The Stalin school of falsification - Marxists Internet Archive

Stalin School of Falsification - Chapter 13
To comrades Lenin and Trotsky. My own profound conviction is: No change in the situation can possibly
be effected by my trip. . .
Or, are we perhaps to seek the causes for that in another "characteristic" trait of Stalin -- his
"capriciousness" (Lenin)? In any case, these are the facts. And facts are stubborn things.
THE SOUTHERN FRONT
Following in the footsteps of Voroshilov, we now pass to the central and most important question, that of
the Southern Front. Here, in addition to an immense pile of all sorts of petty insinuations, we find two
"general" falsifications (al though, perhaps, falsification is much too mild an expression).
The first "general" falsification. This is how Voroshilov describes the autumn of 1919, i.e., the most
crucial period of the civil war (Denikin threatens Tula; Yudenich threatens Petrograd). "The situation had
to be saved, so the C.C sent comrade Stalin to the Southern Front in his capacity as a member of the
Military Council. It is now [!] no longer necessary to hide [!] that prior to his appointment comrade
Stalin put three main conditions to the C.C.: 1) Trotsky must not interfere in the affairs of the Southern
Front and must not trespass the lines of demarcation set. . . . These conditions were completely
accepted." [Accroding to Voroshilov, the second and third conditions consisted of a change in a number of responsible
workers and the appointment of new ones (he gives no names -- is it perhaps the Tsaritsinites who are hidden under the
pseudonym 'new ones"?) -N.M. ] This is a lie from beginning to end. It does not even contain that grain of
truth which is occasionally contained even in a lie. Why has the time for this latest disclosure arrived
only "now"? After all, since the year 1924 everything has been "disclosed" that could have been
"disclosed." Why was it necessary to wait before making the latest disclosure which is by far less sen
sational than scores of others made in 1929? It is not for nothing that Voroshilov once again resorts to a
free rendition "in his own words." If such a decision of the C.C. really existed, why wasn't it quoted?
And why refrain in general from precise reference to facts and documents? The reason is quite apparent.
Every fact, every document is in flagrant contradiction with this invention. It ought, by the way, to be
remarked here that it is not Voroshilov himself who invented this history. He recounts only that which
Stalin in sheer affectation announced during one of the sessions of the Political Bureau back in 1927.
Rumors of it penetrated into the party even at that time, arousing indignation among some comrades
(those who were well informed), and among others, complete bewilderment. We must also add that
during the session of the Political Bureau at which Stalin spoke, minutes were taken which were meant
for publication, as is always the case in such procedure. At this session N. I. Muralov, present in the
capacity of a member of the Central Control Commission, gave an annihilating answer in rebuttal to
Stalin. The recorded minutes were then placed under lock and key and never made public to the party,
despite the insist ence of the Opposition. Comrade Trotsky at that time (in his "letter to the lstpart" and
since then in his autobiog raphy) refuted this absurd fiction with documents in hand. Neither Stalin nor
anybody else either at that time or since then brought any semblance of excerpts or proofs. Neither Stalin
nor anybody else, either at that time or since then, has had a single word to say in reply to the irrefutable
docu ments cited by Trotsky. Moreover, they were compelled to keep silent. Today, three years later,
Voroshilov once again raises this ridiculous piece of gossip. But let us give the floor to the documents:
"Moscow, July 5, 1919.
"The Communist Party of Russia (B.)
"Central Committee "Kremlin.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1937-st2/sf13.htm (8 of 14) [06/06/2002 15:07:18]