9 August 1934

As modern history is the richest in content, overfilled with events, and also because the most important thing in the modern history of the bourgeois countries, if we have in mind the period before the October Revolution in Russia, is the victory of the French Revolution and the establishment of capitalism in Europe and America, we consider that it would be better for the manual of modern history to open with a chapter on the French Revolution. To link it with preceding events, a short introduction could be prefaced with a brief account of the basic events of the Dutch and English revolutions, assigning the detailed account of the events of the Dutch and English revolutions to the end of the manual of medieval history.

Consequently, we propose that the first part of the summary (six chapters), that is, the whole first section, be thrown out and replaced by a short introduction.

We consider the chief defect of the summary to be the fact that it does not stress sharply enough the full depth of the difference and opposition between the French Revolution (a bourgeois revolution) and the October Revolution in Russia (a socialist revolution). The main axis of a manual of modern history must be precisely this idea of the opposition between bourgeois and socialist revolution. To show that the French (and every other) bourgeois revolution, having freed the people from the chains of feudalism and absolutism, imposed on them new chains, the chains of capitalism and bourgeois democracy, whereas the socialist revolution in Russia broke all chains of every kind and freed the people from all forms of exploitation - this is what must form the red thread of the manual of modern history.

It must not be permitted, therefore, for the French Revolution to be called simply "Great"; it must be called and treated as a bourgeois revolution.

In the same way, our socialist revolution in Russia must not be called simply the October Revolution; it must be called and treated as a socialist revolution, a Soviet revolution.

The summary of the manual of modern history must be reconstructed accordingly, with a selection of the appropriate definitions and terms.

We consider the division of modern history in the summary into two parts to be poorly motivated and accidental, carried out according to some incomprehensible criterion. We would consider it advisable to divide modern history into three parts:

The first part - from the French bourgeois revolution to the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune (exclusive). This will be the period of the victory and establishment of capitalism in the advanced countries.

The second part - from the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune to the victory of the October Revolution in Russia and the end of the imperialist war (inclusive). This will be the period of the beginning of the decline of capitalism, the first blow against capitalism by the Paris Commune, the transformation of the old "free" capitalism into imperialism, and the overthrow of capitalism in the USSR by the forces of the October Revolution, which opened a new era in the history of mankind.

The third part - from the end of 1918 (the year the war ended) to the end of 1934. This will be the period of post-war imperialism in the capitalist countries, the economic and political crisis in those countries, the period of fascism and intensified struggle for colonies and spheres of influence, on the one hand, and, on the other, the period of civil war and intervention in the USSR, the period of the first and the beginning of the second five-year plan in the USSR, the period of victorious construction of socialism in our country, the period of eradicating the last remnants of capitalism, the period of victory and advance in the USSR of socialist industry, the victory of socialism in the countryside, the victory of the collective farms and state farms. We consider it a major error that the authors of the summary break off history at the year 1923. This error must be corrected by bringing the history down to the end of 1934. Correspondingly, the material, sections and chapters will have to be reworked and redistributed.

It would be good to free the summary from old, hackneyed expressions such as "old order," "new order," and so forth. It would be better to replace them with the words "pre-capitalist order," or still better, "absolutist-feudal order," and instead of "new order" to say "the order of capitalism and bourgeois democracy." With such a change, the so-called "new order," that is, the capitalist order, will already appear as an old order in comparison with the Soviet system in the USSR, which represents the highest type of organization of human society.

It would also be good to free the summary from an excessive abundance of "epochs." "The epoch of the Consulate," "the epoch of Napoleon," "the epoch of the Directory" - are there not too many epochs?

It also seems wrong to us that the colonial question is given disproportionately little space in the summary. While Georges Sand, Spengler, Kipling, and so forth are given quite a lot of attention, the colonial question and the situation, say, in a state such as China, are given little attention.

It would also be good to replace the formula "unification of Germany and Italy" with the formula "reunification of Germany and Italy into independent states." Otherwise the impression may be created that the question is not one of the struggle for the reunification of such fragmented states as Germany and Italy, but of uniting these states into one state.

In general, in our opinion, the summary of modern history is more intelligently composed than the summary of the history of the USSR, but there is still a good deal of confusion in this summary.

J. STALIN

S. KIROV

A. ZHDANOV

9 August 1934

Pravda, January 27, 1936.