Sochi. 1/VIII-25.

Comrade Molotov!

1) I have been told that Manuilsky did not accidentally but consciously hand over to l'Humanite the initial draft of Trotsky's article for publication. If this is true, then it is outrageous. If this is true, then we are dealing not with a "mistake," as you write to me, but with the politics of certain persons who for some reason are not interested in the publication of Trotsky's article in its final version. This is beyond doubt. This matter cannot be left as it is. I propose that the question be raised in the Seven and that Manuilsky's inadmissible step, which has put both the RCP and l'Humanite in a foolish position, be condemned, while necessarily ascertaining who exactly put Manuilsky up to this dirty trick. For your orientation, I communicate some necessary facts: a) the documents were given to Manuilsky upon a written request from Manuilsky (it should be in the CC archive) and with the knowledge of the Seven (the question of giving the documents to Manuilsky was raised in the Seven by Zinoviev); b) the documents were given out when there was as yet no final version of Trotsky's article; c) they were given out for the information of the ECCI leadership, and not for publication (see, among other things, Manuilsky's request); d) the question of publication of the documents, specifically, of publication of my memorandum on Eastman's book, was discussed in the Seven, and we all had in mind the publication of my memorandum after the publication of the final version of Trotsky's article, of which Manuilsky was aware; e) before Manuilsky's departure to Germany (at the beginning of July or at the end of June), I asked Manuilsky to return to the CC Secretariat all the documents, to which he agreed, but he nevertheless did not return the documents and took them with him. Such are the facts.

I very much ask the Seven to carry this matter through to the end and thereby put a stop to this dirty dealing in our party.

2) I disagree with the Seven regarding the publication of only Trotsky's article in its final version. First, Krupskaya's article should also be published. Second, it would be entirely possible to publish certain documents (including my memorandum on Eastman's book) after the publication of Trotsky's article, in order to show that Trotsky wrote the article only under pressure from the RCP (otherwise Trotsky may come off as the savior of the party's prestige).

3) Inform me, finally, what has become of Trotsky's and Krupskaya's articles on Eastman -- have they been published in England or not? I have asked three times and there is still no answer.

4) There is still no reply from you to my letter about Dneprostroi. Relay the answer verbally to Tovstukha -- he will write to me.

5) I do not believe that Trotsky "has not read" the Eastman article circulated by you to Politburo members. Trotsky is play-acting.

6) I have read Trotsky's "answers" to the German delegation. I do not agree with all of them. Does Pravda agree with them? This is a platform for Trotsky's group.

7) I am recovering. The Matsesta baths (near Sochi) are good for arteriosclerosis, overworked nerves, enlarged heart, sciatica, gout, and rheumatism. You should send your wife here.

I shake your hand.

I. St.

Letters of I.V. Stalin to V.M. Molotov. 1925-1936. Pp. 37-39.

RGASPI. F. 558. Op. 1. D. 5388.

NOTE

This refers to N.K. Krupskaya's article "Letter to the Editor of the Sunday Worker" (Bolshevik. 1925. No. 16. Pp. 71-73).