June 15, 1932

Greetings, Comrade Kaganovich!

I received the letter of June 12.

1) A formal recall of Znamensky is inexpedient. He should be summoned (immediately) for a personal report, spoken to in detail, and then the question should be decided one way or another.

2) Of all the conversations, "negotiations," "communications," and "statements" on Soviet-American relations, the most interesting development is the appearance of Lancaster, his desire to clarify the terms of a loan and the procedure for settling the bank's claims. Let Mezhlauk, Pyatakov, and Kalmanovich talk with him in detail.

As for Pope, Bullitt, and others, one should also be friendly with them (remember the Ukrainian: "budʹte laskovy"!) and attentive. These gentlemen's reference to the "Comintern" should be countered by citing such facts as the existence of diplomatic relations with France, Germany, England, and Japan, declaring to them the sense of vexation felt by Soviet people upon seeing that the Germans, British, French, and Japanese long ago understood the difference between the Comintern and the Soviet government, while the Americans have not yet grown up to such an understanding.

I think that for the time being we should not send our people to the USA for "probing."

3) On the noise about oil, you have done rather well. Be sure to add to the new oil sources in the East mentioned in Pravda one more source -- Yakutia. I am sending you the relevant report of the CC Organizational Department on oil in Yakutia. I think Starovatov's indication is not without foundation.

Aside from the noise about oil, it seems to me that oil in Yakutia (and there is oil there) is for us a direct blessing, a valuable find. Pay serious attention to this matter.

4) I did not like the letters of Chubar and Petrovsky. The first engages in "self-criticism" -- in order to obtain new millions of poods of grain from Moscow; the second plays the saint who has sacrificed himself for the "CC VKP directive" -- in order to achieve a reduction of the grain procurement plan. Neither the one nor the other is acceptable. Chubar is mistaken if he thinks that self-criticism is needed not to mobilize Ukraine's forces and resources but to obtain "aid" from outside. In my opinion, Ukraine has been given more than it should have been. There is no reason or means to give more grain. The worst thing in this matter is Kosior's silence. How do you explain this silence? Does he know about the letters of Chubar and Petrovsky?

5) I think we should not issue corrections to the sowing reports along the line of individual farmers. That would be better. If you and Molotov insist on corrections, they can be issued in an extreme case, but not at 10-15% -- at a maximum of 5-8%.

Greetings!

I. Stalin.

Source: Stalin i Kaganovich. Perepiska. 1931-1936 gg. [Stalin and Kaganovich. Correspondence. 1931-1936], pp. 168-169.

RGASPI, f. 81, op. 3, d. 99, ll. 62-63.

NOTE

On June 12, 1932, Pravda published the material "Sterlitamak -- a New World Oil Region. The Overwhelming Mass of Oil Products of Baku, Grozny, and Maikop -- for Export," which reported the discovery of a new "richest oil base" in Bashkiria and the possibility, in connection with this, of directing the reserves of the southern regions (Azerbaijan, the North Caucasus), located close to ports, to export.

In the following days, reports on the forced development of new deposits were published almost every day. After Stalin's letter, on June 20 Pravda placed a leading article in which it reported new locations of deposits, including Yakut oil. On June 21, Pravda published an extensive item, "Oil in Yakutia."