1. Shliapnikov declared that he considered it “inadmissible to relinquish my responsibility and obligations” as commissar of labor (see minutes of the Central Committee for August 1917 to February 1918, reprinted under the title, The Bolsheviks and the October Revolution, trans. Ann Bone [London, 1974], p. 142).

2. Daniels, Robert Vincent, The Conscience of the Revolution (New York, 1960), p. 125.Google Scholar Daniels provides a solid account of Shliapnikov's political career from 1917 to 1926. Shliapnikov's role in the trade union controversy of 1918 to 1922 receives extensive treatment in Jay B. Sorenson, The Life and Death of Soviet Trade Unionism, 1917-1928 (New York, 1969). A survey of Shliapnikov's political career, including an autobiographical sketch of his life until early 1920, may be found in Haupt, Georges and Marie, Jean-Jacques, Makers of the Russian Revolution (New York, 1972), p. 212–21.Google Scholar See also a collection of Shliapnikov's political criticism and the party's response in Zor'kii, M., ed., Rabochaia oppositsiia: Materialy i dokumenty, 1920-1926 gg. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1926).Google Scholar

3. For a discussion of Shliapnikov and the Tenth Party Congress, see Sorenson, Life and Death of Soviet Trade Unionism, pp. 124-27.

4. Ibid., pp. 166-69, 173-74; and Daniels, Conscience, pp. 133, 146-50, 157, 161.

5. See information in Daniels, Conscience, pp. 127-28; and Vasser, M. M., “Razgrom anarkho-sindikalistskogo uklona v partii,” Voprosy istorii KPSS, 1962, no. 3, p. 74.Google Scholar

6. KPSS v rezoliutsiiakh i resheniiakh s “ezdov, konferentsii i plenumov TsK, 8th ed., vol. 2 (Moscow, 1970), pp. 368-71. Shliapnikov was not reelected to the Central Committee.

7. Pravda, January 18, 1924, pp. 4-5.

8. Ibid., July 10, 1926, pp. 2-4, and July 30, 1926, p. 1.

9. Shliapnikov, A, “O demonstrativnoi atake i pravoi opasnosti v partii,” Bol'shevik, no. 17 (September 15, 1926), pp. 62–73 Google Scholar; a lengthy polemical response followed (pp. 74-102).

10. Pravda, October 17, 1926, p. 1.

11. Ibid, October 31, 1926, p. 1.

12. Malaia sovetskaia entsiklopediia, vol. 10 (Moscow, 1931), p. 10; Popov, N., Outline History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, vol. 2 (New York, 1934), p. 454.Google Scholar

13. Several biographical sketches of Shliapnikov referred to this confession but provided no source for it. Two Soviet sources mentioned only that in 1930 Shliapnikov “acknowledged his mistakes.” See Deviatyi s “ezd RKP(b), mart-aprel’ 1921 goda: Protokoly (Moscow, 1960), p. 639; and Odinnadtsatyi s “ezd RKP(b), mart-aprel’ 1922 goda: Stenograficheskii otchet (Moscow, 1961), p. 860. According to Haupt and Marie, in 1930 “the Party secretariat forced him to publish a public confession of his ‘political errors'” (Haupt and Marie, Makers of the Russian Revolution, p. 221). After an exhausting if not exhaustive search of all likely locations for more precise information and for the confession itself, I am left with only frustration and nagging curiosity.

14. Emelian Iaroslavskii made this charge (see Shestnadtsatyi s “ezd Vsesoiusnoi Kommunisticheskoi partii, 26 iiunia-13 iiulia 1930 g.: Stenograficheskii otchet [Moscow-Leningrad, 1931], pp. 337-38). Iaroslavskii added that, if party members knew of the existence of underground counterrevolutionary organizations and failed to report it, then they shared responsibility for the activity of such organizations (ibid, p. 338). At the preceding Fifteenth Party Congress (December 1927), Rykov, then allied with Stalin, used Shliapnikov as an example of a party member who observed rules of conduct even while in opposition. Referring to recent attempts on November 7 by Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev to arouse public support in Moscow and Leningrad through demonstrations and speeches, Rykov pointed out that, as head of the former Workers’ Opposition, Shliapnikov “never carried antiparty banners in the streets and never appealed to the nonparty masses” (see Piatnadtsatyi s “ezd VKP(b), dekabr’ 1927 goda: Stenograficheskii otchet [Moscow, 1961], pp. 287 and 289).

15. See information provided by A. Tsiliga, published in Biulleten’ oppozitsii, no. 47 (January 1936), p. 3.

16. Report of the Court Proceedings: The Case of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terrorist Centre (Moscow, 1936), pp. 68 and 72. Neither Kamenev nor Zinoviev provided any information on Shliapnikov's or Medvedev's alleged involvement.

17. Considerable confusion exists as to the year in which Shliapnikov died, because Soviet sources provide two dates. For example, appended biographical notes in the 1960 edition of Deviatyi s “ezd RKP (b): Protokoly indicated 1943 (p. 639); however, the 1961 edition of Odinnadtsatyi s “ezd RKP(b): Stenograficheskii otchet mentioned 1937 (p. 860). More recently, the biographical notes in V. I. Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 5th ed, vol. 27 (Moscow, 1969), indicated 1937 (p. 611). The year 1937 is probably correct, because 1943 may have been used to count Shliapnikov as a war casualty rather than as a victim of the terror

18. Shliapnikov, A, “K Oktiabriu,” Proletarskaia revoliutsiia, no. 10 (1922), pp. 3–42Google Scholar (hereafter cited as PR). Created in 1920-21, Istpart was affiliated with the party's Central Committee. It dominated Soviet historical scholarship on party history and 1917 throughout the 1920s.

19. Shliapnikov, A, “Fevral'skie dni v Petrograde,” PR, no. 13 (1923), pp. 71–134Google Scholar; Shliapnikov, A., Semnadtsatyi god, vol. 1 (Moscow-Petrograd, 1923)Google Scholar (hereafter cited as 1917). This volume appeared in an edition of ten thousand copies.

20. Shliapnikov, A., 1917, vol. 2 (Moscow-Leningrad, 1925)Google Scholar; Shliapnikov, A., 1917, vol. 3 (Moscow-Leningrad, 1927)Google Scholar; PR, nos. 3/50 to 8/55 (1926). The second and third volumes appeared in editions of ten thousand and three thousand copies, respectively.

21. Shliapnikov, A., 1917, vol. 4 (Moscow-Leningrad, 1931)Google Scholar. This volume dealt with developments from February to August not treated in his earlier publications. However, its final two chapters (pp. 217-323) were only slightly revised editions of articles that appeared in three earlier issues of PR, nos. 3/50 to 5/52 (1926). Despite the press run of five thousand copies, this volume proved difficult to obtain. Only recently has it been made available in this country. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign now possesses a microfilmed copy and the University of South Alabama has a photocopy.

22. Works on 1917 by Shliapnikov not included in this accounting are: Fevral'skie dni v Peterburge (Kharkov, 1925), an abridged edition of the first volume of 1917; a two-part article chiefly on events after the October revolt, “Oktiabr'skii perevorot i stavka,” in Krasnyi arkhiv, 1925, no. 8, pp. 153-75, and 1925, no. 9, pp. 156-70; and the final two chapters of 1917, vol. 4.

23. Shliapnikov, A., “Iz literatury o Russkoi revoliutsii: O knigakh N. Sukhanova,” Pechat’ i revoliutsiia, no. 4, pp. 46–52Google Scholar. In the first volume of the book in question, Sukhanov had provided a no less damning indictment of Shliapnikov. He observed that in 1917 Shliapnikov struck him as an unintelligent party “fanatic” who “lacked all independence of thought” ( Sukhanov, N. N., Zapiski o revoliutsii, vol. 1 [Berlin, 1922], p. 94).Google Scholar

24. Perhaps a key to Shliapnikov's treatment of 1917 can be found in his predisposition from childhood to empathize with the hopes and activity of the Russian people. This contributed to his consistent belief that the 1917 Revolution was more a product of popular activity than party dictate. In his autobiographical sketch, Shliapnikov stressed that he experienced hard work and persecution. “Both my parents’ families were Old Believers,” he reported, therefore, “from early childhood I knew what religious persecution meant.” As a youngster left largely to his own devices, as he put it, he worked as a manual laborer, often suffering persecution for his political activism (Haupt and Marie, Makers of the Russian Revolution, pp. 212-14). Shliapnikov's association with the metalworkers in 1917 probably reinforced this empathy.

25. Bolshevik Pravda and Sotsial-demokrat; Menshevik Rabochaia gaseta; Kadet Rech'; S.R. Delo naroda; Provisional Government Vcstnik Vrcmennogo Pravitel'stva; Petrograd Soviet Isvestiia; the conservative paper Novoe vremia.

26. These included reports of government commissars to the armed forces submitted in March and April, letters and telegrams to the government from officials and commanding officers, April to June 18, reports of various army headquarters, including General Headquarters, from June 25 to July 17, and a conference of front commanders and other generals held in Petrograd on July 16.

27. Note Shliapnikov's condescending treatment of Kerensky in Shliapnikov, A, “Kerenshchina,” PR, no. 7/54 (1926), p. 27 Google Scholar; and A. Shliapnikov, “Kerenshchina,” ibid., no. 8/55 (1926), p. 52.

28. Shliapnikov, 1917, vol. 2, pp. 3-26.

29. Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 42-44, 153, 231-32, 244; vol. 3, p. 255; vol. 4, pp. 147-216; Shliapnikov, A, “Iiul'skie dni v Petrograde,” PR, no. 4/51 (1926), pp. 72–74, 87Google Scholar; A. Shliapnikov “Iiul'skie dni v Petrograde,” ibid., no. 5/S2 (1926), pp. 6-7, 11-12, 55; Shliapnikov, “Kerenshchina,” no. 7, pp. 30-34, 54, and no. 8, pp. 13 and 20.

30. Shliapnikov, 1917, vol. 1, pp. 207-15, 246-47; vol. 2, pp. 60-66, 157-59; vol. 3, pp. 175-76, 188; vol. 4, pp. 167, 204-7.

31. Shliapnikov, “Kerenshchina,” no. 7, pp. 24-28, 38-56, and no. 8, pp. 5-13, 16-19.

32. Shliapnikov devoted considerable attention to the evolving attitudes of both soldiers and officers from March to August (see Shliapnikov, 1917, vol. 2, pp. 52-108; vol. 3, pp. 36-92, 118-41; vol. 4, pp. 101-26; Shliapnikov, A, “liun'skoe nastuplenie,” PR, no. 3/50 [1926], pp. 21–31Google Scholar; Shliapnikov, , “Iiul'skie dni,” no. 5, pp. 30–37 Google Scholar; A. Shliapnikov, “Iiul1 na fronte,” PR, no. 6/53 [1926], pp. 16-59; Shliapnikov, “Kerenshchina,” no. 7, pp. 41-56). Robert S. Feldman used Shliapnikov's information extensively in “The Russian General Staff and the June Offensive,” Soviet Studies, 19, no. 2 (April 1968): 526-43.

33. Shliapnikov, 1917, vol. 1, pp. 3-5, 123.

34. Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 142-43, 173; vol. 3, pp. 36-46, 54-59.

35. Ibid., vol. 3, pp. 46, 36-45, 54-79. For more on the Duma's role, see ibid., vol. 4, pp. 96-98.

36. This hostility forced a curtailment of Shliapnikov's own activity in 1917. In March, a sympathetic soldier concerned for Shliapnikov's safety convinced him not to speak at a garrison meeting (ibid., vol. 2, pp. 142-43). Following the events of July 3-5, so many troops believed Bolsheviks to be German agents that Shliapnikov decided not to free some party members arrested by soldiers, even though the executive committee of the Petrograd Soviet had empowered him to release them (see Shliapnikov, “Iiul'skie dni,” no. 5, pp. 37-38).

37. Shliapnikov, “Iiun'skoe nastuplenie,” p. 22; and Shliapnikov, “Kerenshchina,” no. 8, pp. 16-17, 48.

38. See especially Shliapnikov, 1917, vol. 1, pp. 3-8; and Shliapnikov, “Iiul'skie dni,” no. 4, pp. 60-66.

39. Shliapnikov, “K Oktiabriu,” p. 14.

40. Shliapnikov, 1917, vol. 1, pp. 19-33, 47, 69, 87, 109, 144.

41. Ibid., pp. 67, 105, 134-35.

42. Ibid., pp. 185-86, 218-20. Shliapnikov's observations regarding this leaflet remain controversial among Soviet and Western historians. They disagree with both the dates and interpretation provided by Shliapnikov (see, for example, Tsuyoshi, Hasegawa, “The Bolsheviks and the Formation of the Petrograd Soviet in the February Revolution,” Soviet Studies, 29, no. 1 [January 1977]: 86–105).Google Scholar

43. Shliapnikov, “Fevral'skie dni,” p. 93; and Shliapnikov, 1917, vol. 1, p. 119. This interpretation has some validity as recognized by Ferro, Marc in The Russian Revolution of February 1917, trans. Richards, J. L. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1972), p. 57.Google Scholar

44. Shliapnikov, 1917, vol. 1, pp. 144, 146, 203-4.

45. On disagreements and divisions within the party, see ibid., vol. 1, pp. 241 and 256; vol. 2, pp. 179-87; vol. 3, pp. 209, 259-60, 263-64.

46. Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 179-85.

47. Ibid., vol. 3, pp. 210-11.

48. Ibid., pp. 259-64. Shliapnikov noted that Lenin advocated a more rapid transition from the bourgeois-democratic to the socialist stage of revolution than many on the Bolshevik “left” had thought possible.

49. See separate reviews by S. Mitskevich, G. Lelevich, and Feliks Kon in Pechaf i revoliutsiia, 1923, no. 3, pp. 191-93; ibid., 1924, no. 2, pp. 215-17; and ibid., 1925, no. 5-6, pp. 414-17. See also V. Petrov's comments in Krasnaia letopis', no. 6/21 (1926), pp. 176-79.

50. Pravda, January 26, 1927, p. 5.

51. See the comments by Iu. Steklov, editor of Isvestiia, “Po povodu stat'i A. G. Shliapnikova,” PR, no. 4/16 (1923), pp. 176-84; and Petrovskii, G, “O Fevral'skoi revoliutsii v Iakutske,” PR, no. 3/50 (1926), pp. 218–20.Google Scholar

52. Shliapnikov, A, “Otvet Iu. Steklovu,” PR, no. 5/17 (1923), pp. 377–84Google Scholar; Shliapnikov, A, “Vynuzhdennyi otvet t. Petrovskomu,” PR, no. 3/50 (1926), pp. 220–24.Google Scholar

53. For an extended treatment of the attempt by Soviet historians to achieve a working integration of Marxist ideology, political instrumentalism, and scholarship, see Larry E., Holmes, “Soviet Party Historians on Historical Method, 1921 to 1928,” New Revieiv, 12, no. 4 (December 1972): 53–66 Google Scholar; and Larry E., Holmes, “Science as Fiction: The Concept 'History as a Science’ in the USSR, 1917-1930,” CLIO, 4, no. 1 (October 1974): 27–50.Google Scholar

54. “Ot Istparta,” PR, no. 4 (1922), p. 360; and “Temy pereraboty po istorii Oktiabr'- skoi revoliutsii,” PR, no. 5 (1922), p. 323.

55. Pokrovskii, M. N., “N. N. Avdeev, kak istorik,” PR, no. 5/52 (1926), pp. 217–21.Google Scholar

56. Piontkovskii, S, “K voprosu ob izuchenii materialov po istorii Oktiabr'skoi revoliutsii,” PR, no. 2/49 (1926), p. 241.Google Scholar

57. See Pokrovskii's comments on Miliukov in Pokrovskii, M. N., “Burzhuaznaia kontseptsiia proletarskoi revoliutsii,” Istorik-marksist, no. 3 (1927), pp. 56–77Google Scholar; P. Lepeshinskii on the memoir by the Menshevik, O. A. Ermanskii, in the introduction to Ermanskii, O. A., Is pcrezhitogo (1887-1921 gg.) (Moscow-Leningrad, 1927)Google Scholar; and N. Lentsner's review of Sukhanov's Zapiski o revoliutsii in PR, no. 10/33 (1924), pp. 267-70. Lentsner was considerably more charitable than Shliapnikov had been.

58. See, for example, the following studies by prominent party historians: Piontkovskii, S. A., Oktiabr'skaia revoliutsiia v Rossii, ee predposylki i khod (Moscow-Petrograd, 1923)Google Scholar; Pankratova, A., Fabsavkomy Rossii v bor'be za sotsialisticheskuiu fabriku (Moscow, 1923)Google Scholar; and the studies of the peasantry by Dubrovskii, S. M., Ocherki russkoi revoliutsii: Sel'skoe khoziaistvo (Moscow, 1923)Google Scholar and Dubrovskii, S. M., Krest'ianstvo v 1917 godu (Moscow-Leningrad, 1927).Google Scholar

59. Genkina, E. B., “Fevral'skii perevorot” in Ocherki po istorii Oktiabr'skoi revoliutsii, ed. Pokrovskii, M. N. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1927), pp. 54–55.Google Scholar la. Iakovlev, future commissar of agriculture, directly rejected Shliapnikov's conclusion, although, like Shliapnikov, he emphasized the importance of the party's previous agitation against autocracy and its underground experience (Iakovlev, la., “Fevral'skie dni 1917 g.,” PR, no. 2-3/61-62 [1927], pp. 80–81, 97).Google Scholar

60. Leon, Trotsky, Lessons of October, trans. Wright, John G. (New York, 1937).Google Scholar

61. See their articles in Za Leninism (Moscow-Leningrad, 1925).

62. Ibid., p. 208. A. Andreev made a similar comment on p. 241.

63. Pravda, January 18, 1924, p. 4.

64. Shliapnikov, “O demonstrativnoi atake,” pp. 72-73.

65. Bol'shevik, no. 17 (September 15, 1926), p. 101.

66. Ibid., no. 21-22 (November 30, 1926), pp. 135-38.

67. “Po povodu Oktiabr'skikh kolebanii i oshibok,” Bol'shevik, no. 21-22 (November 30, 1926), pp. 139-44. The editorial board consisted of Molotov, Bukharin, Em. Iaroslavskii, A. Slepkov, and V. Astrov.

68. Kin, D, “Semnadtsatyi god v izobrazhenii t. A. Shliapnikova,” Istorik-marksist, 1927, no. 3, pp. 40–55Google Scholar; A. Divil'kovskii, review in Pechat’ i revoliutsiia, no. 2 (1927), pp. 164- 66; Lomakin, Ark, “O novoi knige tov. Shliapnikova,” Bol'shevik, no. 5 (March 1, 1927), pp. 91–96.Google Scholar Of the three critiques, Divil'kovskii's was the most sober, Kin's the most detailed but petty, and Lomakin's the most polemical.

69. Lomakin, “O novoi knige,” pp. 92-94.

70. Kin, “Semnadtsatyi god,” pp. S0-S1, 53.

71. Pokrovskii, M., Ocherki po istorii revoliutsionnogo dvizhcniia v Rossii XIX i XX vv. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1927), p. 183.Google Scholar

72. Shliapnikov, A, “Otvet kritikam,” Bol'shevik, no. 10 (May 31, 1927), p. 84.Google Scholar Shliapnikov's response continued in Bol'shevik, no. 11-12 (June 15, 1927), pp. 99-104.

73. Pokrovskii, M, “Neskol'ko malenkikh popravok,” Bol'shevik, no. 14 (July 31, 1927), p. 88 Google Scholar; Kin, D, “Otvet tov. Shliapnikovu,” Bol'shevik, no. 14 (July 31, 1927), pp. 104–11.Google Scholar

74. Lomakin, Ark, “Neskol'ko slov tov. Shliapnikovu,” Bol'shevik, no. 11-12 (June 15, 1927), p. 112.Google Scholar

75. See Robert, Conquest, The Great Terror, rev. ed. (New York, 1973), p. 731–36.Google Scholar

76. Loren, Graham, The Soviet Academy of Sciences and the Communist Party, 1927- 1932 (Princeton, 1967).Google Scholar

77. A significant body of literature on these developments exists; see especially Fitzpatrick, Sheila, “Cultural Revolution in Russia 1928-32,” Journal of Contemporary History, 9, no. 1 (January 1974): 33–52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fitzpatrick, Sheila, “The Emergence of Glaviskusstvo: Class War on the Cultural Front, Moscow, 1928-29,” Soviet Studies, 23, no. 2 (October 1971): 236–53 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Joravsky, David, Soviet Marxism and Natural Science, 1917-1932 (London, 1961)Google Scholar; Brown, Edward J., The Proletarian Episode in Russian Literature, 1928-1932 (New York, 1953)Google Scholar; and Fitzpatrick, Sheila, ed., Cultural Revolution in Russia, 1928-1931 (Bloomington, Ind., 1978)Google Scholar.

78. Note, in particular, the discussion of the attacks on D. M. Petrushevskii and E. V. Tarle in Enteen, George M., “Marxists versus Non-Marxists: Soviet Historiography in the 1920s,” Slavic Review, 35, no. 1 (March 1976): 101–5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Shteppa, Konstantin F., Russian Historians and the Soviet State (New Brunswick, 1962), p. 53–62.Google Scholar Enteen's article provides an excellent survey of the rejection of coexistence with nonparty historical scholarship.

79. “Vsesoiuznaia konferentsiia istorikov-marksistov,” Istorik-marksist, no. 11 (1929), pp. 219, 224, 231, 248-50; and ibid., 1929, no. 12, pp. 300-301. For a complete report, see Trudy Pervoi Vsesoiusnoi konferentsii istorikov-marksistov, 2 vols. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1930).

80. “Materialy soveshchanii prepodavatelei leninizma, istorii partii i istorii Kominterna,” PR, no. 4/99 (1930), pp. 170-71.

81. Memoirs by Miliukov, Sukhanov, Chernov, Struve, Plekhanov, and Martov were condemned in PR, no. 10/69 (1927), pp. 299-300; ibid., no. 7/90 (1929), pp. 201-3; and Istorik-marksist, no. 5 (1927), pp. 184-90.

82. PR, no. 2-3/97-98 (1930), pp. 194-96; ibid., no. 4/99 (1930), pp. 50-61. For a discussion which ended, essentially, in a rejection of memoirs as historical sources, see the debate over the journal Katorga i ssylka, a publication of the Society of Former Political Convicts and Exiles, in PR, no. 9/104 (1930), pp. 168-73; and ibid., no. 11/106 (1930), pp. 183-89; as well as in Katorga i ssylka, no. 3/76 (1931), pp. 7-15; ibid., no. 10/83 (1931), pp. 124-29; and ibid., no. 11-12/84-85 (1931), pp. 19-28.

83. See statements in PR, no. 5/100 (1930), pp. 251-55; ibid., no. 11/106 (1930), p. 273; and ibid., no. 2-3/109-110 (1931), p. 168. For observations on Stalin's concern for his own image in historical writing at this time, see Tucker, Robert C., Stalin as Revolutionary 1879-1929: A Study in History and Personality (New York, 1973), chapters 12 and 13.Google Scholar

84. An important study of Pokrovskii's activity from 1928 is EnteenM., George , “M. N. Pokrovskij and the Administration of Soviet Historical Scholarship,” Jahrbücher für Geschichtc Ostenropas, 22, no. 1 (1974): 56–67.Google Scholar Other significant contributions relevant to Pokrovskii's methodology are: Baron, Samuel H., “Plekhanov, Trotsky, and the Development of Soviet Historiography,” Soviet Studies, 26, no. 3 (July 1974): 380–95 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which demonstrates a marked tendency, on Pokrovskii's part, toward intolerance long before 1928; and Sokolov, O. D., M. N. Pokrovskii i sovetskaia istoricheskaia nauka (Moscow, 1970).Google Scholar

85. See Vestnik Kommunisticheskoi akademii, 39 (1930): 10-11; M. N. Pokrovskii, , Istoricheskaia nauka i bor'ba klassov, vol. 2 (Moscow-Leningrad, 1933), pp. 380, 387, 393–95 Google Scholar; and Pokrovskii's speech to the Sixteenth Party Congress in Shcstnadtsatyi s “esd Vsesoiusnoi Kommunisticheskoi partii: Stenograficheskii otchet, pp. 246-48.

86. For a detailed discussion of Pokrovskii's problems from 1928 to 1932, see Enteen, “M. N. Pokrovskij”; Szporluk, Roman, “Pokrovsky and Russian History,” Survey, no. 53 (October 1964), pp. 107–18Google Scholar, who notes some resistance by Pokrovskii to criticism; and Shteppa, Russian Historians, pp. 100-101. Sokolov referred to a letter, located in the archive of the Academy of Sciences, in which Pokrovskii complained of polemical attacks made on a group of Soviet historians working on Western history (Sokolov, M. N. Pokrovskii, p. 100).

87. Pokrovskii, Istoricheskaia nauka, vol. 2, pp. 271-72. Pokrovskii's tendency to view history in universal rather than national terms and his opposition to the systematic study of history in the schools provoked criticism even before his death. After his death in 1932, these “errors,” and his notion of tsarist Russia as a “prison of peoples,” led to a condemnation of Pokrovskii and his so-called “school.”

88. Knishnaia letopis’ listed the volume in its October 1931 issue (no. 60, item 25020). Unlike the first three volumes which were published by Gosisdat, the fourth had the imprimatur of the Gosudarstvennoe sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoe isdatel'stvo. I have not found information that would provide a satisfactory explanation for the publication of Shliapnikov's last work. On June 23, 1931, speaking to representatives of the Supreme Economic Council and Commissariat of Supply, Stalin declared that the bourgeois technical intelligentsia had recovered from the “disease of wrecking” (J. V. Stalin, Works, vol. 13 [Moscow, 1955], pp. 70-71, 75). This speech seems to have contributed to a modest reduction of hostility toward some skilled specialists (see information in Joravsky, Soviet Marxism and Natural Science, pp. 245-46). It may also have contributed to less severe sentences than those initially contemplated for some distinguished scholars arrested previously (see a discussion of the “Academic Case” in Tchernavin, Vladimir V., Speak for the Silent Prisoners of the Soviets, trans. Oushakoff, Nicholas M. [New York, 1935], especially pp. 366–68)Google Scholar. But Stalin's speech did not lead to a reversal of prevailing trends in the cultural and intellectual fields, and probably had little, if anything, to do with the publication of another volume of 1917. Perhaps Shliapnikov as well as those who may have sponsored his latest book believed the thorough defeat of the Right Opposition would make political considerations less of an issue in the evaluation of works on party history. If so, Stalin and young Bolshevik historians soon proved them wrong.

89. Shliapnikov, 1917, vol. 4, p. 96. Note also Shliapnikov's rather objective treatment of Chernov on pp. 205-7, and of the cooperation that existed between Bolsheviks and other leftists. The party's leadership, he concluded, cancelled plans for a demonstration on June 10 largely in order to maintain the support the party enjoyed from other leftists at the First Congress of Soviets (ibid., p. 183).

90. Stalin, I, “O nekotorykh voprosakh istorii bol'shevizma: Pis'mo v redaktsiiu zhurnala ‘Proletarskoi revoliutsii, ’” PR, no. 6/113 (1931), p. 12.Google Scholar

91. Abramov, Al. and Shmidt, I., “Protiv fal'sifikatsii istorii Oktiabria pod flagom Wektivnosti, ’” Bol'shevik, no. 22 (November 30, 1931), p. 70.Google Scholar

92. Iaroslavskii, Em., ed, Istoriia VKP(b), vol. 4 (Moscow-Leningrad, 1929), pp. 72–75.Google Scholar

93. Abramov, “Protiv fal'sifikatsii,” p. 70.

94. Shcherbakov, A., Gotfried, L., Abramov, A., Ovsiannikov, G., and Shachnev, M., “Men'shevitskaia fal'sifikatsiia istorii semnadtsatogo goda,” Bolshevik, no. 23-24 (December 30, 1931), p. 121.Google Scholar

95. Ibid., p. 113.

96. Ibid., p. 123.

97. Fainsod, Merle, Smolensk Under Soviet Rule (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), p. 374.Google Scholar

98. Fokin, E., Fevral'skaia burshuasno-demokratichcskaia revoliutsiia 1917 g. (Moscow, 1937), p. 78 Google Scholar; Iaroslavskii, Em., Istoriia VKP(b), vol. 2 (Moscow, 1933), p. 6.Google Scholar

99. History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks): Short Course (Toronto, 1939), p. 211. The initial two volumes of Istoriia grashdanskoi voiny v SSSR likewise reduced Shliapnikov's role in 1917 to nothing more than his alleged resignation (see Istoriia grashdanskoi voiny v SSSR, ed. M. Gor'kii et al., vol. 2 [Moscow, 1943], p. 542).

100. See Burdzhalov, E.'s Vtoraia russkaia revoliutsiia (Moscow, 1967).Google Scholar I. I. Mints made several remarks, often critical, in Mints, I. I., Istoriia Velikogo Oktiabria, 3 vols. (Moscow, 1967-73)Google Scholar. For example, Mints listed Shliapnikov as one of those who resigned from the Sovnarkom in November 1917 (Mints, Istoriia Velikogo Oktiabria, 3: 762) after not listing him that way previously (ibid., p. 737). Shliapnikov has merited considerable attention in a recent work by Tokarev, Iu. S., Petrograiskii Sovet rabochikh i soldatskikh deputatov v marte-aprele 1917 g. (Leningrad, 1976).Google Scholar But, among the huge number of biographical entries in Erykalov, E. F. and Mushtukov, V. E., eds., Geroi Oktiabria, 2 vols. (Leningrad, 1967)Google Scholar, not one was devoted to Shliapnikov. Shliapnikov was not listed in the last volume of Sovetskaia istoricheskaia cntsiklopediia, 16 vols. (Moscow, 1971-76), nor is there an entry for him in the latest edition of Bol'shaia sovetskaia cntsiklopediia, 3rd ed., vol.29 (Moscow, 1978).