DOCSLIB.ORG

The People's Government VIII

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The People's Government VIII VIII The People’s Government “I ask you to remember that the internal and international situation of Georgia demands from the Georgian Communists, not the application of the Russian pattern, but the skillful and flexible creation of a distinctive tactic based on the greatest compliance with all kinds of petty bourgeois elements.” —V. I. Lenin, concerning plans to take over Georgia in 1921 “The formation of the People’s Government was the beginning of the historically mature socialist revolution in Lithuania.” —Juozas Žiugžda “Today, the new government carried out a number of important tasks connected with the work of assuming power.” —from the protocol of the first meeting of the People’s Government When Vladimir Dekanozov began his talks with the Lithuanian government on June 16, he had already, informally, brought Lithuania into the web of the Soviet party-state. His program in Lithuania was to direct the process by which a non-communist, “popular front” government, representing cooperation with what Soviet commentators called “petty bourgeois elements,” would carry out reforms aimed at undermining the independent Lithuanian state. At the same time he was to help the Lithuanian Communist Party develop the institutions and cadres that would allow it to take and exercise power. His ultimate goals were the establishment of a Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic and then of course its formal incorporation into the Soviet system. He had to draw attention away from the presence of the Red Army and to create the image that the Lithuanian people welcomed the opportunity to become part of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Communist Party had considerable experience, both theoretical and practical, in the incubation and fostering of communist revolutions. In 1920, in a situation somewhat analogous to the situation in Lithuania, Soviet Russia signed a peace treaty with the Caucasian state of Georgia, and the following year, when efforts to subvert the government had failed, Soviet troops moved in to establish a Soviet Socialist Republic. As the situation unfolded in March 1921, Lenin advised, “Essential is a special policy of concessions toward the Georgian intelligentsia and small traders... I ask you to remember that the internal and international situation of Georgia demands from the Georgian Communists, not the application of the Russian pattern, but the skillful and flexible creation of a distinctive tactic based on the greatest compliance with all kinds of petty bourgeois elements.” A month later, he went on to advocate “a slower, more careful, more systematic transition to socialism.” In practice the Soviet occupation of Georgia 136 Alfred Erich Senn proceeded more harshly, but the model of working with “the national bourgeoisie” became a standard Soviet policy.236 The thought of comparing Soviet policy in Georgia in 1921–1922 with Soviet policy in Lithuania in 1940 arises from the fact that in 1920 Vincas Krėvė-Mickevičius, the foreign minister in the new government that Dekanozov now formed, had been a member of the city council in Baku, Azerbaidzhan, and he mentioned the Georgian experience in his first reminiscences of his work as Acting Prime Minister in 1940, published in 1942.237 He did not, however, bring it up in his later writings. Pozdniakov surely knew of Krėvė’s having been in Baku, and he would have told this to Dekanozov, who had also been in Baku at this time. Did Dekanozov and Krėvė discuss their experiences in Baku when Krėvė came to him at the Soviet mission? Why did Krėvė raise the subject of the Soviet takeover in Georgia in that first memoir and then drop it? The question emerges: Did Krėvė possibly know Dekanozov from those revolutionary days in the Caucasus? To be sure, Krėvė wrote that Pozdniakov “introduced” him to Dekanozov. Not having any reliable documentation one way or the other, we are left to speculate. Perhaps Krėvė thought of the Georgian example simply in reaction to seeing Georgian communists take control of Lithuania. Another reference to Georgia appears in the memoirs of Aleksandr Slavinas, the head of counterintelligence in the new government’s police system. He recounted spending a day with a mysterious figure from Moscow, “comrade Petrov,” who instructed him on his work. This was probably Vsevolod Merkulov, USSR Deputy Commissar of Internal Affairs. Slavinas described him as a Russian from Georgia: “Comrade Petrov” had served with Beriia in the Caucasus and had come to Moscow as part of his entourage in the NKVD. Like “comrade Petrov,” a number of other NKVD specialists followed Dekanozov to Kaunas, but Slavinas’s story adds to the significance of the “Georgian model.”238 Yet another factor in Soviet policy making in 1940 was the conclusion of Soviet ideologists and historians, made in the latter 1920s, that the effort to establish a Soviet Republic in Lithuania in 1919 had failed because the communist government had alienated the Lithuanian peasantry by advocating large scale agricultural land holding and also because it had not paid proper attention to the Lithuanians’ national consciousness. Now, in 1939–1940, after twenty years of independence, Lithuanian culture and national consciousness were considerably stronger and Lithuania had a stronger peasant class than had been the case a generation earlier. Dekanozov, therefore, had to focus the Lithuanians’ attention and thoughts on a common, external enemy, while he established a political base for his program. As events developed, moreover, the revolutionary propaganda avoided references to any thought that the Lithuanians themselves had rejected Soviet rule in 1919 and instead spoke of “restoring” the Soviet system that western powers had allegedly undermined..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Questions to Russian Archives – Short
    The Raoul Wallenberg Research Initiative RWI-70 Formal Request to the Russian Government and Archival Authorities on the Raoul Wallenberg Case Pending Questions about Documentation on the 1 Raoul Wallenberg Case in the Russian Archives Photo Credit: Raoul Wallenberg’s photo on a visa application he filed in June 1943 with the Hungarian Legation, Stockholm. Source: The Hungarian National Archives, Budapest. 1 This text is authored by Dr. Vadim Birstein and Susanne Berger. It is based on the paper by V. Birstein and S. Berger, entitled “Das Schicksal Raoul Wallenbergs – Die Wissenslücken.” Auf den Spuren Wallenbergs, Stefan Karner (Hg.). Innsbruck: StudienVerlag, 2015. S. 117-141; the English version of the paper with the title “The Fate of Raoul Wallenberg: Gaps in Our Current Knowledge” is available at http://www.vbirstein.com. Previously many of the questions cited in this document were raised in some form by various experts and researchers. Some have received partial answers, but not to the degree that they could be removed from this list of open questions. 1 I. FSB (Russian Federal Security Service) Archival Materials 1. Interrogation Registers and “Prisoner no. 7”2 1) The key question is: What happened to Raoul Wallenberg after his last known presence in Lubyanka Prison (also known as Inner Prison – the main investigation prison of the Soviet State Security Ministry, MGB, in Moscow) allegedly on March 11, 1947? At the time, Wallenberg was investigated by the 4th Department of the 3rd MGB Main Directorate (military counterintelligence);
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Dictionary of Russian and Soviet Intelligence
    Russia • Military / Security Historical Dictionaries of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, No. 5 PRINGLE At its peak, the KGB (Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti) was the largest HISTORICAL secret police and espionage organization in the world. It became so influential DICTIONARY OF in Soviet politics that several of its directors moved on to become premiers of the Soviet Union. In fact, Russian president Vladimir V. Putin is a former head of the KGB. The GRU (Glavnoe Razvedvitelnoe Upravleniye) is the principal intelligence unit of the Russian armed forces, having been established in 1920 by Leon Trotsky during the Russian civil war. It was the first subordinate to the KGB, and although the KGB broke up with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the GRU remains intact, cohesive, highly efficient, and with far greater resources than its civilian counterparts. & The KGB and GRU are just two of the many Russian and Soviet intelli- gence agencies covered in Historical Dictionary of Russian and Soviet Intelligence. Through a list of acronyms and abbreviations, a chronology, an introductory HISTORICAL DICTIONARY OF essay, a bibliography, and hundreds of cross-referenced dictionary entries, a clear picture of this subject is presented. Entries also cover Russian and Soviet leaders, leading intelligence and security officers, the Lenin and Stalin purges, the gulag, and noted espionage cases. INTELLIGENCE Robert W. Pringle is a former foreign service officer and intelligence analyst RUSSIAN with a lifelong interest in Russian security. He has served as a diplomat and intelligence professional in Africa, the former Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe. For orders and information please contact the publisher && SOVIET Scarecrow Press, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • What Happened in Lithuania in 1940?
    1 What Happened in Lithuania in 1940? Alfred Erich Senn On June 9, 2000, the Russian Foreign Ministry, reacting to a bill under discussion in the Lithuanian Seimas (parliament), declared that the Soviet Union had not seized Lithuania by force in 1940. The ministry insisted that in June 1940 Soviet troops entered Lithuania by agreement with the Lithuanian government and that this agreement had been “received within the framework of international law as functioning at that time.” Moreover, the decision of Soviet leaders, in August 1940, “to accept Lithuania as a member of the Soviet Union” came in response to the request of “the highest governmental organs of the Baltic states.” It was therefore improper “to qualify the entrance of Lithuania into membership in the USSR as the result of the unilateral action of the latter.” Most Lithuanians disagree. Leaving aside the controversies surrounding the Seimas’s consideration of Lithuanian claims against the Soviet Union, and thereby against Russia, it would seem desirable to examine the Russian statement concerning the events of 1940 as a separate topic. History always runs the risk of becoming a tool of politicians and diplomats, who, like lawyers, often look to the past to document the positions that they want to take today. Discussion, of course, can follow a variety of paths: emphasizing the Soviet motivation for action in 1940, the details of the Soviet move into Lithuania, or the Lithuanians’ reaction to the movement and their subsequent behavior. Since the Russian Foreign Ministry’s declaration provided the impetus for this essay, let us use that declaration as the basis for response.
    [Show full text]
  • The IMF, ITO and Other Economic Issues in Post-War Soviet-American Relations Kristina V
    Journal of Global Initiatives: Policy, Pedagogy, Perspective Volume 12 Article 3 Number 1 Russia Relations in Today's World January 2018 The conomicE Roots of the Cold War: The IMF, ITO and Other Economic Issues in Post-War Soviet-American Relations Kristina V. Minkova St. Petersburg State University, Russia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jgi Part of the European History Commons, Political History Commons, Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies Commons, and the United States History Commons This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Minkova, Kristina V. (2018) "The cE onomic Roots of the Cold War: The IMF, ITO and Other Economic Issues in Post-War Soviet- American Relations," Journal of Global Initiatives: Policy, Pedagogy, Perspective: Vol. 12 : No. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jgi/vol12/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Global Initiatives: Policy, Pedagogy, Perspective by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Kristina V. Minkova Journal of Global Initiatives Vol. 12, No. 1, 2017, pp. 18-31. The Economic Roots of the Cold War: The IMF, ITO and Other Economic Issues in Post-War Soviet-American Relations Kristina V. Minkova Abstract In light of newly released archival resources, this article examines the traditional historiography of Soviet-American relations focusing on economic relations at the end of World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Fall of Communism
    The Rise and Fall of Communism archie brown To Susan and Alex, Douglas and Tamara and to my grandchildren Isobel and Martha, Nikolas and Alina Contents Maps vii A Note on Names viii Glossary and Abbreviations x Introduction 1 part one: Origins and Development 1. The Idea of Communism 9 2. Communism and Socialism – the Early Years 26 3. The Russian Revolutions and Civil War 40 4. ‘Building Socialism’: Russia and the Soviet Union, 1917–40 56 5. International Communism between the Two World Wars 78 6. What Do We Mean by a Communist System? 101 part two: Communism Ascendant 7. The Appeals of Communism 117 8. Communism and the Second World War 135 9. The Communist Takeovers in Europe – Indigenous Paths 148 10. The Communist Takeovers in Europe – Soviet Impositions 161 11. The Communists Take Power in China 179 12. Post-War Stalinism and the Break with Yugoslavia 194 part three: Surviving without Stalin 13. Khrushchev and the Twentieth Party Congress 227 14. Zig-zags on the Road to ‘communism’ 244 15. Revisionism and Revolution in Eastern Europe 267 16. Cuba: A Caribbean Communist State 293 17. China: From the ‘Hundred Flowers’ to ‘Cultural Revolution’ 313 18. Communism in Asia and Africa 332 19. The ‘Prague Spring’ 368 20. ‘The Era of Stagnation’: The Soviet Union under Brezhnev 398 part four: Pluralizing Pressures 21. The Challenge from Poland: John Paul II, Lech Wałesa, and the Rise of Solidarity 421 22. Reform in China: Deng Xiaoping and After 438 23. The Challenge of the West 459 part five: Interpreting the Fall of Communism 24.
    [Show full text]
  • Culture, Power, and Mission to Moscow: Film and Soviet-American Relations During World War II
    Culture, Power, and Mission to Moscow: Film and Soviet-American Relations during World War II Todd Bennett For suggestions on how to use this article in the United States history survey course, see our “Teaching the JAH” Web site supplement at ,http://www.indiana. edu/~jah/teaching.. Following a sumptuous feast (and copious amounts of vodka), the guests, gathered around a banquet table deep within the Kremlin’s walls in May 1943, toasted Soviet- American friendship. Premier Joseph V. Stalin and Foreign Minister Vyacheslav M. Molotov praised the Grand Alliance. Anastas I. Mikoyan, the Soviet commissar for foreign trade, Lavrenty P. Beria, the head of the People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs (Narodnyi Kommissariat Vnutrennykh Del, nkvd), and Maxim Litvinov, the Soviet ambassador to the United States, offered toasts, and the Anglo-Americans present—including the British ambassador to Moscow, Adm. William H. Standley, the reigning United States representative, and Joseph E. Davies, Washington’s former ambassador—reciprocated. The American emissary from 1936 to 1938, Davies was there because President Franklin D. Roosevelt had sent him to arrange an introductory summit with Stalin, a meeting at which Roosevelt was sure all out- standing Soviet-American differences could be ironed out. Although Davies’ pres- ence was unusual, thus far the evening had been little different from similar receptions held by Soviet leaders for their Allied comrades during World War II. On this occasion, however, the former ambassador had brought with him a movie that both he and Roosevelt hoped would convince the Soviet dictator to eschew separate peace negotiations with Adolf Hitler and to remain within the tenuous Big Three Todd Bennett is visiting assistant professor of history at the University of Nevada, Reno.
    [Show full text]
  • XIV the Balance Sheet
    XIV The Balance Sheet “We will not aim at sovietizing them… There will come a time when they will do this themselves.” —Joseph Stalin to Georgii Dimitrov, October 25, 1939 “Everything was done with dizzying speed.” —Liudas Truska “It is necessary… to rid Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia of this hostile scum [svolochi].” —Andrei Andreevich Andreev In the course of just seven weeks, Lithuanians experienced a dizzying transition, from an independent state to a constituent republic of the USSR. The pro-Soviet regime swept them along in a populist-style campaign of meetings, denouncing the old regime and promising an exciting future. There was no organized resistance to the sovietizing juggernaut. The campaign called itself “democratic,” but its declaration that democracy cannot tolerate opposition, backed up by arrests of possible opponents, “enemies of the people,” points up the perils of presuming that certain international words carry the same meaning in every society. The Soviet camp was enforcing its own definitions of such words as “democratic,” “independent,” and even “international.” For fifty years, Soviet writers would call this process “progress.” But given the opportunity to rid themselves of Soviet rule at the end of the 1980s, the vast majority of Lithuanians, in a new series of neo-populist meetings, opted for the reestablishment of an independent state. 442 It remains here to summarize that process of incorporation in 1940. The Soviet takeover of Lithuania in 1940 was “a revolution from above.” Although Lithuanian communist leaders, together with Soviet historians, insisted that the Lithuanian people had voluntarily, enthusiastically, demanded the establishment of the Soviet order in Lithuania, the direction for the changes in Lithuania came from Moscow, communicated through the person of Vladimir Dekanozov, Deputy People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs, a longtime associate and colleague of Lavrentii Beriia, the USSR People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Listen, the Jews Are Ruling Us Now': Antisemitism and National Conflict
    B02 POLIN 25 TEXT 2/5/12 09:05 Page 305 ccccccccccccccccdxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ‘Listen, the Jews are Ruling Us Now ’ Antisemitism and National Conflict during the First Soviet Occupation of Lithuania, 1940– 1941 . : O 1940 Ignas Šeinius, one of Lithuania’s prominent writers and the Red Cross representative in Vilnius, returned to Kaunas. The trip proved difficult: ‘As far as the eye can see . the dust rose like smoke from the road, choked with Bolsheviks and their vehicles. It was impossible to get around them, the dust infused with the unbearable smell of petrol and sweat .’ A mounted Red Army officer, ‘himself layered with dust, atop a dust-armoured horse’, helped Šeinius’s official Mercedes-Benz through the log jam —the only bright moment in the depressing montage of the invasion which he painted in his literary memoir Red Deluge .1 Unable to persuade his cabinet to authorize military resistance and determined not to preside over the country’s surrender, President Antanas Smetona opted for exile. The leader of the nation left none too soon. The presidential motorcade set out for the German border on the afternoon of 15 June just as a Soviet aeroplane carrying the Kremlin’s viceroy for Lithuania, Molotov’s deputy Vladimir Dekanozov, touched down at Kaunas airport. 2 Augustinas Voldemaras, Smetona’s long-time arch -rival , foolishly took the opportunity to return from exile in France only to be summarily arrested by the NKVD and sent to Russia. 3 The exile of inter-war Lithuania’s two most prominent politicians, one voluntary, the other forced, signalled the political This chapter includes material from two previous works of mine: ‘Foreign Saviors, Native Disciples: Perspectives on Collaboration in Lithuania, 1940–1945’, in D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Hanxiao Li
    Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 497 Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Literature, Art and Human Development (ICLAHD 2020) The Struggles and Gains of the Soviet Union: The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Hanxiao Li Westminster Academy, Simsbury, Connecticut 06070, USA Corresponding author: Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT The Non-Aggression Pact between Nazis Germany and Soviet Russia, also noted as the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, was signed in August, 1939 — right before the invasion of Poland. It is commonly interpreted that the Non-Aggression pact was one of the essential triggers of WWII, and the center of the thesis is to analyze the connections and intertwined relationships between Germany and Russia regarding the protocols, causes, and effects of the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact. Through personal letters and public speeches from, leaders, foreign ministers, ambassadors and also articles and publications from historians, it is evident that the Molotov- Ribbentrop pact was more secretive and significant than it seems. While the public protocols reflect Russia and Germany’s intension for quelled aggression and national security, the secret protocols reveal each Nation’s private intensions. For Germany it meant collective security against Western Europe an ensured the acquisition of Poland. In Russia’s perspective, the pact brought economic development through German investments and thwarted Japan from aggression. While the pact provided benefits to both countries, their ideological differences prevented an effective yet sincere alliance. Russia’s long economic objective proved them innocent in this matter, whereas Germany’s belligerent intension to conquer led to Operation Barbarossa. Keywords: Non-Aggression Pact of 1939, Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, The Alliance between Stalin and Hitler, The Third Five Year Plan, Operation Barbarossa, Partition of Poland alliance with Russia proved tactically beneficial.
    [Show full text]
  • CRESC Working Paper Series
    CRESC Working Paper Series Working Paper No. 10 The Rise of Cybernetics? Government and Change in Lithuanian Cultural Policy Egle Rindzeviciute CRESC, The Open University November 2005 For further information: Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change (CRESC) Faculty of Social Sciences, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK Tel: +44 (0)1908 654458 Fax: +44 (0)1908 654488 Email: [email protected] or [email protected] Web: www.cresc.ac.uk The support of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is gratefully acknowledged. CRESC Working Papers The Rise of Cybernetics? Government and Change in Lithuanian Cultural Policy Egle Rindzeviciute PhD student in Cultural Studies and Communications Baltic & East European Graduate School Södertörns högskola (University College) [email protected] Abstract The paper focuses on the changing mechanisms of governance in Lithuanian state cultural policy. Exploring the period of (roughly) 1918–1970, which saw the birth of state cultural policy as we know it today, the paper engages in a discussion about the governmentalization of the state and the effects that the process has had on the formation of the cultural field. Looking at the change that occurred when the democratic regime was replaced with Soviet authoritarianism in 1940, I argue that the latter contributed with an increased organizational structuration of the field of culture in Lithuania. The paper presents preliminary findings as to how cybernetics, the science of control and information, influenced this process. Finally, the paper questions whether the effects of cybernetics as a paradigmatic mode of governance in the Soviet Union since the 1960s can be treated as symptoms of the governmentalization of the authoritarian regime.
    [Show full text]
  • 231 the Issuance of Visas to War Refugees by Chiune
    THE ISSUANCE OF VISAS TO WAR REFUGEES D BY CHIUNE SUGIHARA AS REFLECTED IN THE DOCUMENTS OF RUSSIAN ARCHIVES D ILYA ALTMAN ISSN 1392-0588 (spausdintas) ISSN 2335-8769 (internetinis) Russian Research and Educational Holocaust Centre, http://dx.doi.org/10.7220/2335-8769.67.12 Moscow, Russia 2017. 67 SUMMARY. The article analyses activities of the Japanese Vice-Consul Chiune Sugihara, mainly focusing on his Kaunas period 1939–1940, when in the summer of 1940 he issued Japanese transit visas. Research is based on Russian archival sources: starting from Sugihara’s rejection as a translator in the Embassy of Japan in Moscow, later presenting USSR’s position regarding the transition through its territory via Trans-Siberian railroad. The article explains how decision on the Soviet side was made and what reasons forced Soviets to take such a decision. The role of Intourist, the official state travel agency of the USSR, and the agency’s sources are analysed, which provide several different interpretations of the transit, for example, it is stated in the agency’s documents that less children travelled with Sugihara’s visas than it is usually indicated in historiography. Finally, the issues related to forgeries of Sugihara’s visas and the number of people rescued by the Japanese Vice-Consul in Lithuania are discussed. KEYWORDS: Chiune Sugihara, refugees, transit through USSR, number of issued visas, Intourist, NKVD, Politburo, Josif Stalin, Vladimir Dekanozov. The article presents new and disputable facts about the circumstances, under which the Japanese diplomat was issuing visas to Jewish refugees, like the number of the documents issued and the role of the USSR in the transit of war refugees.
    [Show full text]
  • The “Doctor's Case” and the Death of Stalin
    espressostalinist.com The “Doctor’s Case” and the Death of Stalin Bill Bland, 1991. CPSU(B) Politburo at Funeral of Joseph Stalin Mourners in Red Square Beria, Stalin and Svetlana on a Black Sea Holiday An extended annotated version of a report presented to the Stalin Society in London in October 1991, by ​Bill Bland, for the Communist League (UK​) THE “DOCTORS’ CASE” AND THE DEATH OF STALIN by Bill Bland 1991. Table of Contents Introduction 2 THE “DOCTORS’ CASE” AND THE DEATH OF STALIN 3 Part 1: The “Doctor’s Case” 5 The Initial Preparations for the Revisionist Coup (1943-46) 5 The First Stage of the “Doctors’ Case” (1948-51) 6 The Dismissal and Arrest of Abakumov (1951) 8 The Georgian Feint (1951-52) 9 The Marxist-Leninists’ Counter-blow in Georgia 14 The Indictment in the “Doctors’ Case” (1953) 15 The Destruction of the Defence System around Stalin 19 Part 2: The Death of Stalin (1953) 25 The Aborted Coup (1953) 34 The Exculpation of the Doctors (1953) 36 The Reversal of the Georgian Feint (1953) 38 The Dismissal of Leonid Melnikov (1953) 40 The Military Coup in Moscow (1953) 41 The Military Coup in Georgia (1953-54) 45 The ‘Mingrelian Affair’ (1953) 49 The “Trial” of Beria (1953) 50 The Re-emergence of Melnikov (1953-57) 53 The Trial of Abakumov (1954) 53 The “Trial” of Ryumin (1954) 54 The “Rehabilitation” of Anna Louise Strong (1955) 57 The ‘Rehabilitation’ of Tito (1955) 57 The Rapava-Rukhadze Trial (1955) 57 The Trial of Bagirov (1956) 58 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 59 BIBLIOGRAPHY 63 Introduction By Alliance Marxist-Leninist There have been many requests recently to Alliance for a web-edition of this document.
    [Show full text]