The Stalin Cult

by Jan Plamper

  29. Oleg Khlevniuk, Politbiuro: Mekhanizmy politicheskoi vlasti v 30-e gody (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 1996), 15–16.

  30. On this see Jan Plamper, “Archival Revolution or Illusion? Historicizing the Russian Archives and Our Work in Them,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 51, no. 1 (2003): esp. 62–69.

  31. It also bears noting that the records of the Party’s Politburo and Central Committee give little indication that these highest institutions of Soviet power discussed issues pertaining to the Stalin cult: there are almost no decisions as to celebrations of his birthdays or anything else. A thorough reading of the Central Committee depository of Orgburo and Politburo agendas for the period of 1929–1952 (f. 17, op. 113) furnished such items as “2.0 About the celebration of the tenth anniversary of the Comintern. Resolution of the Central Committee of 22 February 1929” (RGASPI, f. 17, op. 113, d. 705), but only two resolutions regarding the Stalin cult. The first was a resolution “about the placing of an AKhRR [Assotsiatsiia Khudozhnikov Revoliutsionnoi Rossii] popular print Stalin Among the Female Delegates in issue no. 1 of the journal Iskusstvo. “ This resolution, almost exactly six months before the first manifestation of the cult, Stalin’s fiftieth birthday celebration, is a sign that the cult was in planning from early 1929 onward and that the Party played a role in this planning that it did not want to hide at that point. RGASPI, f. 17, op. 113, d. 731. See protocol no. 121 of the Central Committee Orgbiuro meeting of 24 May 1929, item “84.0 O pomeshchenii v No. 1 zhurnala ‘Iskusstvo’ lubka AKhRR’a ‘Stalin sredi delegatok.’” The second resolution involving the Stalin cult was the already mentioned 19 December 1934 Politburo decision to “honor Comrade Stalin’s request to forbid all festivities or celebrations or publications in the press or in meetings on the occasion of his fifty-fifth birthday on 21 December.” RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 1353, l. 8.

  32. Tucker, Stalin in Power, 147. Also see Robert McNeal, Stalin: Man and Ruler (New York: New York University Press, 1988), 107, 146–153, 234–235.

  33. See Konstantin Simonov’s 1965 interview with Marshal Konev, quoted in Konstantin Simonov, Glazami cheloveka moego pokoleniia: Razmyshleniia o I. V. Staline (Moscow: Kniga, 1990), 358.

  34. Dmitrii Volkogonov, Triumf i tragediia: Politicheskii portret I. V. Stalina, vol. 1 (Barnaul: Altaiskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo, 1990), 315.

  35. More generally, he was a legendary bureaucrat with a record of processing and controlling a phenomenal quantity of cultural products down to the smallest detail, as has become evident since the opening of the archives. Katerina Clark, among others, has remarked on the extent and breadth of Stalin’s filtering of cultural products in her “The Cult of Literature and Nikolai Ostrovskii’s ‘How the Steel was Tempered,’” in Personality Cults in Stalinism—Personenkulte im Stalinismus, ed. Klaus Heller and Jan Plamper (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht unipress, 2004), 415.

  36. RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 760, l. 163. Copy of Central Committee protocol no. 120, 17 May 1929.

  37. 37. RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 760, l. 162. Letter by Lunacharsky to Central Committee, 18 May 1929.

  38. 38. RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 781, l. 126. Letter by Maria Osten dated 23 February 1935.

  39. RGASPI, f. 74, op. 2, d. 41, l. 6. Not dated, but filed under correspondence, 14–21 April 1930.

  40. RGASPI, f. 74, op. 1, d. 292, l. 135.The painting had a longer history. A year earlier, Modorov had first written to Voroshilov about this very picture. Modorov had expanded upon his intended message (“with this picture I wanted to express that the existing membership of the Politburo is the author of the First Five-Year Plan”) and then asked Voroshilov “to look at my work and give directions for complementing and correcting several places where I might not have succeeded. The critical place is the portrait of Comrade L. M. Kaganovich, who is standing next to you.” The picture showed the Politburo at a construction site in the Urals, “where thousands of workers and the entire Obkom, headed by Comrade Kabakov, looked at the picture. The reactions were fabulous. Comrade Kabakov devoted particular attention to the picture at hand and wishes to have a large canvas for his auditorium. His recommendations for changes were very minor: (a) make Kirov a little older, (b) take another look at Comrade Ordzhonikidze, and (c) at Comrade Andreev. They like everything else. Without exception they particularly like the portrait of Comrade Stalin, your portrait, as well as that of Comrades Kalinin and Molotov in the center of the picture. They did not say anything about Comrade Kaganovich, but I feel myself that he did not quite turn out well. That is why I am appealing for the help of you, the favorite comrade and friend of the artists, who understands art. . . .” Modorov closed by explaining where and when Voroshilov could inspect the painting. Voroshilov noted on Modorov’s letter: “Tomorrow we will have to stop by Comrade Modorov’s studio.” RGASPI, f. 74, op. 1, d. 295, ll. 18–19. Dated 22 March 1933.

  41. RGASPI, f. 74, op. 1, d. 281, l. 15.

  42. RGALI, f. 652, op. 8, d. 157, l. 33. Poskryobyshev did not specify which portrait needed retouching. Likewise in 1933 IZOGIZ inquired of Voroshilov, in a fashion that had by then become routine, if he would release for mass printing a certain picture of him on a horse (attached as a photograph). Voroshilov returned the letter with the following comment: “I saw the picture and even though I do not quite like it, I do not object to its publication.” RGASPI, f. 74, op. 1, d. 292, l. 13. Voroshilov’s reply is dated 13 January 1933. The original letter was by Osip Beskin and the picture in question was Comrade Voroshilov at the Cavalry Parade by the artist Denisovsky. For a further (undated) example with a picture of a Voroshilov portrait by A. Bystriakov attached see RGASPI, f. 74, op. 1, d. 292, l. 15.

  43. RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 1477, l. 7 (l. 8 for Stalin portrait). Letter by D. Vadimov dated 18 March 1943.

  44. RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 1477, l. 17. Letter by the director of the N. Sundukov, “Direktor Izdatel’stva Akademii pedagogicheskikh nauk RSFSR.” Neutolimov’s Lenin woodcut is on l. 18, the Stalin woodcut on l. 19.

  45. Across the top of Sundukov’s letter there is a remark in handwriting: “to Comrade Shepilov.” See RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 1477, l. 17.

  46. RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 1477, l. 20. Letter dated 30 October 1947.

  47. RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 1477, l. 21. Letter dated 14 November 1947.

  48. RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 1477, l. 28. Letter dated 12 December 1947 to the Central Committee Special Sector’s Fifth Section, which since World War II had been responsible for processing letters written to Stalin and delegating them to the responsible institutions, which would then act upon them.

  49. RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 1477, l. 22. Letter by Glavrepertkom chief M. Dobrynin dated 14 November 1947. Toidze’s Stalin portrait is on l. 23. Thus despite all the regularization and formalization of approval procedures of cult art, the leader’s fiat remained decisive.

  50. RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 1477, l. 24. Letter dated 17 November 1947.

  51. RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 1477, l. 25. Letter dated 17 November 1947 by Agitprop deputy chairman Lebedev to the Central Committee Special Sector.

  52. RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 1477, l. 26. Not dated.

  53. See RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 1478. The letter, from Iskusstvo director Kukharkov about artist A. Kruchin, is not dated.

  54. For an outright rejection consider the following case. The journal Vokrug sveta asked Poskryobyshev whether it could publish an etching of Stalin by V. A. Favorsky. The editorial board must have had its own doubts about the etching, for it considered “it necessary to let you know that the artist is prepared to change the shoulder straps of the figure next to Comrade Stalin, likely Marshal Vasilevsky, in order to make him appear like a staff officer, or to completely drop this figure. The artist is also prepared to make in his etching whatever other changes he is ordered to make.” RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 1477, l. 30. Letter by I. Inozemtsev, editor of Vokrug sveta, dated 21 November 1947. The Favorsky etching is on l. 31. Poskryobyshev must have dele
gated the case to the Agitprop Department because the next piece of correspondence is a laconic letter by Agitprop deputy chairman Lebedev to the Central Committee Special Sector: “The etching of artist Favorsky incorrectly depicts Comrade Stalin’s looks (vneshnost’), which is why its publication in the journal would be inappropriate. The journal’s editorial board has been informed about this.” RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 1477, l. 29. Letter dated 12 December 1947 to the Central Committee Special Sector’s Fifth Section.

  55. RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 1477, l. 16. Letter dated 2 August 1947. The Central Committee Agitprop Department between August 1939 and July 1948 was called Administration of Propaganda and Agitation, Upravlenie propagandy i agitatsii (UPA). See T. M. Goriaeva et al., eds., Instituty upravleniia kul’turoi v period stanovleniia: 1917–1930-e gg. Partiinoe rukovodstvo; Gosudarstventrye organy upravleniia; Skhemy (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2004), 57.

  56. However, it is unclear how representative this sample is. See RGALI, f. 2305, op. 1, d. 128, ll. 6, 10, 12, 14, 17–18, 21–22, 25–26, 28, 30, 32, 35–36, 39, 41, 47, 49.

  57. Examples include Lavrenty Beria (RGALI, f. 2305, op. 1, d. 128, l. 24), Lazar Kaganovich (RGALI, f. 652, op. 8, d. 144, l. 126; RGALI, f. 652, op. 8, d. 147, l. 75), Mikhail Kalinin (RGALI, f. 652, op. 8, d. 144, l. 33), Valéry Mezhlauk (RGALI, f. 652, op. 8, d. 157, l. 7), Anastas Mikoian (RGALI, f. 652, op. 8, d. 144, l. 68), and Viacheslav Molotov (RGALI, f. 2305, op. 1, d. 128, l. 13).

  58. Though offering no evidence, Volkogonov already noted the participation of Stalin’s secretaries and Stalin himself in the cult: “And therefore Tovstukha, Dvinsky, Kanner, Mekh-lis, and then Poskryobyshev on a daily basis inspected and approved (vizirovali) all more or less important materials about him [Stalin] and the photographs set aside for the press. They showed the most important ones to him, the General Secretary. Not infrequently his pencil added a word or two, which illuminated even more prominently the ‘extraordinariness,’ ‘acumen,’ ‘decisiveness,’ ‘care,’ ‘courage,’ and ‘wisdom’ of ‘Comrade Stalin.’” Volkogonov, Triumf i tragediia, vol. 1, 321; also see 436.

  59. See RGALI, f. 2305, op. 1, d. 135, l. 6.

  60. See RGALI, f. 2305, op. 1, d. 128, l. 37.

  61. The exact date when a secure telephone connection to the southern vacation spots was established is still unknown. It is, however, a fact that the ciphered telegrams stopped in 1936. See Khlevniuk, Politbiuro, 14–15. More recently, it has become clear that a “closed (high-frequency) telephone connection (‘VCh’) between Moscow and the government dachas in the south was established, it seems, in 1935. From that time on Stalin and his comrades-in-arms also began exchanging telephonograms. . . .” Oleg Khlevniuk et al., eds., Stalin i Kaganovich: Perepiska, 1931–1936gg. (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2001), 8. The other, slower communication channel was via NKVD couriers who took two to three days to carry letters between the southern spas and Moscow. See ibid., 6.

  62. RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 88, ll. 21–22. Original of ciphered telegram by Stalin to Kaganovich, Yezhov, and Molotov from Sochi, 17 August 1935.

  63. For Stalin’s control of TASS texts see RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 207 (“Soobshcheniia TASS: Soobshcheniia, biulleteni i vestniki TASS s rezoliutsiiami, pravkami i pometkami Stalina I. V. i zapiski ob opublikovanii ikh v pechati”). Some of the press releases in this file have such comments in Stalin’s hand as “not worth publishing.” For his ban on eulogistic newspaper articles see e.g. RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 293, ll. 148–149.

  64. Original: “Che-pu-kha St.” RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 1494, l. 6. Lev Mekhlis, at the time editor of Pravda, had sent this article on 13 August 1934 to Stalin for permission to publish. Stalin then left his comment and on 1 September 1934 the following note was made on the article: “Mekhlis has been informed.”

  65. The acting director of Gospolitizdat had first contacted Pospelov who allowed going ahead with the book. “Now it is ready as proofs,” in the words of P. Chagin, acting director of Gospolitizdat in his 24 September 1940 letter to Poskryobyshev. Nonetheless, Stalin simply wrote to Zhdanov and Pospelov: “I ask you to forbid the Russian-language publication of Gamsakhurdia’s book.” RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 730, l. 190.

  66. RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 699, l. 61. Letter dated 8 December 1932.

  67. Stalin changed paragraphs, cut pages, changed words, and added sentences in the 1939 OGIZ version of his biography. See RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 1281 (“O biografii Stalina I. V. Kratkaia biografiia ‘Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin,’ ispravlennaia i dopolnennaia Stalinym I. V.”) For the 1947 version see RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 1282 (“O biografii Stalina I. V. Maket knigi ‘Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin: Kratkaia biografiia.’ Vtoroe izdanie, ispravlennoe i dopolnennoe. Sostaviteli: Aleksandrov G. F., Galaktionov M. R., Kruzhkov V. S., Mitich M. B., Mochalov V. D., Pospelov R N.”) For more on Barbusse’s Stalin biography beginning in 1935 with comments by Stalin, including on a screenplay by Barbusse for a Stalin film, see RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 700. For background and details see David Brandenberger, “Sostavlenie i publikatsiia ofitsial’noi biografii vozhdia—katekhizisa stalinizma,” Voprosy istorii, no. 12 (1997): 141–150; Brandenberger, “Stalin as Symbol: A Case Study of the Personality Cult and Its Construction,” in Stalin: A New History, ed. Sarah Davies and James Harris (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 249–270. Khrushchev, incidentally, in 1956 shrewdly manipulated the traces of Stalin’s editing of his biography and left out any evidence that contradicted his assertion of Stalin’s megalomania. On this see Maksimenkov, “Kul’t,” 31–33.

  68. For Stalin’s comments on the screenplay of Dovzhenko’s Shchors and a Dovzhenko letter to Stalin see RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 164.

  69. RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 166, l. 142. “Fil’m Pervaia Konnaia, Stsenarii Vs. Vish-nevskogo, variant dlia rezhiserskogo tsenariia, V. Vishnevskogo, E. Dzigan. 1939.” Title of file: “Kinostsenarii ‘Pervaia Konnaia.’ Stsenarii kinokartiny Vishnevskogo V ‘Pervaia Konnaia’ s pravkami Stalina I. V. (poslednii variant).”

  70. RGASPI, f. 558, op. 11, d. 163, ll. 1–2ob., 94. “Stsenarii kinokartiny Kaplera A. i T. ‘Lenin v 1918 godu’ (‘Pokushenie na Lenina’) s rezoliutsiei i zamechaniiami Stalina I. V.” According to a note on the screenplay, he watched the movie on 18 January (year?) between 3:00 and 5:15 A.M., testifying to his well-known habit of watching movies in the Kremlin late at night. His handwritten remarks were typed out.

  71. Oleg V. Khlevniuk, In Stalin’s Shadow: The Career of “Sergo” Ordzhonikidze, trans. David J. Nordlander, ed. Donald Raleigh (Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, 1995), 110. The book was Mamia Orakhelashvili’s Sergo Ordzhonikidze: Biograficheskii ocherk.

  72. For examples see Sheila Fitzpatrick, Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times. Soviet Russia in the 1930s (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 30–31, 113, 195–197.

  73. RGASPI, f. 81, op. 3, d. 256, l. 48. Dated 7 December 1932.

  74. See Zholkovsky, “The Obverse of Stalinism: Akhmatova’s Self-Serving Charisma of Selflessness,” in Self and Story in Russian History, ed. Laura Engelstein and Stephanie Sandler (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000, 46–68); Irene Masing-Delic, “Purges and Patronage: Gor’kii’s Promotion of Socialist Culture,” in Personality Cults in Stalinism, ed. Heller and Plamper, 443–468; on Gerasimov: Tat’iana Khvostenko, Vechera na Maslovke bliz “Dinamo”: Vospominaniia, vol. 2: Za fasadom proletarskogo iskusstva (Moscow: Olimpiia Press, 2003), 12.

  75. A description of Stalin’s visit is in RGALI, f. 2368, op. 2, d. 38, l. 37 (the 1928 date for this episode is from an autobiographical vignette in RGALI, f. 2368, op. 1, d. 4, l. 2). Katsman recounted the same visit at much greater length and more formulaically in 1949. See RGALI, f. 2368, op. 2, d. 36, ll. 6–8. For the founding documents and theoretical treatises of the various modernist and realist groups see I. Matsa et al., eds., Sovetskoe iskusstvo za 15 let: Materialy i dokumentatsiia (Moscow: OGIZ-IZOGIZ, 1933); Hubertus Gassner and Eckhart Gillen, Zwischen Revolutionskunst und sozialistisc
hem Realismus: Dokumente und Kommentare. Kunstdebatten in der Sowjetunion zwischen 1917 und 1934 (Cologne: DuMont, 1979).

  76. On the Peredvizhniki see Elizabeth Valkenier, Russian Realist Art: The State and Society. The Peredvizhniki and Their Tradition (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1977); Valkenier, Ilya Repin and the World of Russian Art (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990); Valkenier, The Wanderers: Masters of 19th-century Painting: An Exhibition from the Soviet Union (Fort Worth: Dallas Museum of Art, 1990).

  77. In his 1969 obituary for Voroshilov, Katsman recounted how he had come to share the Kremlin studio: “The daughter of the famous critic V. V. Stasov, who was responsible for the management of the Kremlin, got me a studio at the Kremlin with Voroshilov’s agreement, where I worked for fifteen years and produced many portraits of Lenin’s comrades-in-arms [In 1969, in the wake of de-Stalinization, Katsman could no longer mention Stalin and had to resort to the code word ‘Lenin’s comrades-in-arms’]. Voroshilov personally made a list of the comrades I portrayed. Together with me worked Unshlikht’s wife S. A. and Pavel Radimov. Voroshilov allowed Radimov and me to come to his office without ringing the bell.” RGALI, f. 2368, op. 2, d. 33, l. 8. I. S. Unshlikht’s wife was an artist (see Tat’iana Khvostenko, Vechera na Maslovke bliz “Dinamo”: Vospominaniia, vol. 1: Zabytye imena [Moscow: Olimpiia Press, 2003], 32). In an earlier (1949) version, Katsman did not mention Unshlikht or his wife, likely because the former was repressed as a Pole in fall 1937 and therefore became persona non grata for the remainder of the Stalin era. See RGALI, f. 2368, op. 2, d. 36, l. 6. According to Tat’iana Khvostenko Unshlikht was shot in 1938 (see Khvostenko, Vechera na Maslovke bliz “Dinamo,” vol. 2, 12). According to Robert Conquest he was arrested in late 1937 (see Conquest, The Great Terror, 244). Hard to believe, but the abstract painter David Shterenberg, founding chairman of the Society of Easel Painters (1924–1932), purportedly shared the same studio with Katsman and Radimov. See Khvostenko, Vechera na Maslovke bliz “Dinamo,” vol. 1, 28.