Letter to Historians, February 10, 1940

To the Responsible Editor of the journal "Historian-Marxist."
Copy to Comrade Moskalev.
To the Editorial Board of the newspaper "Pravda."
Copy to Comrade Gorodetsky.
Copy to the Members of the Politburo of the CC VKP(b).
(Not for publication)

Recently, in the journal "Historian-Marxist," Book 1, 1940, an article by Comrade Moskalev appeared: "I.V. Stalin at the Head of the Baku Bolsheviks and Workers in 1907-1908." In "Pravda" of February 4, 1940, an article by Comrade E. Gorodetsky appeared, "The Stalinist School of Revolutionary Leadership," which repeats Comrade Moskalev's article.

Comrade Moskalev's article contains a number of impermissible distortions in the field of the history of the Bolshevik movement in Baku, attributable to the author's unserious attitude toward the question of the concrete history of Bolshevism. Comrade Gorodetsky's article repeats and publicizes Comrade Moskalev's errors. Being convinced that historical truth is the fundamental element of all history, including the history of Bolshevism, I consider it my duty to note the errors of Comrades Moskalev and Gorodetsky and thereby restore the true history of Bolshevism in Baku to its rightful place.

1) Relying on the "materials" of Comrade Moskalev's article, Comrade Gorodetsky writes in "Pravda" of February 4:

"In mid-1907, after the London Congress of the RSDLP, Comrade Stalin returned to Baku. The Baku organization at that time was one of the impregnable fortresses of Bolshevism." This is incorrect. In fact, the Baku organization was in mid-1907 a fortress of Menshevism. If Comrades Moskalev and Gorodetsky would take the trouble to look at the minutes of the London Congress, they would see that of the three delegates of the Baku organization to the London Congress, two were Mensheviks -- V. Yustus and I. Ramishvili -- and only the third delegate, V. Yefimov, who was confirmed by the congress's credentials commission with great difficulty, was a Bolshevik. The Baku organization became a citadel of Bolshevism only at the end of 1907, after a fierce and successful struggle by the Bolsheviks against the Mensheviks.

2) Comrade Moskalev writes:

"On August 12 (25), 1907, the first issue of the legal Bolshevik newspaper 'Gudok' appeared -- the organ of the Union of Oil Industry Workers. The newspaper was edited by Comrade Stalin." This is also incorrect. The official editor of "Gudok" was the worker Comrade Samartsev. Its actual editor was the responsible secretary of the Union of Oil Industry Workers of the Baku Districts, Comrade Dzhaparidze.

3) Comrade Moskalev writes in "Historian-Marxist":

"Under the leadership of Comrade Stalin, such organizers of the working masses as S. Ordzhonikidze, S. Shaumyan, A. Dzhaparidze, K. Voroshilov, S. Spandarian, A. Stopani, I. Vatsek, S. Yakubov, M. Mamedyarov, and others worked and were trained in Baku." This is also incorrect. Comrade Moskalev wants to say that the persons mentioned in his citation were members of the leading group of the Baku Committee. But this does not correspond to reality. In fact, the leading group of the Baku Committee and of the Baku organization as a whole in 1907 consisted of Comrades Stalin, Dzhaparidze, Saratovets (Yefimov), Spandarian, Tronov, Voronin, Vatsek, Shaumyan, Ordzhonikidze, Mdivani, Sakvarelaidze, and Peterburzhets-Veprintsev (the last three departed from the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution). Neither Voroshilov, nor Mamedyarov, nor Yakubov, nor Stopani belonged to the leading group of Bolsheviks or were members of the Baku Committee. Comrade Stopani was a semi-Menshevik. Comrade Voroshilov was in Baku for only a few months and then left, without having made any notable mark.

Comrade Moskalev relied on the "recollections" of Comrades Yakubov and Mamedyarov concerning the work of Comrade Voroshilov in Bibi-Eibat, who had allegedly been sent to Baku by the Central Committee of the party. But the "recollections" of these comrades do not in the slightest correspond to reality. I am afraid that these "recollections" were dictated by overeager correspondents of various newspapers. Yakubov and Mamedyarov were Balakhna workers, and they had no idea about the work of the Bolsheviks in the Bibi-Eibat district. The "recollections" of such comrades cannot be taken at face value -- they must be carefully verified against objective sources.

4) Comrade Moskalev writes:

"Comrade Stalin, S. Ordzhonikidze, S. Spandarian, K. Voroshilov, S. Shaumyan, A. Dzhaparidze spoke at the public debates then being organized with the Mensheviks and SRs and exposed before the workers the entire anti-revolutionary essence of these parties." This is also incorrect. Especially in the part concerning Comrade Voroshilov. In fact, in the debates against the Mensheviks and SRs in 1907-1908, the following spoke on behalf of the Bolsheviks: Shaumyan, Stalin, Spandarian, Saratovets (Yefimov), Dzhaparidze, and Ordzhonikidze. Comrade Voroshilov did not participate in a single debate.

Conclusion: the history of Bolshevism must not be distorted -- this is impermissible; it contradicts the calling and dignity of Bolshevik historians.

Za Rodinu, za Stalina! 2001. No. 1. P. 4.
From the personal archive of E.N. Gorodetsky.

Note:
In the commentary to the publication, A.V. Manykin writes: "As is clear from the letter itself, it was not intended for publication. It was not included in the Collected Works of I.V. Stalin. Yet it has fundamental significance, showing I.V. Stalin's attitude toward history in general and the history of Bolshevism in particular. I.V. Stalin's letter is published here for the first time.

Upon receiving this letter, E.N. Gorodetsky, as he recounted, was greatly surprised above all that I.V. Stalin, overburdened with work as (General) Secretary of the CC VKP(b), had found the time and opportunity to write personally to him, a then little-known candidate of historical sciences and a staff member of the editorial secretariat of the 'History of the Civil War in the USSR,' and had given the most detailed assessment of his article. He was also struck by how quickly and promptly I.V. Stalin had familiarized himself with and responded to his article: not even seven days had passed since its publication in 'Pravda,' and Stalin's assessment of its contents had already been formulated. From I.V. Stalin's letter, it also follows that he knew the history of the Bolshevik party in its individual actors very well, clearly remembered events of thirty-three years ago, and zealously championed the establishment of historical truth. This letter E.N. Gorodetsky carefully preserved among his papers, remembering the fact of its receipt for his entire life. He spoke of this event with great emotion."