Source: Tom 17

September 9, 1929

Comrade Molotov!

Received your letter of September 6.

1) There is no need to show haste on the English question. Now Henderson needs the restoration of relations more than we do. It is not Henderson who is dangerous now — he has already been pinned to the wall by us — but Litvinov, who trusts Wise and other scoundrels more than the logic of events. Especially dangerous are "our" Parisian "advisers," who recommend that we give Henderson a "cordial" response. These are Henderson's agents, who inform the British government and disinform us. In short: no retreats from our position. Bear in mind that we are waging a struggle (negotiations with enemies are a struggle) not with England alone but with the entire capitalist world, because the MacDonald government is the advance detachment of capitalist governments in the matter of "humbling" and "taming" the Soviet government by "new," more "diplomatic," more disguised, and therefore more "effective" methods. The MacDonald government wants to show the entire capitalist world that it will manage to extract from us (by means of "soft" methods) more than Mussolini, Poincare, or Baldwin, that it will manage to be a greater Shylock than the capitalist Shylock himself. And it wants this because only in this way can it win the trust of its bourgeoisie (and not only its own). We would be the most contemptible people if we could not answer these brazen fellows briefly and clearly: "you won't get a damn thing from us."

2) Bauman must be firmly reined in for his attempt to drag the organization into an unprincipled struggle, a struggle "about personalities." Precisely for this reason, Polonsky should not (for the time being, at least) be removed from his post. As for Zhdanov, Postyshev, and Rumyantsev, it would be better to wait until autumn.

3) It is bad if Yaroslavsky is beginning to operate (it seems he has already begun) as the de facto responsible editor of Pravda. This is dangerous and harmful to the cause, since for all his remarkable qualities he is weak in political leadership (he likes to "ride the waves" of the "masses'" moods)...

4) The decision on Rykov is correct.

I shake your hand.

September 9, 1929.

J. Stalin.

P.S. I almost forgot. The new (new!) statement of Smirnov, Vaganian, Mrachkovsky, and others must be rejected not only as unacceptable (of course!), but as a document of counter-revolutionary brazen fellows who are using against the Party the softness and trust of Yaroslavsky. Yaroslavsky must be forbidden to deal with these brazen fellows who are exploiting his softness to organize their counter-revolutionary faction on "new," "statutory" principles. We do not need them in the Party. How can you not understand this simple thing?

Furthermore: I categorically protest against the fact that, contrary to the Politburo decision, Zinoviev has become one of the regular contributors to (and leaders of?) Pravda. Can this outrage not be stopped? Who is to blame for this? Is it not Yaroslavsky? Why do you allow this political debauchery?

J. St.

---

Source: Letters of J.V. Stalin to V.M. Molotov. 1925–1936. P. 160–162.

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