1 Khrushchev included two relevant letters in his “secret” report to the Twentieth Congress of the party, and eighteen documents were circulated to the Soviet delegates to the Congress. The two letters may be consulted in the many published versions of Khrushchev's address, including The New York Times, June 5, 1956; The Russian Institute (ed.), The Anti-Stalin Campaign and International Communism (New York, 1956), pp. 8–9 Google Scholar; and Wolfe, Bertram D., Khrushchev and Stalin's Ghost (hereafter cited as Khrushchev) (London, 1957), pp. 98 and 100Google Scholar. The latter series of documents may be consulted in full in Wolfe, Khrushchev, pp. 258-279, and in The Department of State Bulletin, XXXV, No. 891 (1956), (hereafter cited as Bulletin), pp. 153-61. Eleven of these documents were published in Kommunist, June 30, 1956, No. 9, pp. 16-26 (hereafter cited as Kommunist) (only documents by Lenin are included here, and one letter from Lenin to Trotsky was excluded). The New Tork Times carried these documents in full on July 1, 1956, excepting Lenin's “Testament” and its “Postscript,” which were carried on May 19, 1956. Bulletin and The New York Times, July 1, 1956, contain a useful summary of previous publication, partial publication and indirect publication (i.e., non-verbatim descriptions) of the documents.

2 The present writer gratefully acknowledges the permission of the Harvard College Library to publish this letter. See footnote 45 and the text to which it refers.

3 Bertram D. Wolfe, Three Who Made a Revolution (New York, 1948), pp. 424-27.

4 Stalin accepted Jagello, a Polish socialist, as a member of the Social Democratic bloc in the Duma, contrary to Lenin's wishes. See Stalin's article, “Jagello kak nepolnopravnij chlen s-d frakcii,” Pravda, December 1, 1912; and the expression of Lenin's view in KPSS v rezoljuciakh i reshenijakh s'ezdov, konferencii iplenumov ck, (7th ed., Moscow, 1954), I, 295.

5 Isaac Deutscher, Stalin: a Political Biography (New York, 1949), pp. 132-36; E. N. Burdzhalov, “O taktike bol'shevikov v marte-aprele 1917 goda,” Voprosy istorii (April, 1956), No. 4, pp. 38-56.

6 Stalin's major pronouncement on this point was at the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets, on January 15, 1918. See Stalin, Sochinenija (Moscow, 1951), IV, 31. Lenin's tactful rebuff occurred at the Eighth Congress of the Party, in March, 1919. See VIII s'ezd Rossijskoi Kommunislicheskoj Partii (Bol'shevikov), 18-23 marta 1919 g.: stenograficheskij otchet (Moscow, 1919), pp. 45-48.

7 Quoted in Leon Trotsky, The Stalin School of Falsification (hereafter cited as Stalin School), trans. John G. Wright (New York, 1937), pp. 227-28.

8 Pipds, Richard, The Formation of the Soviet Union: Communism and Nationalism 1917-1923 (Cambridge, 1954), pp. 235-40Google Scholar.

9 On September 27, 1922, Lenin sent the Politburo a critique of Stalin's proposed draft of the new constitution. This document is available in its entirety in the Trotsky archive, no. 685. (This reference and subsequent references to the Code System for this archive are based on the system organized by Professor George Fischer and in use in 1957.) It may be consulted in part in Trotsky, Stalin School, pp. 65-66, and his earlier book, The Real Situation in Russia, trans. Max Eastman (New York, 1928), pp. 293-95. It is also discussed by a Soviet historian, writing after Stalin's death, V. V. Pentkovskaja, “Rol'V. I. Lenina v obrazovanii SSSR,” Voprosy istorii (March, 1956), No. 3, pp. 17-19.

10 Lenin to Politburo, September 27, 1922. See note 9 for references.

11 Stalin's reply to Lenin's critique is also available in full in the Trotsky archive, no. 686, and in part in Trotsky, Stalin School, pp. 66-67, or The Real Situation in Russia, pp. 295- 96.

12 Pentkovskaja, op. cit., p. 19; Socialisticheskij vestnik, January 17, 1923, p. 19.

13 First published in Pravda, January 21, 1937. It is possible, of course, that Stalin's enthusiastic affirmation of his agreement with Lenin was added in 1937 as an improvement on the archival material.

14 It does not appear that Lenin differed with Stalin on the Georgian question at the time the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia resigned (between October 15 and 21). See Lenin's brusque letter to the Georgians in Socialisticheskij vestnik, January 17, 1923, p. 19.

15 Dvenadcatij s'ezd Rossijskoj Kommunisticheskoj Partii (Bol'shcvikov): stenograficheskij otchet (Moscow, 1923), p. 157 Google Scholar.

16 Lenin's first note on the question of nationality, dated December 30, 1922 (Bulletin, p. 158; Kommunist, p. 23).

17 Trotsky, My Life. An Attempt at an Autobiography (New York, 1930), pp. 478-79.

18 “Osnovnje vekhi zhizni V. I. Lenina,” Lenin, Sochinenija, 3rd ed. (Moscow, 1931), XXVII, 602. 19 Bulletin, pp. 153-60; Kommunist, pp. 16-26.

20 Lenin's note of December 23 (Bulletin, pp. 153-54; Kommunist, pp. 16-17).

21 Krupskaja wrote Kamenev that Lenin dictated to her (Wolfe, Khrushchev, p. 98), while the document itself carries the line “Dictated to M. V.” [M. Volidicheva] (Bulletin, p.’ 154).

22 Krupskaja to Kamenev, December 23, 1922 (Wolfe, Khrushchev, p. 98).

23 Lenin's “Testament” (Bulletin, p. 154; Kommunist, pp. 17-18).

24 Lenin's note of December 26 (Bulletin, p. 155; Kommunist, pp. 18-19).

25 “Comrade Trotsky's concurrence in this matter, in my opinion, should be obtained, but not as to the assignment of one of our political leaders to the post of chairman of Gosplan or chairman of the Supreme Council of National Economy, etc. It seems to me that in this question the basic consideration is too closely tied up with personal con- siderations.” (Lenin's note of December 27: Bulletin, p. 156; Kommunist, p. 20).

26 “[We need, as head of Gosplan,] a man with a scientific background, specifically in technology or agriculture, a man with great practical experience, an experience of several dozen years in the field of technology or agriculture … [A man possessing] in the highest degree the capacity for leadership and a solid scientific and technical knowledge … , a man of great and broad scientific attainments in the field of technology.” (Lenin's notes of Dec. 27, 28, 29: Bulletin, p. 156; Kommunist, pp. 20-21).

27 Lenin's second note of December 29 (Bulletin, p. 157; Kommunist, p. 21).

28 Pipes, op. cit., pp. 273-77; Bulletin, pp. 158-60; Kommunist, pp. 22-26. 29 Lenin, Sochinenija, XXVII, 387. Full article, “Stranichki iz dnevnika,” ibid., pp. 387- 90.

30 Bulletin, p. 155; Kommunist, p. 18.

31 Unconnected with the campaign against Stalin were: “O kooperacii” (Lenin, Sochinenija, XXVII, 391-97) and “O nashej revoljucii” (ibid., 398-401). Connected with Lenin's campaign to correct abuses closely associated with Stalin's authority were: “Kak nam reorganizovat’ rabkrin” (ibid., 402-05) and “Luchshe men'she, da luchshe” (ibid., 406-18).

32 “Kak nam reorganizovat’ rabkrin,” op. cit., 404.

33 Ibid., 404-05.

34 “Luchshe men'she, da luchshe,” op. cit., 407-14, passim.

35 On the attempt to forestall publication of “Luchshe men'she, da luchshe,” see Trotsky to Central Committee, October 24, 1923 (Socialisticheskij Vestnik, May 28, 1924, pp. 11-12).

36 Lenin to Mdivani et at., March 6, 1923 (Trotsky, Stalin School, p. 69, and The Real Situation in Russia, p. 299).

37 Trotsky, My Life, p. 482. The context makes it clear that the “bomb” concerned the Georgian question.

38 Ibid., p. 484.

39 Trotsky to Central Committee, April 16, 1923 (Bulletin, p. 158). Emphasis added.

40 Wolfe, Khrushchev, pp. 98 and 100.

41 Trotsky, My Life, p. 486. Trotsky's information came from Kamenev.

42 Ibid., pp. 484-85. Socialisticheskij vestnik, December 17, 1923, p. 15, carries what purports to be part of a letter from Trotsky to the Central Committee, dated March 6, in which Trotsky discusses his handling of Lenin's article against Stalin's nationality policy. Actually, the material thus labelled is an excerpt from Trotsky's letter of April 16, which is discussed below, and may be consulted in the Trotsky archive, no. 783, or Bulletin, pp. 157-58. Since the editors of Socialisticlieskij vestnik seem to have received this document, along with several others relating to the subject of the present article, from a clandestine source, it is understandable that their version of this letter should be incomplete and the date garbled. This error in dating seems to have led Richard Pipes to the conclusion that “ … Trotsky tried first to secure the entire Central Committee's permission to make public the contents of Lenin's article [on the question of nationality]” (The Formation of the Soviet Union, p. 279). In fact, quite the contrary was true of Trotsky's handling of the material, although Pipes’ conclusion seemed reasonable in the light of evidence available at the time he wrote.

43 Pravda, March 20, 1923.

44 Ibid.

45 Trotsky archive, no. 781.

46 E.g., Trotsky archive, nos. 763, 766, 767, 769, 771, 774.

47 Pravda, April 12, 1923

48 Fotieva to Kamenev, April 16, 1923 (Bulletin, pp. 160-61).

49 Ibid.

50 Kamenev to Secretariat of Central Committee, April 16, 1923 (Bulletin, p. 161).

51 Trotsky to Central Committee, April 16, 1923 (Bulletin, pp. 157-58).

52 Fotieva to Stalin, April 16, 1923 (Bulletin, p. 161). A paragraph of this letter is omitted from Wolfe, Khrushchev, p. 270

53 Stalin to Central Committee, April 16, 1923 (Bulletin, p. 161).

54 Trotsky to Central Committee, April 17, 1923 (Trotsky, Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and his Influence, ed. and trans. Charles Malamuth (New York, 1941), pp. 262-63.

55 Trotsky to Stalin, April 18, 1923 (Trotsky, Stalin, p. 363).

56 Ibid.

57 Fotieva to Kamenev, April 16, 1923 (Bulletin, pp. 160-61).

58 Trotsky to Central Committee, April 16, 1923 (Bulletin, pp. 157-58); Stalin to Central Committee, April 16, 1923 (Bulletin, p. 161).

59 In The Real Situation in Russia Trotsky wrote: “ I will not quote here Lenin's principal letter against Stalin on the national question. It is printed in the stenographic report of the plenum [of the Central Committee] of July, 1926, and, moreover, it is being passed around in separate leaflets. They will fail to conceal that letter. But there are other documents on the same theme, completely unknown to the Party. Arkhivarius and historians of the Stalin school are taking every measure to prevent those documents from appearing. They will continue to do so. They are quite capable, in fact, of simply destroying them” (p. 293). It is not clear what Trotsky means by “Lenin's principal letter,” the report cited being unavailable. It seems most likely that he referred to the December notes, since these could reasonably be called a “letter.” Moreover, they were circulated to the Thirteenth Party Congress in 1924, so that they could not be considered “completely unknown to the Party.” Trotsky may be right about Lenin's later development of the notes, the “bomb” that he was preparing for the Twelfth Congress. It may have been destroyed as soon as it reached Stalin on April 16, 1923.

60 Dvenadcatij s'ezd Rossijskoj Kommunisticheskoj Partii (Bol'shevikov): stenograficheskij otchët, p. 577.