotiyeva had a second meeting with Lenin shortly after the first, which contradicts the doctors' records, which rule out a second meeting between Lenin and the secretaries shortly after the first [1061] *********.
But this is not enough for Trotsky, he claims that having conveyed this instruction from Lenin to him, Fotieva left, “however, after a few minutes, or maybe half an hour, Fotieva came from Vladimir Ilyich with a new version. According to her, Vladimir Ilyich decided to act immediately and wrote (wrote again!- BC) ... a note to Mdivani and Makharadze with a copy of it handed over to Kamenev and me”[1062]. Thus, Trotsky declares that there was a third meeting between Lenin and Fotieva, that Lenin wrote a letter on that day and had in his hands a text written by Lenin on March 5! There is something to be surprised. At the same time, Trotsky begins to get confused: he began the story about March 5, and ends on the 6th, since Mdivani's letter is dated on this date.
The same version, but more extensive, with a mass of details that make it even easier to analyze, is repeated in the autobiography of L.D. Trotsky "My Life"[1063].
According to her, Fotieva and Glyasser no longer act simply as messengers, but as a constantly and long-functioning channel of communication between Lenin and Trotsky. Moreover, they acted as political advisers to Lenin**********, suggesting to him moves and exits in the inner-party struggle, measures that must be taken to fight Stalin. And Lenin willingly accepted their political advice, or rather, is guided by them. At the same time, the political sympathies of the secretaries are completely on the side of Trotsky, which, apparently, is true for this period.
Everything becomes more "solid". Fotiyeva's first short absence from Trotsky's apartment for a question to Lenin turns into a 15-minute one, and the second - in the hour. Lenin's letter, which he showed Kamenev, turns into "Lenin's manuscripts", and the meeting itself takes place on March 5, so Kamenev also reads Lenin's handwritten letter, dictated, according to Volodicheva, to her only the next day. Interestingly, Trotsky did not say a word about Lenin's handing over to him the notes "On the Question of Nationalities or "Autonomization"".
In general, there is much less clarity with the transfer of these notes to Trotsky than even with the transfer of letters to him, although there is no clarity with them either. Neither Fotiyev nor Volodichev say anything definite about the circumstances of the transfer of the article to Trotsky. It is not known who handed it over, or under what circumstances it was handed over.
It may be said that Kamenev, who met with Trotsky and saw his notes on the national question, testifies in favor of this story. This is a serious argument, and it should be considered separately.
We note right away that Kamenev, speaking in a letter to the Central Committee dated April 16, 1923, about this meeting with Trotsky ***********, firstly, did not say anything about Lenin's letters to Trotsky and Mdivani, but in secondly, he attributed it to a later time (“it was, in my opinion, already when Vladimir Ilyich was deprived of the opportunity to give new orders”) [1064], i.e. he excludes that the conversation with Trotsky took place on March 5, and claims that Trotsky showed him the article after March 6-7***********, and possibly even after March 10, 1923, when Lenin couldn't confirm or deny anything.
Consequently, Kamenev, while confirming the very fact of Trotsky's informing him of the existence of Lenin's notes "On the Question of Nationalities...", does not confirm exactly the date Trotsky insists on - March 5, 1923, which is important to him, obviously because that after it no business contacts with Lenin were any longer possible.
The very fact that Lenin's letter to Mdivani existed at that time is beyond doubt. It was known to Stalin, who informed Ordzhonikidze about it on March 7, 1923 [1065] However, this is not enough to recognize it as a Lenin’s document, since Kamenev and Stalin did not witness Lenin's dictation.
Both letters (March 5 and 6, 1923) were sent on April 17, 1923, by Trotsky to the Central Committee of the RCP(b) [1066], which, at his request, sent them to all members of the Central Committee. They were also sent to Lenin. Thus, the only trace of the passage of these letters through the Leninist secretariat is the texts received by the Central Committee of the party from Trotsky.
All of the above leads us to the conclusion that there is no direct and reliable evidence that Lenin sent Trotsky the “article” “On the Question of Nationalities or “Autonomization””, as well as letters dated March 5 and 6, 1923 (to Trotsky and Mdivani). Without exception, all indirect evidence carries extremely contradictory information. The circumstances of the inclusion of these documents in political use not only do not remove doubts about Lenin's authorship, but even strengthen them.
* For the first time this wording (“a bomb for Stalin”), it seems, was introduced into political circulation by Trotsky in 1927 in his “Letter to the Eastpart of the VK VKP(b)”. He assured that the secretaries "most often" repeated "the expression of Lenin himself": "Vladimir Ilyich is preparing a bomb against Stalin" (Trotsky L. Letter to the Eastpart of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks .. (On the falsification of the history of the October Revolution, the history of the revolution and the history of the party) // Stalin's school of falsifications. Corrections and additions to the literature of epigones. Berlin, 1932. P. 87).
**
It differs from the published one in that in the original after the address
"Trotsky" there is a comma, and not an exclamation point (V. I.
Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch. Vol. 54, p. 329).
*** According to historical legend, there should have been 5 copies of the letter in total: two remained in the Lenin archive, one was sent to Mdivani and others, and two more to Trotsky and Kamenev). However, none of the addressees ever presented the originals of the letter.
**** Verbatim record is either unavailable or missing.
***** The original of Volodicheva's “Information” (typewritten text without a signature) dated March 5, 1923 has no traces of registration (RGASPI. F. 35. Op. 2. D. 34. L. 3). Lenin's letter to Trotsky of March 5 and Volodicheva's "Reference" (addendum to this letter) were registered as a document included in the Lenin secretariat only on June 15, 1923 (No. 16/12) (RGASPI. F. 5. Op. 2. D 34. L. 15; Inv. 4. D. 11. L. 89). It is interesting that at the same time (under the same number) the notes “On the Question of Nationalities ...” received by the Lenin Secretariat were registered. All these documents were received as an annex to Trotsky’s letter of April 16, 1923 (RGASPI.F. 5. List 2, file 34, pages 7–14, List 4, file 11, L, 89, Izvestia of the Central Committee of the CPSU, 1991, No 9, page 58).
****** As "the whole thing", perhaps, the materials developed by the "commission" could appear. Trotsky says so in his memoirs. But in the documents of the Leninist secretariat there is no information about their transfer to Trotsky, and these materials in themselves could not be of any interest to Trotsky, since all the information collected in them was not new to the members of the Politburo.
******* “I watch with my soul” is something new for Lenin.
******** D. Volkogonov, who had access to Lenin's materials inaccessible to other researchers, definitely declares that he does not know the text of the "notes and speech" referred to in this letter (Volkogonov D.A. Stalin. Political Portrait, Moscow, 1991, book 1, p. 142).
********* Only in the evening of this day does the later insertion into the “Diary of Duty Secretaries” clearly refer to information about the second summons of Fotieva with her name, unusual for this document and those years, “L.A. Fotieva".
********** Quite in the spirit of the documents prepared by them as members of the "commission" to study the conflict in the Communist Party of Georgia.
*********** It is clear from Trotsky's memoirs and Kamenev's letters that at that time (immediately or shortly after Lenin's third stroke) they had only one meeting.
************
According to Kamenev's letter to Zinoviev dated March 7, on that day he was to
leave for Tiflis for the Second Congress of the KKE. On March 8, Kamenev did
not attend the meeting of the Politburo. The Congress of the Communist Party of
Georgia has been working since March 12. On March 17, 1923, Kamenev was already
in Moscow (News of the Central Committee of the CPSU. 1990. No. 9. P. 150; Volkogonov
D. A. Lenin. Political portrait. Book 2. P. 347).
Notes:
[1043] RGASPI. F. 2. Op. 1. D. 25737. L. 1.
[1044] Ibid. D. 25738. L. 1, 2.
[1045] Lenin V.I. Full coll. op. T. 54. S. 329, 330.
[1046] RGASPI. F. 5. Op. 4. D. 1, 10, 11.
[1047] Lenin V.I. Full coll. op. T. 45. S. 486.
[1048] Ibid.; News of the Central Committee of the CPSU. 1990. No. 9. S. 149.
[1049] Lenin V.I. Full coll. op. T. 54. S. 229.
[1050] Ibid. T. 45. S. 486.
[1051] Trotsky L. Letter to the Eastpart of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. (On the falsification of the history of the October Revolution, the history of the revolution and the history of the party) // Stalin's school of falsifications. S. 83.
[1052] Ibid.; Trotsky L. My life. Autobiographical experience. T. 2. S. 220-221.
[1053] Lenin V.I. Full coll. op. T. 54. S. 329.
[1054] News of the Central Committee of the CPSU. 1990. No. 9. S. 149.
[1055] News of the Central Committee of the CPSU. 1990. No. 10. P. 160.
[1056] Ibid. No. 9, pp. 160–161.
[1057] Ibid. S. 149.
[1058] Ibid. S. 156.
[1059] Ibid. pp. 158, 160; No. 10. S. 172.
[1060] Ibid. No. 9, pp. 155–162.
[1061] Ibid. S. 108.
[1062] Trotsky L. Letter to the Eastpart of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. S. 83.
[1063] He is. My life. Autobiographical experience. T. 2. S. 220-225.
[1064] News of the Central Committee of the CPSU. 1990. No. 9. S. 157.
[1065]
Ibid. pp. 151–152.
.jpg)
No comments