Sochi. 9/VIII-25.

Comrade Molotov!

Please read the letter to Bukharin.

I received your letter of 5/VIII.

1) Apparently, the appointment of Gei took place before you received my letter about appointing Shvernik or someone else as head of the Orgraspred. We did, indeed, have an understanding about Gei, but then I changed my mind, which I communicated to you, but unfortunately too late. Well, let us see how Gei performs. A decision adopted twice should not be changed now.

2) Regarding Dneprostroi. I am somewhat agitated because this affair involves hundreds of millions, and they want to decide it off the cuff. Preventive measures must be taken while it is not too late, and we must take care that the interests of the cause do not suffer, without stopping short of the fact that perhaps Dzerzhinsky and Trotsky will be somewhat offended. The question must be decided by all in the Seven.

3) As for Manuilsky, there is some sort of misunderstanding here, if not blackmail. I declare once again that: 1) I gave the documents to Manuilsky pursuant to a decision of the Seven for the information of the ECCI leadership, and not for publication; 2) I spoke to Manuilsky about printing abroad after the publication of the final text of Trotsky's article certain documents, exactly which ones the Seven alone could (and should) decide; 3) I gave no directives whatsoever for the publication of the non-final draft of Trotsky's article and could not have given them to Manuilsky, since I stood and continue to stand for the publication of Trotsky's article in its best, not its worst, form; 4) I generally could not have given such a directive to Manuilsky, since before his departure abroad I demanded from him the return to the CC of all documents (to which he agreed, but which for some reason he did not carry out). Ask Manuilsky -- why did he not return the documents before his departure?

4) The printing of Krupskaya's article was decided by the Seven; the review was entrusted to me, Bukharin, Rykov, and Zinoviev. I, together with Bukharin and Rykov, reviewed and approved it. Zinoviev was absent. People have amazingly short memories, especially Bukharin.

5) The Seven decided to publish Trotsky's article and Krupskaya's letter in the Russian press after their publication abroad, without, however, under any circumstances opening a discussion on the matter. It is possible that this decision has now been reversed by the Seven. That is, of course, its affair. But if it has not been reversed, they should be published in our press. Will you not let me know something on this score?

6) As for the publication of my memorandum on Eastman, that can be discussed after my return from vacation. There is no hurry.

7) Tell Bukharin that Pravda should have given an editorial note to Trotsky's answers, since it disagrees with them.

8) How is Frunze's health?

9) Under what circumstances was Kotovsky killed? I am sorry for him; he was an extraordinary man.

I shake your hand.

Do not scold me for the long letter.

I. St.

Letters of I.V. Stalin to V.M. Molotov. 1925-1936. Pp. 41-42.

RGASPI. F. 558. Op. 1. D. 5388.

NOTE

A draft of a letter from Zinoviev to Manuilsky dated August 12, 1925, has survived:

"Comrade Manuilsky. In view of the fact that the mistake of printing in l'Humanite the first text of Trotsky's statement as the final text has acquired a certain significance, I very much ask you to recall in greater detail:

1) Did I not tell you that we should begin with the publication of Stalin's letter (the first one), and then, some time later, give the rest in excerpts and with commentary? How do you explain that Stalin's letter did not appear in l'Humanite and the first text was called the final one?

2) Did I not tell you that the final text of Trotsky's statement did not yet exist, as negotiations and correspondence with him were continuing?

3) Did I not send you to the CC Secretariat to obtain all the documents?

4) Did I not tell you that the decision of the comrades handling the matter was to lift the veil on how Trotsky arrived at the last text, i.e., how he was forced to renounce Eastman?

Did I not tell you to print the text itself (the last one) of Trotsky's statement with l'Humanite's and others' commentary only after the last text appeared in the English press?

Did I not also tell you about the decision to issue an anti-Eastman booklet in English under the names of the English Communists Gallacher and Pollitt?"