Stalin pp 45-67 | Cite as

Narkom

  • Robert H. McNeal
Part of the St Antony’s book series

Abstract

Leaving Petrograd, Stalin retained no sentimental attachment to the city of the revolution. He returned to Russia’s second city on only three occasions during the rest of his life.1 Moscow, in contrast, became his home for life and the city on which he lavished much personal attention and the wealth of the state. He did, however, bring with him from Petrograd one souvenir of his sojourn there, a bride. This was Nadezhda Sergeevna Allilueva, who, in the spirit of the socialist emancipation of women, retained her birth-name after marriage. She was the youngest daughter of Sergei and Olga Alliluev, whom Stalin had known since 1900 and his Tbilisi days, a year before Nadezhda’s birth. Having seen the family intermittently in the following years, Stalin had made their apartment in Petrograd his home around the beginning of August 1917. Sergei was a skilled electrician who worked in a power-plant and ran a small repair business on the side, his wife working as a nurse. So the family, though ‘proletarian’ in some sense, could afford a spacious apartment on Rozhdestvennsky Street. Stalin’s room was small but large enough to contain all his belongings in one wicker basket that he had brought with him from Siberia. It probably was the most comfortable and sociable residence he had ever known, admired by the two girls of the family, pampered by their mother.

Keywords

Petroleum Influenza Assure Defend Toll 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    D. Tutaev (ed.), The Alliluyev Memoirs (London, 1968) 131–45, 168–75, 211–15;Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Allilueva, Twenty Letters to a Friend (New York, 1967) 47. The author visited the apartment, now a museum in honour of Lenin, in 1976.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Allilueva (1967) 93, states that the marriage occurred shortly after her mother wrote a particular letter, dated ‘February’. The context of the letter shows that it was composed before 18 February. See also S. Allilueva, Only One Year (New York, 1969) 367.Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    D. Shturman, Mertvye khvataiut zhivie (London, 1982) 23; PSS, LIV, 44; VILBK, V, 632–3; Allilueva (1967) 108.Google Scholar
  5. 13.
    S. Pestkovsky, ‘Vospominaniia o rabote v Narkomnatse’, Proletarskaia revoliutsiia, no. 6 (1930) 129 – 30.Google Scholar
  6. 14.
    Delo L. ‘Martova v revoliutsionnom tribunale’, Obozrenie, no. 15 (1985) 456; no. 16 (1985) 43–6;Google Scholar
  7. 14.
    G. Aronson, ‘Stalinskaia protsess protiv Martova’, Sotsialisticheskii vestnik, no. 7–8 (1939) 435 – 6.Google Scholar
  8. 15.
    W, IV, 66–75, 87–94, 463; G. S. Gurvich, Istoriia sovetskoi konstitutsii (Moscow, 1923 ) 21 – 37.Google Scholar
  9. 30.
    W, IV, 479; J. Erickson, The Soviet High Command (London, 1962 ) 65 – 7.Google Scholar
  10. 31.
    DKFK, II, 348–91 (showing forty-one orders signed or co-signed by Stalin); W, IV, 479–86; A. Zamoyski, The Battle for the Marchlands (New York, 1981) 58–9; TP, I, 758–62; TP, II, 26–9, 66–7; PSS, LI, 138, 409.Google Scholar
  11. 35.
    W. Lerner, ‘Attempting a Revolution from without: Poland in 1920’, in T. T. Hammond (ed.), The Anatomy of Communist Takeovers (New Haven, Conn., 1975), 94–106; Zamoyski (1981) 154–60. The exchange of messages between Lenin and Stalin on 4 August 1920 shows that there was no idea that Stalin was betraying the attack on Warsaw (DKFK, III, 244–5). On the fate of Tukhachevsky, see below, p. 204.Google Scholar
  12. 37.
    Lenin nominated Stalin as narkom of state control in a speech to the Central Committee (VILBK, VI, 598). W, IV, 221–4, 231–2, 473; G. A. Dorokhova, Raboche-krest’ianskaia lnspektsiia v 1920–1923 gg. (Moscow, 1959), 15–16; PSS, XXXVII, 541–2.Google Scholar
  13. 39.
    PSS, LIII, 441; PSS, XLV, 56, 531; S. N. Ikonnikov, Organizatsiia deiatel’nosti RKI v 1920–1925 gg. (Moscow, 1960) 72–3. Trotsky, too, thought that Lenin’s proposal was Utopian (TP, II, 731–3.)Google Scholar
  14. 40.
    E. G. Genkina, Protokoly Sovnarkoma RSFSR kak istoricheskii istochnik (Moscow, 1982 ) 90;Google Scholar
  15. 40.
    T. H. Rigby, Lenin’s Government: Sovnarkom 1917–1922 (New York, 1979) 36–9, 54, 76–84, 87, 184, 252. On Stalin’s connection with the Revolutionary Military Council of the Republic and the Council of Labour and Defence, W, IV, 457, 468–70, 474, 487–8; VILBK, VI, 311. On the Mensheviks, VILBK, XI, 211, 242, 251; G. Legget, The Cheka. Lenin’s Secret Police (Oxford, 1981) 290–1.Google Scholar
  16. 41.
    Legget (1981) 108, 112, 134, 139, 145; M. Jansen, A Show Trial under Lenin (The Hague, 1982) in general and especially 23, 139 – 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 45.
    L. D. Trotsky, My Life (New York, 1930) 177Google Scholar
  18. 45.
    and R. A. Medvedev, Let History Judge (New York, 1971) 17–18, attempt to absolve Lenin of responsibility for Stalin’s appointment as General Secretary, but there is persuasive evidence that Lenin had entrusted Stalin with party affairs during Lenin’s leave of absence (VILBK, XII, 140, 143, 161, 167, 173, 197, 215, 230, 237, 248) and that he proposed him as General Secretary (PSS, XLV, 139; VILBK, XII, 267). On Stalin’s office hours, P, 4 April 1922.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Robert H. McNeal 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert H. McNeal
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations