Testimony of t. Lenin

May 26, 1910.

Predsident. Perhaps you will report on the conference of the Bolsheviks in Moscow in 906?

Lenin]. I arrived in Moscow at the beginning of the year 906. One Bolshevik meeting took place1*, another or a third was2* in some rooms near Red Square3*. When I was approaching the house where the conference was to take place, a comrade came up to me and told me that the police were there, I took off and left, and on the same day I went to St. Petersburg.2 And no doubt I was tracked down4* in St. Petersburg on my arrival from Moscow, but this surveillance has no connection with the meeting in Moscow, and I attributed it to the fact that I had not arranged my move from the St. Petersburg station to my apartment in a conspiratorial manner; at that time the police were systematically catching me in St. Petersburg.

Oligin. Wasn't it Viqtor who warned you?

Lenin]. No, I don't remember.

Victor. When you were in Moscow, did you visit my apartment?

Lenin. Yes, in the Kolodeznikovs' apartment, I remember it firmly.

Victor. To whom did you come and who arranged for you in Moscow?

Lenin. I don't remember.

Victor. Do you reliably remember that the meeting took place?

Lenin]. Of course, I read the report, there was then a thorough debate. I don't remember only one or two meetings took place.

Victor. Was I at this meeting?

Lyenin. Yes.

Chairman]. Do you know anything about the investigation in Moscow in the Victor case?

Lenin]. Only what was in the "Proletary" and then at the Stockholm congress]3 I heard about V[iktor's] delay.

0[ljgin]. What was the correspondence with "Proletary"?

Lyenin. There was some statement of the Moskovskii Komittee in "Prolyetary".

0[legin]. Wasn't there still some correspondence between the 3emlyachkoi and the editors of "Prolyetary", unpublished?

Lyenin5*. I remember only that there was a conflict in Moscow caused by the publication. But I do not remember the details of the conflict.

0[legin]. Didn't the 3[emilyach'ka] send a letter to the editorial board, wishing to warn of the appearance of a resolution in "Proletary" that she was taking back her accusation and so on?

Lyenin. I do not remember the individual episodes of this story.

0[legin]. And if there had been a proposal from the 3[emilyachka] not to print the resolutions, to settle the incident6*, and if it had been discussed in the editorial board - would you have taken part in the discussion of] this case or was it discussed by part of the editorial board?

Lyenin7*. At that time the editorial board was so united - then everything was conducted8* without a vote and often by parts of the editorial board.

Bogomolets. Didn't the 3emilyachka address you personally?

Lenin. I don't remember; as if not.

Victor. With whom did the Moscow] bolsheviks quarrel?

Lyenin. Obviously, part of them were on V[iktor's] side, part on the side of the 3[eemlyachka].

Victor. Did the "Proletarian" immediately write a letter to the 3emlyachki or did the "Proletarian" want to settle the incident?

Lenin]. I don't remember.

The chairman explains that the resolution was printed not in "Proletarian" but in "Social-Democrat".

Victor. The resolution of the Moscow Committee was not printed in "Prolitary", it was printed in "Sotsial-Demokrat", and evidently you had a discussion of this incident; was there no attempt on the part of "Prolitary" to persuade the Muscovites not to print this resolution?

Lyenin. I don't remember.

Victor. Didn't Bur and Nina Lvovna come to see you on this occasion in November 906?

Lyenin. I don't remember. The only thing I remember is that there was a conflict in Moscow over this story, and9* I don't remember any details.

Mark. After the failed meeting in Moscow, have you seen anyone in Moscow among the comarists who would talk about what happened there?

Lenin. I seem to have left Moscow the same evening and as if I had not seen any of the comrades.

Victor. Do you not recall that you dined at my place in the Kolod[eznikovs'] quarters together with Gusev?

Lenin. I don't remember that.

Chairman. Who decided the question of the trip of T. Innocentius to Russia to organize the conference? 4

Lenin. It should be all the members of the conference, and there were few of them - me, Innocent and Bogdanov.

Chairman. And who knew about this trip?

Lenin. Probably everyone who was in contact with us.

Chairman. A large circle of persons?

Lenin. More than should be the case.

Predsident. Did this circle of persons know10* about the purpose of the trip?

Lenin. Party people [should have] connected Innocent's trip with the convening of the conference.] We received at that time11* a message from Cohn and sent a message to Innokenty12* that he should not go, but he did not obey us.

The message was as follows: a member of the Central] Committee, so-and-so (name and surname of Innocent) is going [to] Russia, and the purpose of the trip was somehow curiously twisted, something like "to fight the Mensheviks "13* - it showed that the information was not received from a Party] person or was twisted in the course of correspondence.

Stanislav. Was the question of In[nokenty's] trip decided long before he left Geneva?

Lenin]. We had an agreement that one of the practitioners of the Central Committee should be14* abroad on a rare trip, periodically replaced by another, and we had known this for a long time about Innocentius, for example, Alexei knew it. And since the spring of 1908, when Innocentius became the center of the fight5- then the replacement of Innocentius by another was clear to Bogdanov, and Innocentius himself15* would take advantage of this to get out of16* the situation. After all, Innokenty was always abroad only as a crossroads - he always worked in Russia.

Godomolets. Was it a letter or a telegram from Cohn?

Lenin]. It seems17* to be a letter.

Chairman. And to what time does the circular referred to in Cohn's letter refer?

Lenin. I don't know. We took Cohn's warning very seriously, because we knew that there was always a lot of talk in the colony and that the police might have found out about In[nokenty's] departure.

Mark. Have you heard anyone accuse anyone or Victor of provocation in connection with In[nocentius'] trip?

Lyenin. Before the plenum6no. And in Geneva there was increased caution about provocations18*, our thought was constantly directed to provocation. There was a warning of this kind in "Prolitary"19*.

Lozinsky. Those who knew about the trip, did they know the real name of Innokenty?

Lyenin. All the old members knew20* Innokenty's real name: Bogdanov, Nikitich - knew, Alexei or Semashko - did not know.

Lozinsky. Did Viktor know?

Lenin]. I think he did.

Mark. Don't know since when did "Innokenty" become known as "Innokenty"?

Lenin. As if he had no other nickname, in the St. Petersburg period - 90221* he worked under the klikka "Innokentii".

Mark. And if the police knew that Innokenty was coming, could they have known who they were talking about?

Lenin]. Undoubtedly; in "Bylom "7 there was printed a list of22*tovarish, of recent times, with their nicknames.

Victor. Under whose name did Innokenty live in Geneva?

Lenin]. I don't remember.

Victor. Was he exiled abroad?

Lenin]. Yes, he came abroad on his passport, having been exiled for a certain period of time8.

Victor. Under such conditions did he live23* under his own name in Geneva?

Lenin. Perhaps.

Victor. Under such conditions, how many people could have known the real name of Innocentius, e.g., Karl, Maxim, Aleksinsky?

Lenin. Yes, Karl, Maxim - of course they knew. Alexinsky had common personal acquaintances with Innokenty.

Victor. In May Innokenty went to Paris, with whom did he have a date in Paris?

Lenin]. With a whole circle of persons24*, there were many publics, he had two or three meetings with them.

Victor. Could these persons have known about Innocentius's imminent trip to Russia?

Lenin]. Yes, of course. Liadov, Ballakh25* might have known.

Victor. When was the decision taken about Innocentius's trip?

Lyenin. Just before the trip abroad, at the very end of 907 in Finland.

Victor. Don't you remember that before Rozhkov's failure they wrote to the Russian Central Committee that Innocentiy should come?

Lenin. I don't remember this, and after the failure of Rozhkov, Innocent wanted to come to Russia, but we didn't let him in.

Victor. In the telegram, how was the purpose of Innocent's trip edited?

Lenin]. It was conveyed far from the truth, in some [then] scribbly form.

Predsident. Do you remember V[ictor's] departure from Paris on 14/II. 909 г.?

Lenin. The date is extremely difficult to recall.

Predsident26*. Was the trip unexpected?

Lenin. Now I recall. I heard about it at the plenum from Bogdanov. We went to Viktor's house and did not find him, and at the door we met Grigory Ivanovich Pitersky. And we really did not know that Viktor had left. But that we were agitated, as Bogdanov told the prisoner, that this fiction was due to the suspicion and special mood of Gregory Ivanovich27*.

Predsident. And then - did you find out the purpose of the trip?

Lenin. Yes, Victor went to Geneva on some28* business.

Oligin. And what position did Grigory Ivanovich occupy in the organization?

Lenin]. Grigory Ivanovich29* considered himself a controller30* over the execution of Victor's financial operations for obtaining money. He took before the Party a strictly formal duty - to ensure that the Party fulfilled the financialfinancial31* orders. And at this time the split was already beginning, and the future otzovists were pulling it in their direction. And on this ground there were conflicts between Grigory Ivanovich and Victor.

Chairman. Were you satisfied with V[ictor's] explanations about the purpose of the trip?

Lenin]. Of course, and there was no [any] discussion even about it.

Victor. Was it not so that you were frightened when you learned of my absence?

Lenin. Certainly not. At the beginning of 909,32* a letter came from Moskva informing me that Lyadov had declared to the Moskovskii Committee that Viktor had run away with the money. And on the part of the otzovists there were predictions that Viktor would run away with the money - it was all talk. Only from this side could the idea arise that we were afraid of V[ictor's] departure.

Victor. Was it ever the case that the Bolshevik center was entrusted with keeping an eye on Victor?

Lenin. The Bolshevik center could never33* entrust him with this, but Grigory Ivanovich understood his function in this way34*. Grigory Ivanovich was assigned to this case by Nikitich, and he was entirely guided by Nikitich's instructions, while Nikitich had been leaning definitely toward the otzovists since the fall of 1908. Nikitich was our financial autocrat, and Grigory Ivanovich was his agent. After the trial with Andricanis over the money, Nikitich repeatedly said that he would not have conducted the trial so successfully if it had not been for the extraordinary energy and assistance of] Viktor10.

Predict. Did Tovarisch Viktor leave the Bolshevik center in the winter of 909?

Lyenin. I remember two exits: one in August 908, and the second at a conference in early January 909. They were motivated by the extreme unpleasantness of his35* finance duties. The conflict between Viktor and Nikitichy, who accused Viktor of insufficient] vigor, had already become apparent at that time. In August we attacked Viktor, saying that because of his personal unpleasantness he could not leave36* the collegium. A resolution was passed - that in spite of everything Victor must see the matter through - and V[ictor's] confidence was expressed. Bogdanov and Marat voted for it37*.

Victor. Do you personally remember the two exits, did I then declare that I was resigning from the Collegium or from work altogether?

Lyenin. Exclusively from the Collegium.

Victor. In October I did not declare that I should be released from work?

Lyenin. I don't remember, perhaps I did; in general Viktor was quite nervous, and tried more than once to get rid of this work. Viktor was persuaded38* and he stayed. There was a struggle for several months to prevent Viktor from leaving this work of the Party because of his personal position.

Victor. Did I often leave the 3aborder byuro Central] Committee?

Lyenin. I don't know that any more39*.

Predsident. Did Victor inform you that he was searched in connection with the Wallach case? 11

Lenin. Yes, he did.

Chairman. When40*?

Lenin41*. Not later than the spring of 908.

Chairman]. So a considerable interval after the search?

Lenin]. I may have had meetings with Victor even earlier than that, but in any case not later than spring. And when earlier - I don't remember, perhaps even immediately after the search, for I don't remember42* when I had personal meetings with Victor.

Chairman. Did you and your comradess assume provocation in the Vallah case?

Lenin. It was assumed, but there were no facts and data43* for it. It seems that Wallach himself assumed it. And then here44* came the Herzik case12 , which suggested even more provocation.

Lozinski. Do you remember the details of the search?

Lenin]. I remember Victor telling me that the police came to him and told him that they had found a "thief" and came to search him in order to find material evidence in the case.

Pred Chairperson. What connection do you see between the Gertsic case and the Wallach case?

Lenin. The Bolsheviks in Geneva were convinced that Gertsik was a provocateur and45* there was some paper in the case showing the knowledge of the police [about] the exchange46* of papers.

Predent. Do you know whether there have been any meetings in Paris of persons connected with the exchange?

Lenin. I don't know.

Victor. You and I saw each other in January, after my arrival in Geneva at the Pansion Fleischer.

Lenin. I was at your place, but I do not remember when it was. And if you lived there after Paris, you undoubtedly told me about the search at that time.

Victor. Did you personally take part47* in the Herzik investigation?

Lenin. No, I only fought with the group when it made a tactless decision to provoke Herzik - but again not in the group, but through individuals.

Victor. Did you personally correspond with Wallach about this case?

Lenin. Yes, there was correspondence all the time.

Victor. And how did you know that Vallakh suspected provocation]?

Lenin]. It seems to me that I have heard that he expressed such an opinion, or perhaps it was in letters. He expressed it, I think, before the Herzik case.

Victor. From what did he conclude that there was a provocation?

Lenin. I don't remember what facts he had, all concluded from the simultaneity of the failures of many persons.

Victor. Were you engaged in this case?

Lenin. No.

Victor. Do you personally have a definite opinion on this case?

Lenin. No, but I remember that at the time we came across this idea, and it seemed plausible to me at the time.

Victor. Was I mentioned at that time in connection with the provocation of this case?

Lenin. No, these rumors began from the end of 908 - 909.

Victor. Has anyone else been searched in connection with the exchange of bills?

Lyenin. I don't remember.

Lozinsky. Don't you know "Putyata" wasn't a secretaryetary in the Byuro Central] Committee?

Lyenin. I do not48* remember that name, I know the intensified talk about L.'s provocation.

Victor. Did you take a close part in practical affairs?

Lyenin. No49*, when there was any of the organizers by profession like Innocent, and only fragments reached me50*.

Predsic. Do you consider it necessary to add anything to your testimony?

Lenin. No.

N. Lenin.

Fond 2, op. 1, d. 25614, fol. 1-3 - original.

1* Forwarded from: "one conferation took place".

2* Adapted from: "another or a third was".

3* Written above the crossed out: "a large square".

4* Further crossed out: "in Moscow, as I was convinced in St. Petersburg on this trip".

5* Further crossed out: "I don't know, it should have been, only what is printed".

6* Further crossed out: "then if the decision had been made.

7* Further crossed out: "I think that if there was such a case".

8* The crossed-out word is not parsed.

9* The following is crossed out: "he".

10* In the original: "knew" - left uncorrected.

11* Further crossed out: "telegram".

12* Further crossed out: "telegram".

13* Further crossed out: "something".

14* Further crossed out: "Russia".

15* Further crossed out: "ran away".

16* Further crossed out: "fights".

17* Further crossed out: "telegram".

18* Further crossed out: "always had a fear".

19* Further crossed out: "But this trip".

20* Next crossed out: "old".

21* Forwarded from: "903".

22* Further crossed out: "persons - organizers of the party".

23* Adapted from: "could he have lived".

24* Further crossed out: "Lyadov".

25* Further crossed out: "should".

26* Further crossed out: "departure".

27* Reposted from: "that this was explained by Grigory Ivanovich's position in the organization".

28* Further crossed out: "personal".

29* Further crossed out: "was so to speak".

30* Further crossed out: "in the party".

31* Further crossed out: "authority".

32* Forwarded from: "908 г."

33* Further crossed out: "no one".

34* Further crossed out: "he chased Andrikanis all over Europe".

35* Further crossed out: "works".

36* Further crossed out: "work".

37* Further crossed out: "spoke".

38* Further crossed out: "reproach".

39* Further crossed out: "Victor. And what if? Lyenin. Victor came out in August."

40* Further crossed out: "approximately".

41* Further crossed out: "Approximately".

42* Further crossed out: "personally".

43* Further crossed out: "this".

44* Further crossed out: "was".

45* Further crossed out: "there".

46* Crossed out from: "the paper that the police are guarding the manhunt".

47* Further crossed out: "case".

48* Further crossed out: "know".

49* Further crossed out: "and all that".

50* Further crossed out: "they were".

1Suspicions of Victor's (V.K. Taratuta's) collaboration with the security organs arose in the Moscow Social-Democratic organization in 1906. After an investigation, the Moscow Committee of the RSDLP on October 17 (30), 1906, decided: "To declare in the organs of the party press and party meetings that all rumors of this kind are devoid of any foundation", as well as "to bring Comrade Zemlyachka from the Petersburg organization and Comrade Grigory Ivanovich [A. M. Ignatiev - Ed.] from the Moscow military organization as spreaders of rumors disgracing Comrade Victor. Victor rumors to the arbitration court". The Moscow Committee assessed R.S.Zemlyachka's refusal to go to court as demoralization unacceptable in the party environment and asked the Petersburg Committee, of which Zemlyachka was a member at that time, to insist that she resort to the arbitration court for her rehabilitation. The Central Committee of the RSDLP was also informed about Zemlyachka's action (see: Social-Democrat, No. 7, November 18, 1906). Taratuta, in a letter to the Bolshevik Center on January 8, 1910, reported that V.I.Lenin had fought against the resolution of the MK on Zemlyachka (see: RCCHIDNI, f. 377, on. 1, d. 424, l. 4).

Taratuta's accusations of provocation began to spread again in 1909 already in emigration. They were supported, in particular, by A.A. Bogdanov, who spoke on this issue at the plenum of the Central Committee of the RSDLP in January 1910. At Taratuta's request, the plenum formed a commission of 5 people to investigate his case: 2 Mensheviks, 1 Bundovite, 1 Polish Social Democrat and 1 Bolshevik. In defense of Taratuta, V. I. Lenin, G. E. Zinoviev and I. F. Dubrovinsky sent a statement to the commission later on January 15, 1910, in which they wrote: "On the charge of being out of order" we take upon ourselves the entire defense of Victor", "on the charge of being provocateurs we do not allow ourselves to put forward our personal conviction" (Lenin's Collection XXXVIII, p. 35). The investigation lasted 6 months, 54 people were questioned. As a result, the following notice was published in "Social-Demokrat" No. 15-16, August 30, 1910 (a.d.): "The commission appointed by the Central Committee of the RSDLP in the case of t. Victor (a.k.a. Viljamov), a.k.a. Viljamov. Victor (alias Villiamov, Sergeyev and Gribov), submitted to the Foreign Bureau of the Central Committee a unanimously adopted resolution, from which the ZBCC publishes the following excerpts: "Having investigated the rumors and suspicions about the provocation of t. Victor, having interrogated 54 witnesses for this purpose, the commission states that all the accusations and suspicions of T. Victor of provocation have proved to be true. Victor's accusations and suspicions of provocation proved on closer examination to be contrary to the facts established by the commission and, consequently, to be devoid of any foundation".

It is further reported that in the absence of any data for accusation the case is dropped and Victor is restored to all rights of a party member: "This resolution rehabilitates the name of Mr. Victor from all suspicions of provocation".

2V.I.Lenin speaks of his illegal stay in Moscow in the first half of March 1906. He took part in several meetings of party workers, made a report on the Bolshevik tactical platform for the IV Unification Congress of the RSDLP at an extended meeting of the Moscow Committee of the RSDLP. The scheduled continuation of the meeting the next day could not be held because the police came to the safe house (Lenin in Moscow and the Moscow region. Moscow, 1988, pp. 41-50).

3This refers to the Fourth (Unification) Congress of the RSDLP, held in Stockholm on April 10-24 (April 23-May 8), 1906.

4The decision of the Bolshevik Center about I.F. Dubrovinsky's trip to Russia for underground work was apparently made in November - early December 1907. In fact, he left after the plenum of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (August 11-13 (24-26), 1908) to organize the preparation of the Fifth All-Russian Conference of the RSDLP. The Police Department was informed about his trip by the provocateurs A. J. Zhitomirsky and Y. O. Serova - at that time secretary of the Bureau of the Central Committee of the RSDLP in Russia. Dubrovinsky was arrested at the end of November 1908 in St. Petersburg and exiled to Vologda province, escaped from exile and arrived in Paris on March 9 (22), 1909.

5Obviously, it means the participation of I.F.Dubrovinsky on the side of V.I.Lenin in the struggle against the philosophical b tactical views of A.A.Bogdanov. May 15 (28), 1908. Dubrovinsky, using the "Ten Questions to the Referent" sent by Lenin (see: Lenin V.I. Complete Collected Works, vol. 18, pp. 1-6), acted in Geneva as Bogdanov's opponent at his essay "The Adventures of One Philosophical School".

6This refers to the plenum of the Central Committee of the RSDLP, held in Paris on January 2-23 (January 15-February 5), 1910.

7 "Byloe" - a historical journal founded by V.L. Burtsev. It was published from 1900 to 1912 with interruptions and under different names.

8After his arrest in Moscow on March 11, 1907 (March 11, 1907), I.F.Dubrovinsky's expulsion to Vologda province for three years was replaced by an expulsion abroad for the same period for health reasons.

9Members of the Central Committee of the RSDLP N.A.Rozhkov and I.P.Goldenberg were arrested on April 30 (May 13), 1908.

10This refers to the arbitration court on the fate of the inheritance of N.P.Shmita - see doc. 14, note 1.

According to L.Martov in his brochure "Saviors or Abolitionists?", the January 1910 plenum of the Central Committee of the RSDLP in its decision pointed out the incorrectness of the actions of the members of the Central Committee, who were at the same time members of the BC, in the realization of the donation. "Especially wrong was it," Martov quoted the unpublished part of the decision, "their agreement to transfer without the knowledge of the Central Committee to the consideration of the representatives of the Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries the dispute of the BC with private individuals" (see: Urnlov I.H. Y.O. Martov - politician and historian. Moscow, 1997, p. 223). The minutes of the plenum of the Central Committee have not been tracked down, b this quote cannot be verified.

11It refers to the arrest of M.Vallakh (M.M.Litvinov) and his assistant F.Yampolskaya in January 1908 in Paris in connection with an attempt to exchange 500-ruble bills seized during the Tiflis expropriation in June 1907. The operation developed by the Bolshevik Center envisaged simultaneous exchange of bills in different European cities, but the Russian security organs were informed about it in advance by Zhitomirsky. Besides Paris, arrests and searches on the same occasion took place in Berlin, Geneva, Munich, Stockholm, and other cities. Under pressure from the French Socialists, the authorities released Litvinov and Yampolskaya for lack of evidence and deported them to England.

12The case of Boris Herzik, accused by a group of Geneva Bolshevik emigrants ("Ideological Circle of Bolsheviks") of provocation, was investigated in the summer of 1908 by an inter-party court of representatives of the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Bund, SDKPiL, SDLC, and SRsers. The court found that the evidence presented was insufficient to declare the accused a provocateur, "but the presence of this evidence makes him, Herzik, unworthy of being in any revolutionary organization" (Proletarian, No. 34, August 25 (September 7), 1909). Despite the decision of the inter-party court, the "Ideological Circle of Bolsheviks" published its accusation against Herzik. The latter appealed to the ZBCC and then to the International Socialist Bureau. The international court convened by the ISB confirmed the ruling of the inter-party court in Geneva.