Stalin and the Okhrana

[Bronco]

Ok, so I've seen a few historians try and argue that Stalin was actually an agent for the Tsarist secret police force, this (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=158643) article for example claims that him trying to hide this fact was actually a prime motivator for the 30's purges. I know that the M-L's on here will of course deny the rumours (and I'm not saying they're wrong to do so) but was wondering if people on here believe the allegation to be true or not? I've never really read anything in-depth on Stalin's early life, mainly just snippets and extracts

[Rodrigo]

If a historian says anything bad about him it's obviously true. You know... Stalin is the root of all evil in the universe. Everyone knows that.

:lol:

[Bronco]

If a historian says anything bad about him it's obviously true. You know... Stalin is the root of all evil in the universe. Everyone knows that.

:lol:

Well that was helpful

Not all historians would argue he was an Okhrana agent, far from it, I believe Simon Montefiore argued against it in his biography Young Stalin and he's hardly a Marxist. So what do you do then, still disregard the words of the historian, or suddenly choose to accept it because it isn't something "bad" about Stalin?

[Rodrigo]

You already answered this question. It doesn't matter if s/he is an academic (they're not divine - there are very different claims within academia), but if what is being said is more true than false. So, does it seem the information is reliable? Being someone who know Stalin's life pre-1917 and his bravery against the Tzar Empire, I'm completely sure it's not. Only the good-old demonization the bourgeoisie does, for the reasons of my first comment.

[Bronco]

You already answered this question. It doesn't matter if s/he is an academic (they're not divine - there are very different claims within academia), but if what is being said is more true than false.

Well my question was whether "people on here believe the allegation to be true or not?" so I'd say it hasn't really been answered. I was just interested in seeing some discussion and some various views on the topic within the Marxist/Leftist community.

[Commissar Rykov]

No I don't believe it anymore than I believe Trotsky and Lenin were German Agents. This is a common theme to use against Marxist Revolutionaries to attempt to align them with Domestic or Foreign Security Apparatuses. If Stalin truly was an agent he sure did a shit job of it since he was a major player in the party while Lenin was exiled and never did anything to compromise the Bolsheviks.

[eyeheartlenin]

Given that most members of Lenin's leadership team, that led the Revolution, were eliminated by the repressive organs under Stalin, the theory that Bronco mentions, if it could be proven, would make a lot of sense. There is a minor character in Rybakov's novel Fear, I believe, who is a Stalin-era policeman, and he does what he does to avenge his family, that lost everything, because of the Revolution. A connection between Stalin and the Okhrana is a very attractive notion; if there is any historical work that provides evidence for it, I would appreciate hearing about it, since it would explain a lot of Soviet-era history.

[Nox]

Sounds like utter bullshit. One of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories I've ever heard. Commisar Rykov summed it up perfectly.

[Veovis]

Sounds like a good idea for a novel, though.

[dodger]

The Okhrana sent him to Siberia.....exile. What can we gather from that? A cunning, cunning, cunning plan, that's what.....! Evidently he saved Lenin's hide by spiriting him out of harms way to Finland, during Kerensky times. Hardly needs comment from me. We know from accounts of his time in Siberia that he often shunned some of the socialists to go hunting or fishing with local people. Perhaps that aroused suspicion....that he was an outsider. Strikes me that the whole story is black propaganda....and not too clever. Or just slly gossip amongst emigre that some academic or journalist decided might make a dam good sensational story. The rest they say is history....haha

[Bronco]

It isn't completely without credence, several Bolsheviks reportedly accused him of being so, and to quote Wiki:


Stalin's apparent ease in escaping from Tsarist persecution and very light sentences bore rumours of him being an Okhrana agent. His efforts in 1909 to root out traitors caused much strife within the party; some accused him of doing this deliberately on the orders of the Okhrana. The Menshevik Razhden Arsenidze accused Stalin of betraying comrades he didn't like to the Okhrana. The prominent Bolshevik Stepan Shahumyan directly accused Stalin of being an Okhrana agent in 1916. According to his personal secretary Olga Shatunovskaya, these opinions were shared by Stanislav Kosior, Iona Yakir and other prominent Bolsheviks.[35] The rumours were reinforced by being published in the Soviet Union memoirs of Domenty Vadachkory who wrote Stalin used an Okhrana badge (supposedly stolen) to help him escape exile.[36] It also appears suspicious that Stalin played down the number of his escapes from prisons and exiles...

...In his 1967 biography of Stalin, Edward Ellis Smith argued that Stalin was an Okhrana agent by citing his suspicious ability to escape from Okhrana dragnets, travel unimpeded, and rabble-rouse full time with no apparent source of income. One such example was the raid that occurred on the night of April 3, 1901, when nearly everyone of importance in the Socialist-Democratic movement in Tiflis was arrested, except for Stalin, who was apparently "enjoying the balmy spring air, and in one of his to-hell-with-the-revolution moods, [which] is too impossible for serious consideration."

And Okhrana agents in Revolutionary organisations were not exactly a rarity either, and some still considered themselves Revolutionaries. As a couple of examples, Evno Azef was an Okhrana agent and yet organised the assassination of the Tsarist Interior Minister von Plehve, and the man who shot the Prime Minister Stolypin - Dmitry Bogrov - was also working for the Okhrana at the time. It is not implausible to suggest Stalin could have also done so.

[Omsk]

I saw this thread when it was opened,hoping comrades will post serious posts that could show some information or actual theories regarding Okhrana and J.V Stalin.
I didnt see such posts.
You must understand that Stalin was not a simple man,that he did not lead a simple life,and everything about Stalin should be checked,as we cant know the truth in many cases.
Petty and false allegations written by anti-Stalin types mixed with counterproductive posts without concrete arguments posted by pro Stalin types,dont serve as a bases for a disscussion about J.V Stalin.

Stalin didnt do this or that because it just fell on his mind one day,his childhood was unknown for some time and we probably dont know nearly enough about him.

How many of you know that he was,in his younger days,a poet?And that he wrote,by some people,about 20 songs?And that Koba was not his first party name?There are hundreds of theories,myths about him,and to this day,we should question everything about him,and his life.

Now,more on the question of the thread:

All the newer Stalin biographies from the West usually contain information about him being in the Okhrana,and that he betrayed people,gave up information and such "facts" in order to get a less days in prisson if he got arrested for something.

Most of these tales are pure fantasies written by his enemies,and he had a lot of enemies.(All the theories and accusations made by his political enemies realted to this question are probably completely false)

Among the theories that are worth mentioning (I am not saying they are true,i am just pointing out that these theories at least deserve mentioning compared to the silly accusations made by the newer "historians" and anti-communists")

1.) the file about the Okhrana agent Dzugashivili,that the generals of the Red Army had in 1937 (Mikhail Tukhachevsky and others)
2.)The letter of an Okhrana officer about agent J.V Stalin
3.) and a passport that the Okhrana issued for him so he could travell to the stockholm congress in 1906.

I will explain all the mentioned theories.

After WW2 in the US,a letter came up by the Okhrana agent A.M J. wrote on the 12. July 1913 he supposedly sent it to F.Zeleznyakov an Okhrana officer in Yeniseysk.

In the letter,he talks about J.V as an agent who workerd for the Okhrana but after his (Stalins) return to Petrograd,he completely abandoned his work with the Okhrana and went into complete opposition.

However,both the man who wrote the letter,and the man who recieved it,could not be found.

And in the end,it turned out the letter was fake.Who could have thought..
(Another clue to this conclusion is that J.V didnt use Stalin as his "name" back than)

The second one is complicated,it links with marshall Tukhachevsky.
NKVD agents were searching the Leningrad former Okhrana documentation and they found Stalins own file.They brought it to their commanders and the commanding top decided it would try to areest Stalin and end his rule.But,one of the men informed Stalin about this and the commanding top was arrested and executed.

This cant be "proved" as there is no documentation about it or any evidence,and i consider it to be false.

A story was published in 1966 by the US "Newsweek",it was about the accusation that Stalin was an Okhrana agent and the proof was that he had a passport issued by the Okhrana,so he could travell to Stockholm,he got the passport after he gave up some information to Okhrana.This story was later rejected.


So,as you can see,there is no firm proof,or any documentation that could clearly show that Stalin was an Okhrana agent,which is not suprising,as the amount of lies and slander directed toward the Bolsheviks,Lenin,Stalin and the Soviet state is absolutely huge.

This is similar to the famous "Lenin was a German spy" theory,or the famous "Lenin playing chess with Hitler". Dont pay too much attention to it.

[Tim Finnegan]

Typical bargain-basement Great Man horseshit. Of course it couldn't be that the purges were a product of the internal power-struggles and institutional structures of the Soviet state, a strategic and ideological necessity on the part of the nomenklatura that would have happened whether or not Uncle Joe had been the precise individual calling the shots, no, they had to be because Stalin, personally, possessed X pathology and Y motivation and so did Z thing. Because, as we all know, politics isn't a matter of huge numbers of people engaged in complex, multi-faceted interactions mediated by correspondingly complex institutions, it's a handful of grand individuals shaping the world through the power of will alone. :rolleyes:

[Bronco]

Typical bargain-basement Great Man horseshit. Of course it couldn't be that the purges were a product of the internal power-struggles and institutional structures of the Soviet state, a strategic and ideological necessity on the part of the nomenklatura that would have happened whether or not Uncle Joe had been the precise individual calling the shots, no, they had to be because Stalin, personally, possessed X pathology and Y motivation and so did Z thing. Because, as we all know, politics isn't a matter of huge numbers of people engaged in complex, multi-faceted interactions mediated by correspondingly complex institutions, it's a handful of grand individuals shaping the world through the power of will alone. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure if most proponents of this theory would actually argue it was the root cause for the purges though, I know the article I linked to in the OP does but I've since realised that his argument was based on a forged document I believe :blushing:

I do think it is feasible that he could have been an Okhrana agent, he would hardly have been the first Revolutionary to have been so, but then as Omsk points out there isn't really any solid evidence of this, just some testimonies and suspicions so it's probably fair to say it isn't really worth giving it much time

[Red Commissar]

This is similar to the famous "Lenin was a German spy" theory,or the famous "Lenin playing chess with Hitler". Dont pay too much attention to it.

I would also say that this issue existed before and after Stalin's particular case. The accusations of political rivals of being on the pay of police or collaborating in some other form with the government or foreign intelligence, true or not, is something that is pops up in many left groups from time to time. Most revolutionary groups for that matter really before 'socialists' became a mass force.

[A Marxist Historian]

Well that was helpful

Not all historians would argue he was an Okhrana agent, far from it, I believe Simon Montefiore argued against it in his biography Young Stalin and he's hardly a Marxist. So what do you do then, still disregard the words of the historian, or suddenly choose to accept it because it isn't something "bad" about Stalin?

Montefiore is in fact a dreadfully bad historian, extremely right wing and anti-Communist, but he likes to pay at least some attention to the facts, at least enough to maintain his reputation among other historians.

The old rumor about Stalin and the Okhrana became researchable after the USSR collapsed, with the archives wide open. The research has been carried out, in particular one Russian biographer whose name I am forgetting at the moment wrote a whole book on the subject after years of research.

There's no truth in it. What the guy discovered was that there was a certain basis of sorts for the rumor, in that Stalin was running a couple of agents *within* the Okhrana. He used them a couple of times to get himself out of prison, thereby creating suspicions among some people that they had let him out because he was an agent. Whereas in fact it was sorta the other way around.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

It isn't completely without credence, several Bolsheviks reportedly accused him of being so, and to quote Wiki:

And Okhrana agents in Revolutionary organisations were not exactly a rarity either, and some still considered themselves Revolutionaries. As a couple of examples, Evno Azef was an Okhrana agent and yet organised the assassination of the Tsarist Interior Minister von Plehve, and the man who shot the Prime Minister Stolypin - Dmitry Bogrov - was also working for the Okhrana at the time. It is not implausible to suggest Stalin could have also done so.

(For the useful Wiki quote Bronco found, look above in the thread, or go to Wiki itself).

Yes, suspicion was not unreasonable, and Shaumyan, mentioned in the quote, was the true leader of the Bolsheviks in the Caucasus and a thoroughly unimpeachable Bolshevik source for suspicions. Had Shaumyan not been murdered by the Brits, Stalin would never have been able to play the role he later did, as he had far more authority in the party than Stalin did, and had an extremely low opinion of him.

Even in his early years, Stalin's pathological oversuspiciousness disrupted Bolshevism in the Caucasus. It is not altogether unbelievable that he may have turned some of his many opponents within the Caucasus party over to the Tsarist police, even then.

But he was not an Okhrana agent. He was, well, a Stalinist of the worst sort, even in his youth. An extremely capable organizer however, whose remarkable organizational abilities were probably more beneficial to the Bolshevik Party than his extreme suspiciousness of anyone who disagreed with him on anything were negative. Lenin certainly felt that way. Shaumyan, who had to work with him on a daily basis, felt otherwise.

Of course, by 1922 Lenin finally had Stalin's number, and wanted to get rid of him. Thus the "testament," etc. Too late unfortunately, due to his stroke. Stalin just said that Lenin was sick and losing it, and people believed him.

-M.H.-

[Astarte]

I have been thinking about this thread, and I got to having the suspicion that "Stalin's big secret" was probably "Lenin's Testament" which Khrushchev revealed at the 20th Party Congress. Revisionist historians' claims, like the author of this book, alleging Stalin was Okhrana in his younger days are probably based on the whisperings of the factual suppressed and "secret" Testament of Lenin...

[Omsk]

The old rumor about Stalin and the Okhrana became researchable after the USSR collapsed, with the archives wide open


This rumor is false too.
If Stalins file existed in the USSR archives,(and just that is impossible,as Stalin would have removed such a file) than i dont see why wouldnt Khrushchev use it or mention it in the process of de-stalinization.

[Leo]

I don't think this is as easily dismissible an accusation as many claim it is. Not because I think Stalin was a Malinovsky - he wasn't, as tempting as the thought might be. Certainly, it would have meant that the explanation of Stalin's betrayal, of his murders of nearly every single prominent Bolshevik and of the counter-revolution he lead would have been much simpler on a personal basis in regards to him, and it would also mean that the discussion about Stalin would be over. Things aren't this simple though, rather unfortunately.

It isn't just the historians, researchers, academics etc. who have claimed Stalin was an Okhrana agent. This was actually quite a contemporary accusation Stalin had to face before the October Revolution. Lets look at the facts. What arose suspicion in regards to Stalin before 1909 was how easily he managed to escape when arrested, and how light his sentences were if he couldn't escape. He was known to be carrying an Okhrana badge, which he claimed he had stolen. In 1909, when he started tying to trace supposed traitors in the party, his methods resulted in wide-spread dissent and some started accusing him of trying to damage the party from within, on behalf of the Okhrana. A Georgian Menshevik publicly accused him of betraying comrades he didn't like to the Okhrana. It might be objected that this person was biased, which may well be the case, however there were many Mensheviks who were claiming that Malinovsky was a Tsarist spy and they actually turned out to be correct on that one. In 1916, the Armenian Bolshevik Stepan Shahumyan, who was to be martyred by the counter-revolutionary two years later as the head of the Baku Commune accused him to his face of being an agent of the Okhrana. His opinion was shared by this time by other prominent Bolsheviks - none of whom, unless they had died before, survived the Great Purges, needless to say.

Was Stalin actually officially on the payroll of the Okhrana? As much as the words of men like Shaumyan count much more than Stalin's credentials, I don't think he was, for the simple reason that had he formally been an agent such as Malinovsky, he would been caught and shot like Malinovsky. I think there is enough truth in there to keep the rumor going though. Were Stalin's efforts to root traitors in the party something he did on behalf of the Okhrana? I don't think so, although I imagine his motives were petty power politics more than anything else. Could Stalin have been rooting comrades he didn't like to Okhrana? I can certainly see him doing that, most of his comrades he proved he wasn't fond of during the Great Purges. Do his numerous so easy escapes and light sentences point to something? Probably they do, but they don't prove that he was an agent of the Okhrana.

My personal opinion is that Stalin had some sort of a relationship with the Okhrana, or rather had contacts with some elements within the Okhrana. What exactly the relationship between these people and Stalin were is a well buried secret today and I don't think we can ever know, however given how things like these tend to work, both Stalin and his contacts in the Okhrana though that they were using one another and Stalin probably ended up being used as much as he used his Okhrana contacts.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Were Stalin's efforts to root traitors in the party something he did on behalf of the Okhrana? I don't think so, although I imagine his motives were petty power politics more than anything else. Could Stalin have been rooting comrades he didn't like to Okhrana? I can certainly see him doing that, most of his comrades he proved he wasn't fond of during the Great Purges.

In the case of actual traitors, it would seem that Stalin, above instances of petty power politics, got the Okhrana to do the party's dirty work for it, when mere expulsions would still keep the risk of those traitors doing more effective anti-party work.


My personal opinion is that Stalin had some sort of a relationship with the Okhrana, or rather had contacts with some elements within the Okhrana. What exactly the relationship between these people and Stalin were is a well buried secret today and I don't think we can ever know, however given how things like these tend to work, both Stalin and his contacts in the Okhrana though that they were using one another and Stalin probably ended up being used as much as he used his Okhrana contacts.

Was Stalin's on-again-off-again relationship with Okhrana agents a milder version of Die Linke's Lothar Bisky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothar_Bisky#Stasi_informer) with the Stasi, then?

[Luís Henrique]

He certainly was a cop after 1930. The head of a police State, the boss of all cops.

So his psychology was compatible with being an Okhrana agent from the point of view of being a cop. What is not clear is if he would have been a subordinate cop, a cop working under the order of other cops, or if his policeman mentality needed himself being the top cop.

Luís Henrique

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Ultimately, I this accusation is not terribly credible. Even if it were true, is it really important? We know that Stalin is guilty of horrible crimes against the world socialist revolution -- Sorry to the ML comrades -- but he was the leader of the Soviet Union -- a state based on proletarian property forms -- So if he was a Tsarist agent, he really wasn't doing his job very well. I think this kind of accusation comes from historians and others who don't really grasp that the class nature of the state is a critical issue.

[Commissar Rykov]

I love how many "Marxists" are falling into the Great Man Theory of History. Truly a glorious advancement for Bourgeois Historians.

[Tim Finnegan]

I love how many "Marxists" are falling into the Great Man Theory of History. Truly a glorious advancement for Bourgeois Historians.
Or Stalinist historians, for that matter. Personality cults don't happen by accident.

[Luís Henrique]

I love how many "Marxists" are falling into the Great Man Theory of History. Truly a glorious advancement for Bourgeois Historians.

What do you mean by that?

Individuals have a role in history, and individuals do have their own individual histories. Why would we not want to know whether Hitler joined the NSDAP as a police spy, or what reasons made Churchill oppose Halifax within the Tories, or whether slavery and the struggle against it had a determinant role in Lincoln's positions during the Civil War?... or, of course, what Dzhughashvilli's relation to the Okhrana was?

Luís Henrique

[Commissar Rykov]

Or Stalinist historians, for that matter. Personality cults don't happen by accident.

No doubt it happens on all sides of the aisle and it is still shit analysis.

[Luís Henrique]

Or Stalinist historians, for that matter. Personality cults don't happen by accident.

Nah, you don't correctly grasp the Stalinist position. When it comes to Stalin being the genial guide of peoples, there is no problem with Stalin being the be all end all of everything. When it comes to pointing Stalin's responsabilities for the disasters of the Soviet Union during his reign (the failed crops, the unpreparedness of the Red Army to face Hitlerist aggression, the famines, the murder of two generations of Bolshevik leadership), then no, we should look at the impersonal forces of history, otherwise we are being unMarxist...

Luís Henrique

[Omsk]

Nah, you don't correctly grasp the Stalinist position. When it comes to Stalin being the genial guide of peoples, there is no problem with Stalin being the be all end all of everything. When it comes to pointing Stalin's responsabilities for the disasters of the Soviet Union during his reign (the failed crops, the unpreparedness of the Red Army to face Hitlerist aggression, the famines, the murder of two generations of Bolshevik leadership), then no, we should look at the impersonal forces of history, otherwise we are being unMarxist...



Dont derail the thread.
(None of you comrades actually,you have a thread about Stalin,bring your opinion there,this is about him and Okhrana.)


or, of course, what Dzhughashvilli's relation to the Okhrana was?

As i have pointed out in my posts in the first page of this thread,the problem and the accusation that Stalin was an Okhrana agent,has no solid supporting arguments or documentation,none at all,(unlike other cases where the is actual documentation that goes against Stalin,and actual arguments) just various theories (the 3 most logical ones i mentioned in my post,and pointed out that they are all most likely false) and accusations by Stalins political enemies.J.V Stalin made a huge number of enemies in his life-time,although many poeople believe he was just a Bolshevik commander and than out of nowhere,he emerged as the leader of the USSR.That is of course completely untrue,he has been a Bolshevik of high rank,and advanced trough the party ranks,do you think that the other Bolsheviks would remove him from power if they found out that he was an agent of the Okhrana?


As long as there is no firm evidence that he was an agent,i will not consider these acusations too acurate and plausible.

But,of course,i would like to see members do research themselves and try to find out more about this case,i have read about it,and i formed my stance.

He was also arrested many times,and forced into exile,so i dont think he had serious connections with the Okhrana.

(I can provide a list of his escapes and exiles if any comrades are interested in it)

[Reed]

I'm currently reading 'Stalin' by Isaac Deutscher and it makes no mention of any accusations of him having been an Okhrana agent.

Given that Deutscher was a Trotskyist; if there was any substance to the claims he would of at least made a cursory mention, the fact he didn't speaks volumes.

[Luís Henrique]

Dont derail the thread.
(None of you comrades actually,you have a thread about Stalin,bring your opinion there,this is about him and Okhrana.)

Fine, so let's keep it about Stalin and Okhrana - not about the unMarxistness of discussing Stalin and the Okhrana.

Luís Henrique

[A Marxist Historian]

I don't think this is as easily dismissible an accusation as many claim it is. Not because I think Stalin was a Malinovsky - he wasn't, as tempting as the thought might be. Certainly, it would have meant that the explanation of Stalin's betrayal, of his murders of nearly every single prominent Bolshevik and of the counter-revolution he lead would have been much simpler on a personal basis in regards to him, and it would also mean that the discussion about Stalin would be over. Things aren't this simple though, rather unfortunately.

It isn't just the historians, researchers, academics etc. who have claimed Stalin was an Okhrana agent. This was actually quite a contemporary accusation Stalin had to face before the October Revolution. Lets look at the facts. What arose suspicion in regards to Stalin before 1909 was how easily he managed to escape when arrested, and how light his sentences were if he couldn't escape. He was known to be carrying an Okhrana badge, which he claimed he had stolen. In 1909, when he started tying to trace supposed traitors in the party, his methods resulted in wide-spread dissent and some started accusing him of trying to damage the party from within, on behalf of the Okhrana. A Georgian Menshevik publicly accused him of betraying comrades he didn't like to the Okhrana. It might be objected that this person was biased, which may well be the case, however there were many Mensheviks who were claiming that Malinovsky was a Tsarist spy and they actually turned out to be correct on that one. In 1916, the Armenian Bolshevik Stepan Shahumyan, who was to be martyred by the counter-revolutionary two years later as the head of the Baku Commune accused him to his face of being an agent of the Okhrana. His opinion was shared by this time by other prominent Bolsheviks - none of whom, unless they had died before, survived the Great Purges, needless to say.

Was Stalin actually officially on the payroll of the Okhrana? As much as the words of men like Shaumyan count much more than Stalin's credentials, I don't think he was, for the simple reason that had he formally been an agent such as Malinovsky, he would been caught and shot like Malinovsky. I think there is enough truth in there to keep the rumor going though. Were Stalin's efforts to root traitors in the party something he did on behalf of the Okhrana? I don't think so, although I imagine his motives were petty power politics more than anything else. Could Stalin have been rooting comrades he didn't like to Okhrana? I can certainly see him doing that, most of his comrades he proved he wasn't fond of during the Great Purges. Do his numerous so easy escapes and light sentences point to something? Probably they do, but they don't prove that he was an agent of the Okhrana.

My personal opinion is that Stalin had some sort of a relationship with the Okhrana, or rather had contacts with some elements within the Okhrana. What exactly the relationship between these people and Stalin were is a well buried secret today and I don't think we can ever know, however given how things like these tend to work, both Stalin and his contacts in the Okhrana though that they were using one another and Stalin probably ended up being used as much as he used his Okhrana contacts.

Damn, I wish I had the name of that Russian book I mentioned in front of me, that researched the whole thing in the Okhrana and Soviet files. Have to track it down. The historians love it, it's why they used to speculate he was an Okhrana agent as recently as a decade ago, but mostly no longer do. Robert Service's recent Stalin bio relies on it heavily, indeed just about everything Service says about Stalin's youth is taken from it, almost to the point of plagiarism. It's in lots and lots of footnotes.

Yes, he had contacts in the Okhrana in the Caucasus, this is established. But it wasn't a mutual thing, he was using them, not them using him. And they wanted to be used, they were a couple of dissatisfied Okhrana agents whom he'd won over more or less. And that's how he got those early short sentences and the Okhrana badge.

But when he left the Caucasus and became Lenin's agent in Petersburg, he had no Okhrana contacts there, so they bagged him and he couldn't get out of it, and ended up in exile for 3-4 years in Siberia, where he had no such contacts.

Suspicion on the part of other Bolsheviks and of course Mensheviks was quite natural and understandable. But erroneous. Stalin was very secretive about the whole thing, which is one thing he can hardly be condemned for.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I'm currently reading 'Stalin' by Isaac Deutscher and it makes no mention of any accusations of him having been an Okhrana agent.

Given that Deutscher was a Trotskyist; if there was any substance to the claims he would of at least made a cursory mention, the fact he didn't speaks volumes.

There is no substance to the claim, but that's not why Deutscher doesn't mention it.

He doesn't mention it because Deutscher had a period in the 1950s in particular of being pretty soft on Stalin, which peaked at the point he wrote the bio. He says pretty much directly in the book that Trotsky was too hard on Stalin. Deutscher wrote it during the early Khrushchev period, and Deutscher was hoping that the Soviet bureaucracy would "self-reform" as he put it.

So Deutscher was in a "let bygones be bygones" mood, which is clearly reflected in the bio, which has many good things in it but is definitely not a "Trotskyist" view. He was not then a member of any Trotskyist organization, and all the Trotskyists criticized him heavily for it.

-M.H.-

[Reed]

There is no substance to the claim, but that's not why Deutscher doesn't mention it.

He doesn't mention it because Deutscher had a period in the 1950s in particular of being pretty soft on Stalin, which peaked at the point he wrote the bio. He says pretty much directly in the book that Trotsky was too hard on Stalin. Deutscher wrote it during the early Khrushchev period, and Deutscher was hoping that the Soviet bureaucracy would "self-reform" as he put it.

So Deutscher was in a "let bygones be bygones" mood, which is clearly reflected in the bio, which has many good things in it but is definitely not a "Trotskyist" view. He was not then a member of any Trotskyist organization, and all the Trotskyists criticized him heavily for it.

-M.H.-

No it isn't a 'Trotskyist view' but that was why I referenced it, although he was a Trotskyist earlier in his life, at the time of writing Deutscher was 'free from loyalties to any cult' and wrote it in an objective and professional manner.


Of course any work written by a Marxist is going to be somewhat coloured by their analysis but its much too strong to suggest a mere biography of Stalin could in any way change the direction of the Soviet bureaucracy, or be intended to.

[A Marxist Historian]

No it isn't a 'Trotskyist view' but that was why I referenced it, although he was a Trotskyist earlier in his life, at the time of writing Deutscher was 'free from loyalties to any cult' and wrote it in an objective and professional manner.

Of course any work written by a Marxist is going to be somewhat coloured by their analysis but its much too strong to suggest a mere biography of Stalin could in any way change the direction of the Soviet bureaucracy, or be intended to.

Well, first lesson they teach you in historian school is that there really is no such thing as "objectivity." It's only a goal you strive for, but nobody ever achieves it.

So yes, Deutscher's treatment of Stalin in the book was colored by his desire to be less critical of Stalin than he had been previously, especially since he was expecting the Stalinist regimes to all reform themselves at the time.

That's why he opposed the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, seeing it as a right wing affair just like Khrushchev did. For example.

Not in the crude sense that he thought they'd read his book and all be persuaded, things aren't that simple. But a definite softness towards Stalin and Stalinism on his part.

An old friend of mine who was in the left wing of the YPSL in the '60s told me about a satirical song they wrote about him back in the late '50s, to the tune of "16 tons":

"You write sixteen books, and what do you get,
Not even a trip to the Soviet,
Marx and Engels don't you call me 'cuz I can't go,
I'm waiting for a call from the Politburo.

I was raised in a cave on the New York Times,
Where I learned to condone Stalinist crimes.."

Rather unfair actually, but the song had a point to it.

-M.H.-

[Zulu]

Ok, Stalin was an agent of Okhranka. So what? That would only mean he was a double agent and successfully fooled the tsarist dogs, gaining more for the revolutionary cause than he had to trade in. Kudos to Comrade Stalin.