The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

"Students ask that bodies of People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs brought Bolshevist order to institute"


Introductory article, preparation of the text and T.I. Horkhordina and V.Yu. Romanova's comments

In the history of the Moscow state historical and archival institute for which 7th 0-year anniversary our publication of archival documents is dated many pages still remain not written yet, not added or written obviously incorrectly. If to accept the point of view of R.J. Collingwood that when choosing sources "the aprioristic imagination" is always the cornerstone of work of the historian, then the best proof of the validity of this hypothesis, than anniversary publications, difficult and to think up.

From the huge massif revealed by us in Glavarkhiva fund (HECTARE of the Russian Federation, t. 5325) documents on the history of Institute of archive science which, however, was renamed almost at once into Historical and archival institute (though one of his true founding fathers - F.D. Kretov - preferred even to use the name "Institute of Archival Workers" in official documents) we publish, keeping their stylistic features, a selection of materials which in itself form the scenario of the tragicomic farce.

This farce would even be ridiculous if it did not come to an end with a bloody result - tens and hundreds of crippled destinies. Limited by a rigid framework of volume of the journal publication, we will be limited only to a summary of a historical background on which the action stated in documents and also arises and is developed by characteristics of several characters if about them there are no data in documents.

So: action time - the second half of the 30th

The hopelessness of the plan of emergency replacement of old experts by "red professors" is already clearly visible though processes of "kommunization" and "orabochivaniye" of higher education institutions continue.

In the archival industry "the old guard" led by is arrested

Jan Antonovich Berzin-Ziyemelis (1881 - 193 8)1, it is detached


from the management Vladimir Vasilyevich Maksakov though, working in library of Communistic academy, he continues to give lectures at Historical and archival institute.

At the institute there is a fight between supporters of a course towards "synthesis of an entsiklopedichnost and specialization" which was

it is characteristic of the Moscow archaeological institute of times of Alexander Ivanovich Uspensky, and fighters for the narrow specialization proclaimed during creation of IAI by Mikhail Nikolaevich Pokrovsky who died in 1932. But while these internal disputes are conducted, in the bowels of People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs the cardinal decision already ripens

about inclusion in maintaining bodies of People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs of archiving in general which will be accepted in 1938. After absorption by an almighty narkomvnudelsky Leviathan at Ezhov, and then at Beria, protection departments of the woods of local (nonindustrial) value, the state shooting and cartography, highways (GUShOSDOR) and Central office of measures and scales, the turn and archival department comes. All archivists, from employees of central office to technical employees of "a local link" of archives, undergo personnel cleaning: in ranks of security officers only persons with the faultless political past and Workers' and Peasants' origin are allowed.

Archives will be included in the system of People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs practically along with the branched system of the sobering-up stations withdrawn from maintaining Narkomzdrava by the USSR. At the same time professional qualities of teachers and students of IAI making a part of the device CAU USSR and even taking place together with it for the present in one building, interest the management of People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs in the last turn. In the country there take place a number of open trials of "enemies of the people" who will be soon replaced with the closed vessels of "three" and military courts. At this particular time management of personnel of People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs lifts all old affairs, concerning "political image" of each of employees and students of institute, and gets new, made already at much higher, professional level.

In the documents published by us you can observe change of a substantial part of the text personally: from statement of rumors and unfounded charges the authors of operational references pass to statement of results of the inspections which are carried out on the central archives, a card file of People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs and "in the homeland" that is in the places of the birth and accommodation of each of the persons which fell under suspicion.

At this particular time for the first time in sight of bodies there are facts of confrontation of the director of IAI old Party member Nikolay Ivanovich Sokolov and Konstantin Stepanovich Gulevich who replaced it in 1937 who came in 1934 to a post with severe group of the students who are sincerely not understanding to what they them learn - to be in this unique higher education institution fighters of "the ideological front on the direction of historical sciences" or to fulfill duties of registrars in storages which are carried after Stalin's letter in the Proletarskaya Revolyution magazine in 1931 on boondocks, on the periphery public



So in this world there are forgotten Sokolov's orders on strengthening of a subject matter at institute and punishment of "student Sidorov" for the satirical feuilleton long ago to the invented "professor of Veterinary academy Pyankov" in whom students saw lines of one of real institute

teachers.4 After the order of the director the student F.I. Sidorov strikes back, formulating direct political charges to directorate of institute in general, and against Sokolov - in particular. Having become the graduate student and having done then meteoric career up to a post of the deputy manager of CAU, Sidorov - it is free or involuntarily - acted as one of the main initiators of fight for change of the "doubtful" management.

Then it joined activists - several Komsomol members and candidates for members of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) from 1 - 4 courses and also graduate students

>- secretary of committee of the All-Union Leninist Young Communist League and chairman of trade-union committee of institute. In the beginning they sent a letter addressed to the people's commissar of internal affairs of L. Items Beriya6, were also immediately accepted by his deputy - Vsevolod Nikolaevich Merkulovym7 (we publish texts of the relevant documents in this selection).

In institute there take place rough meetings which result was predetermined: The People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs forms one for another the commissions on check of all and everyone, subjecting to repressions dozens of teachers and students of lists who are formed already in the bowels of People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs now. Dismissals of professors and teachers whose names appear in the published documents became result of "checks". The premature demise in June, 1938, in incomplete 48 years is directly connected with the begun "cleanings",

Mikhail Stanislavovich Vishnevsky who in "black lists" is characterized in a KGB way laconically and more exhaustively: "Pole, nobleman, Menshevik" 8.

We will remind: the graduate of the St. Petersburg university, then the research associate of Institute of literature and language at the Petrograd university, from first years of revolution M.S. Vishnevsky who became one of the first professors of department of archive science to IAI rushed on protection of the archives perishing in the province, and, at last, was not only the most outstanding expert methodologist of archiving of the time, but also (together with V.V. Maksakov) the founder of our institute. Two of them made in July, 1930 a detailed note about need of creation of a special higher educational institution - Institute of archive science at CAU USSR. On the basis of this note and the corresponding petition of the manager of CAU M.N. Pokrovsky in Presidium of the Central Election Commission of the USSR the Resolution of the Central Election Commission and SNK of USSR of September 3, 1930 was accepted. "About opening at the Central archival office of USSR of Institute of archive science and about transfer of the Office of archive science at the Central archival office of RSFSR in conducting Archival management of USSR".

By the way, the archive science Office mentioned in the text - too Mikhail Stanislavovich's child, a peculiar scientific and educational laboratory in which archivists of the whole country got acquainted with the most modern methods of work with archival documents, studied experience of the predecessors and colleagues, made scientific messages and reports.

The last seven years of life professor M.S. Vishnevsky with a heavy heart demanded to finish "underestimation and direct

it was "cleaned" by neglect to archival disciplines which is transferred to students and graduate students".10 In May by 193 8 g from institute. The main work of life - the manuscript of the textbook according to the theory and technology of archiving - was taken away from him and by order transferred for end to "crew" in number of 28 people. A month later M.S. Vishnevsky died. The textbook and remained unwritten.

Tragically also fate of Boris Iosafovich Anfilov (1882 - 1941) who is mentioned in "black lists" which theoretically developed and anticipated bases of reorganization of completing of the state archives at the end of 50 - the beginning of the 60th was. This "son of the nobleman, the former Menshevik, the former officer of old army in the captain's rank" who is "strongly embittered" 11 was fired at the very beginning of 1939 and was left destitute. Before it was "cleaned" from CAU, then fired from institute, and, at last, - from the archive depository where it, the archivist with a 15-year experience of the fruitful leading work in CAU, the author of many theoretical works and methodical developments which did not lose the value and today held a third-rate technical position. Pension it was not granted as in 1939 to it only 57 years were executed (at the same time without having considered that he is a disabled person of World War I). Two years later B.I. Anfilov died.

A lot of things in the published documents are connected with persons of the first directors of Historical and archival institute (after S.M. Abalin's leaving) - the old veteran-Bolshevik Nikolay Ivanovich Sokolov and Konstantin Stepanovich Gulevich who replaced it in 1937. Practically their destiny after "cleaning" is not known. However removal from Sokolov's position with a formulation "as not coped with work" 12 and also the exception of party and the subsequent arrest of Gulevich hardly give the grounds for optimism concerning their destinies.

the Last of those who headed CAU before its official inclusion in the system of People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs. He appears almost in all "black lists", but will be dismissed from the post of the acting managing director of CAU USSR only in April, 1939. By hearsay, which are recorded in a number of denunciations in bodies of People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs, so long "survivability" of N.V. Maltsev was connected with the fact that in days of a Bolshevist underground he fought against a tsarism hand in hand with V.M. Molotov and used his protection. But eventually and it will be replaced with the regular officer of state security I.I. Nikitinsky. In the first months of war with fascists aged N.V. Maltsev will die in a national militia.

After in the fall of 1939 from the post of the director of institute the first and last professional archivist K.S. Gulevich is dismissed and subjected to arrest, this position will be held by the former personnel employee of bodies of Cheka - OGPU - People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs Ivan Ivanovich Martynov who worked as the manager of Egg department of Soyuzptitseprodukt trust in Narkomtorg before, then headed one of political departments of MTS in Siberia, some time

worked in CAOR, and to institute came from a position of the director of one of the Moscow munitions factories.13

Martynov betrayed our institute in the most hard time: in October, 1941 it "samoevakuirovatsya" from the post, having left to the mercy of fate both people, and institute economy. Saved Historical and archival institute that whose name you will repeatedly meet on pages of the published documents as "the suspect who is subject to immediate dismissal" - professor Pavel Petrovich Smirnov (pay attention: it appears in primary documents as "Pavel Vasilyevich") which on a personal initiative took business of rescue of the left higher education institution in hand.

However, that's another story.

On pages of the journal publication it is impossible to give a total characteristic of those students, teachers and archivists whose names occur under private rooms in ominous "black lists", a part from which we for the first time present to attention of readers. Many of them survived and thanks to the scientific works became known not only in Russia, but also abroad. Here and famous professor (in the future, since 1946, - the academician), Stepan Borisovich Veselovsky (1876 - 1952) who is marked out as "the landowner-nobleman's son", the father of the People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs arrested by bodies in 1935 under the Article 58-10 K.S. Veselovsky.14 Here and names of outstanding domestic historians of archiving: Nina Valeryanovna Brzhostovskaya according to whose textbooks and today students of IAI RGGU are engaged; founder of domestic document science Konstantin Grigoryevich Mityaev; the future (in 1944 - 1947) the director of institute Dmitry Sergeyevich Baburin; professor Nikolay Vladimirovich Ustyugov ("the priest's son", "the brother of the wife is sentenced to 10 years by the three of UNKVD of the Moscow region for anti-Soviet propaganda") 15. And many, too many, others.

We believe that veterans of archiving and graduates of our institute will be shocked, having seen as close they were at the edge of the abyss. What saved them? Now we can only guess about it. Most likely, on the eve of war the bodies of People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs just did not have forces to finish physical extermination of employees of the archival institutions existing, according to the major of state security of the chief of GAU USSR I.I. Nikitinsky, "on the periphery of our public life". Perhaps, security officers had others, more long-term, plans for their use. It is clear one - our publication puts an end in too prolonged discussion about allegedly "fruitful" for archives in general and our institute, in particular, the existence period in the system of bodies of People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs.

Of course, the documents published by us leave a painful, oppressive impression. However we address the memory of those years not for "name calling" at all. It is, mainly, about appreciating through what "thorns" had to make the way our fathers and grandfathers to "stars". It is about all-conquering understanding of the

a high professional duty before the future generations which helped our institute and archives in general not only to stand under blows of repressions, but also to develop, move forward. And in these difficult years the students with enthusiasm filled educational audiences, teachers gave brilliant lectures, and the institute had even a reputation - against the background of other higher education institutions - "Academy of freethinking".

From us it is required only - not to forget one what was cost by these victories. And to keep with gratitude names of those who contrary to everything kept continuity of scientific traditions at our institute developed science about archives, did not allow to die "documentary memory of the Fatherland".

Completely a selection of archive materials, concerning the most difficult years from life of Historical and archival institute in the middle and the end of the 30th, we assume to publish in the collection of documents which is prepared for the edition devoted to the 7th 0 anniversary of institute. The interested reader will be able to find more detailed data and comments in the monograph by one of authors of the present publication of T.I. Horkhordina "Roots and krone. Strokes to a portrait of Historical and archival institute" (M., 1997).


The order on Historical archival institute

No. 123 8 December 1936

Recently at Institute from some students absolutely inadmissible relation having character of insult and discredit of the last was shown concerning a part of teaching personnel in different types and forms:

item 1. Makhinko it is absolutely undeserved and without any basis characterized lectures of the Acting the professor Maksakov, very competent teacher who is perfectly knowing the subject and having the enormous sum of knowledge of the history of archival construction as "vodoleystvo", lectures represent such water "which it is impossible to drink, to wash legs".

item 2. The student Sidorov dared to allow the offending expression to the teacher concerning whom the general student's meeting upon termination of academic year made the decision on its awarding, as for its proizvodstvennouchebny, as well as for public work.

I consider such attitude towards teaching personnel of Institute in a root wrong and inadmissible. The similar behavior of students brings in industrial practice work only disorganization. As similar cases began to repeat also verbal instructions of directorate and public organizations on inadmissibility of such relation lately to

to teaching personnel from some students do not achieve the objective, and some students, feeling impunity in this regard, find it possible to arrive by the principle: that I want, I say that I want, I do, at least it also did harm to industrial practice life of Institute. Therefore for resolute suppression of similar offensive manifestations from any given student to professorial personnel, would believe the student Sidorov to expel from Institute, but in view of the first case of such behavior of the last, I find it possible to be limited on the first time to the announcement to the student Sidorov of a strict reprimand and prevention that at repetition of a similar case I will raise a question of its immediate expel from Institute.

Director Sokolov

HECTARE of the Russian Federation. F.5325. Op.1. 1204. L.52. Copy.


From the statement of the member of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) F.A. Sidorov in the Sverdlovsk district committee of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks)

15 April, 1937

According to the order of the acting managing director of CAU Maltsev I was appointed the chairman of the commission on inspection of IstorikoArhivnyy Institute. During inspection I encountered a number of questions about which I consider it necessary to inform the District committee of party.

The director of Institute since September 15, 1934 Sokolov consists, on party fraction 8 of a congress of labor unions voted among 93rd against the decision Central Committees of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) on input in the structure of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions of t. Kaganovich.

As it is visible from the minutes of bureau of Medsantrud Central Committee All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) fraction of February 19 192 9 g, Sokolov and after the congress continued to consider the vote against the decision of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) of the Central Committee correct.

& lt;...> At Historical and Archival Institute deceived Communist Party organization until recently, having informed only on the vote among the 93rd, hiding that continued to insist on the mistake.

It is interesting that when he was driven into the corner, he brought a number of extracts from minutes of party meetings where he allegedly acted into the justification and said that up to 192 9 g continued to insist on the mistake.

& lt;...> Sokolov continues right opportunistic practice also till today.

the Right for such statement is granted by the following facts:

a) At statement on Party committee of a question of attraction to party responsibility of the Trotskyist Rakhlin for disorder of work of section of scientists and the Office of archive science Sokolov spoke out in defense of Rakhlin.

b) Some days before arrest of the former head of a postgraduate study and the department chair of history of the people of the USSR Trotskyist Milmana Sokolov Milmana against the persons (in particular, me) signaling about trouble in a postgraduate study defended. His statements that it exposed the Trotskyist Milmana, are just a lie. On the contrary, he even after Milmana's arrest in the order did not call things by their proper names, and just still the manager calls Milmana "professor" and ". postgraduate study". (The order from 22.4.34 g for No. 34).

At Institute Milman was not exposed as the Trotskyist and after his arrest.

c) His protection Kaunov arrested by bodies People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs is a striking example of the relation of Sokolov to counterrevolutionary elements. In order No. 56 from 15.6.35 g. Sokolov, repeating Kaunov's statements, obviously takes him under protection. Sokolov after the Komsomol cell for a number of counterrevolutionary acts decided to expel Kaunov from ranks of the All-Union Leninist Young Communist League, having been on a Komsomol meeting, took Kaunov under the protection and this decision of the Komsomol organization failed.

The full clip of self-criticism & lt reigns in Institute with Sokolov's arrival;...>

& lt;...> Personally Livshits said to me that Sokolov gives such characteristics in People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs on students that on them will take away anyone.

A number of students accuse Sokolov of mean mockery at them.

The member of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) graduate student Gerasimyuk told the commission that her Sokolov sent to have a rest on Tsvetnoy Boulevard. It was said at presence: Obdirkin (responsible secretary of Communist Party committee), Kuznetsov (member of Communist Party committee) and member of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) Milyukov. However, on Communist Party committee the decision was made that these words were used in other sense, but this matter of taste of Communist Party committee. I write down them as they were apprehended comrade Gerasimyuk.

& lt;...> Tomsk Sokolov copies the friend on fight against party at the 8th congress of labor unions even in trifles. Tomsk after input of comrade Kaganovich in the structure of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions called in essence a strike and ceased to be for work in the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions. Sokolov too (after its began to expose and study on an asset, at party meetings, etc.) actually left Institute and is not for work.

I consider that Sokolov cannot trust education of gold fund of our country, our Soviet youth, and I raise a question of its stay in party for Regional party committee.

Member of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) Sidorov

HECTARE of the Russian Federation. F.5325. Op.1. 1204. L.120-123. Certified copy.


Statement of students of Historical and archival institute

GAU People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs of the USSR to the people's commissar of internal put the USSR L.P. Beria

On February 23, 1939

The historical and Archival Institute directly submits to the Head Archival Department which chief is comrade of MALTsEV.

Till December of last year the Head Archival Department was located in one building with Institute. Comrade

Four years work with MALTsEV in Management and in spite of the fact that is located as it is told, in one building with institute, during all the time was at institute no more than 2 times. Among students even the joke goes that comrade of MALTsEV from the 3rd floor sent the telegram to students. Meanwhile situation in institute exclusively nasty. The director of institute is certain GULEVICh, the person very suspicious.

The domesticity, a self-criticism clip, the musty atmosphere reign in institute. The faculty members are littered. The best teachers by means of GULEVIChA and from the sanction of MALTsEVA are for some reason replaced with the worst. GULEVICh strong supported the teacher of philosophy of TELEZhNIKOVA. When GULEVICh was going on vacation, it left it for itself(himself). on November 5th GULEVICh awarded TELEZhNIKOVA as great teacher, and on November 7th TELEZhNIKOV was arrested as the enemy of the people by bodies of People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs. TELEZhNIKOV the White Guard's son, two his brothers did military service Kolchak.

Living conditions of life of students very heavy. There is not enough room for the hostel. Meanwhile, when the Head Archival Department freed the floor of the building of institute, the freed room was distributed under a director's office, his deputy, etc.; with great difficulty it was succeeded to pull out under pressing under the hostel for students one room.

The director of GULEVICh appropriated the secretary of Communist Party committee RUTSKOI and together with the member of Communist Party committee - the manager. a postgraduate study KUZNETSOV manages all affairs of institute. The Communist Party committee was torn off from student's weight, did not penetrate into its needs, did not support legal requirements of students.

At the end of December of the past year two of the undersigneds - AVETISYAN and BYELIK submitted the application in which they stated a deplorable condition of institute addressed to comrade BERIA. Somehow this statement fell into hands of comrade of MALTsEVA who summoned on January 7th, 1939 AVETISYAN and began to reproach him that he submitted the application addressed to comrade BERIA, but not for it - MALTsEVA - a name. AVETISYAN answered that comrade BERIA wrote

because MALTsEV would not take all the same any measures as it - MALTsEV - had numerous signals from students of situation in institute, well knew a situation and nevertheless for 4 years made nothing to improve a condition of institute.

In May of last year comrade of MALTsEV was present at one meeting of students and was forced to run literally from a meeting, obviously, without having sustained that criticism which was developed by students. Situation remained to the same, as well as was. Then AVETISYAN wrote article to Komsomolskaya Pravda. This article was published in the newspaper on February 16th and was a subject of discussion at a general meeting of students, employees and teaching personnel of institute within 3 days - February 18 - 2 0. At a general meeting not only the facts given in article were confirmed, but many other ugly facts drawing exclusively nasty position of institute as result of inaction from the chief of the Head Archival Department of comrade of MALTsEVA were opened. T. t. MALTsEV, GULEVICh, KUZNETSOV, RUTsKIY and still someone tried to challenge the facts given in article and in performances of students in the beginning, but then were forced to recognize compliance of their reality. In the resolution adopted by the general requirement, by the way, it is written down:

"item 4. The meeting considers that the Head Archival Department as well as earlier, continues to stand and now away from the management of institute and does not take any measures to elimination of scandalous shortcomings of work of institute".

We repeatedly asked about position of institute at party and general meetings at institute, in a district committee of party, etc., however any measures to improvement of institute of t. MALTsEVYM was not accepted.

When AVETISYAN'S article was published in Komsomolskaya Pravda, GULEVICh took an intimidation position. MALTsEV tried to protect GULEVIChA, and then both of them wanted to shift all blame on the secretary of Communist Party committee RUTSKOI, absolutely weak and weak-willed person intentionally nominated by the secretary of Communist Party committee behind his shoulders GULEVICh and the company could do everything that wanted. Comrade of MALTsEV tried to be presented naive and even said on all audience: "You signal us, and we fondly thought that everything is safely".

Situation in institute continues to remain serious. Some of us repeatedly talked to t. MALTsEVYM about position of institute, and still t. MALTsEVYM was made nothing. Therefore we decided to appeal once again to you to take measures.









HECTARE of the Russian Federation. F.5325. Op.2. 3559. L.41-44. The first copy of typewriting, without signatures.


From the transcript of the message of group of students and graduate students of Historical and archival institute on reception at the deputy people's commissar of internal affairs of the USSR V.N. Merkulov

On February 23, 1939


At the end of December, 1938 I and BYELIK submitted the application addressed to the companion BERIA with statement of a number of the facts of bad work of the Historical and Archival Institute which is under authority of the Head Archival Department of People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs of the USSR.

on January 17th, 1939 managing director of the Head Archival Department of t. MALTsEV called me and began to accuse of that, - why I wrote the application addressed to comrade BERIA, but not on his name, specifying that the facts stated in the application are not true.

There were many signals of bad work of the management of institute and as handled them - I will give an example: yesterday we were in office and found out in the evening that all boxes of a table of the responsible secretary of institute of XBOCTOBA are open, and there were classified documents from People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs, from Financial Management, the press of litas. "In". In this table we found very important signal on the teacher MAIZELS written by the student of the fourth year of t. PShENITsYNYM. This report appeared in the folder with resolutions of the director of GULEVIChA, but without resolution. The student writes that the teacher in the lectures slanders the Soviet Union.

& lt;. & gt; On GULEVICH MALTSEV said: you know that TELEZhNIKOVA did not accept GULEVICh. I say that I do not know, but show the order. GULEVICh knew that TELEZhNIKOV - the son of the White Guard and was expelled from Historico-philosophical institute; it had two brothers in army at Kolchak. Then such fact: during a course of lecture TELEZhNIKOV says: "I will show you where crayfish winter" and "I in a frying pan will roast you". I said GULEVIChU it, but it says that it not your business, go and

be engaged. So all bases were to remove TELEZhNIKOVA from institute.

We wrote the application not only concerning GULEVIChA, and in general that we have very weak faculty members, for example, of DZhINChARADZE, MINKIN, KALISTRATOV which give lectures. Earlier teachers were much better, for example, SPERANSKY who was replaced by DZhINChARADZE, then it was replaced by KALISTRATOV which on behalf of institute in a state of intoxication appeared regarding the Red Army to give a lecture, he was expelled from there. Almost all the lecturer who were removed from other institutes teach at us. For example, MINKINA expelled from the Moscow regional Pedagogical Institute where he read history of the people, the Constitution. KALISTRATOVA also expelled from the Ivanovo institute and accepted at us. Then MILShTEYN expelled from party which reads at us "Middle Ages" and reads very badly, with a number of distortions. About it it was written in our statement addressed to comrade BERIA. Then it was written about bad living conditions. Linen at us changes (bed) once a month. We wrote about it to Komsomolskaya Pravda. After that it became even worse. The management of institute just artificially created discontent among students. In the morning, as a rule, there was no boiled water which appeared in hours when students are engaged at lectures and it is not necessary.

MALTsEV worked four years in the building of the hostel of institute, but students had no time, also said that it one

time from the third floor sent the telegram to students.

At MALTsEVA conversation with me concerning the application submitted addressed to comrade BERIA there were SPERANSKY, KUZNETSOV and the secretary of Communist Party committee of RUTsKIY. MALTsEV told, what all

it is incorrect and it is not necessary to write about it was.

Comrade of PANKOV.

I can confirm what was told by AVETISYAN. First, very strange faculty members - or it is people very weak which cannot teach and if communists, then or with collectings, or expelled from party. These people were accepted and accepted by the director of institute. At us, etc. directs all questions of reception, dismissal and MALTsEV knows. Here, for example, the teacher MILYUKOV teaches the history of party, was expelled from party; MILShTEYN is expelled from party too, appealed to the 17th congress, but the congress refused; the teacher of MAKCAKOB has a strict partvzyskaniye.

Then there was the fullest clip of self-criticism from the director of institute and from Communist Party committee acting through RUTSKOI and KUZNETSOV.

We very often brought up these questions, and MALTsEV perfectly knew about position of institute, and at us this situation not one year. But t. MALTsEV did not take any measures and subcontracted the management to the director. And here such situation turned out now that student's weight does not trust the director.

When there was this article, 17.2.1939 g convened a meeting of Communist Party committee, but all students and teachers came and

the general meeting of all staff of institute turned out. 18 - On February 19 the Communist Party meeting took place. The Communist Party committee and directorate tried to disprove the facts stated in article in Komsomolskaya Pravda. The director of GULEVICh said that it is slander and threatened to make responsible through prosecutor's office. At the same time the Communist Party committee tried to clamp self-criticism. 2 0.2.1939 g convened a general meeting of staff of institute. The meeting was rough, two days were required.

Comrade GRISHIN.

Ya personally I consist in this organization five years. Within three years our party organization discussed an issue that situation at us at institute in the management of Communist Party committee and directorate - the total domesticity.

We in 1937 asked about the former director SOKOLOV, he signed the platform of the 93rd. This question was raised at a party meeting. We asked that the guide of the director wrong that he together with members of Communist Party committee clamps self-criticism, reigns in institute the system of a podkarmlivaniye and subservience. And KUZNETSOV - he was the manager of a postgraduate study and the teacher of history - and MILYUKOV with foam at a mouth protected SOKOLOV, said that we are mistaken and have no right to accuse him. And when we raised a question with a request to oust SOKOLOV of the director and to take out collecting, KUZNETSOV and MILYUKOV nearly broke a meeting. Then, when checked materials, it turned out that MILYUKOV studied together with SOKOLOV at one institute, and the picture became clear. We began to ask about SOKOLOV'S removal, but to it took out only strict collecting. Then, when there was a process of the right-Trotskyist block and RYKOV said in the speech what participants of the platform of the 93rd are counter-revolutionaries, we told Communist Party committee and what you undertake? We were told that SOKOLOV is sick and is not. All of us time considered that it consists on a partucheta at us.

Then KUZNETSOV admitted that he was not right, protecting SOKOLOV, and here the day before yesterday appealed to a general meeting and then said: "You reproach me that I protected SOKOLOV, and he to this time is a party member and from him

punishment is remitted". In what situation did we come to be ? It appears,

members of Communist Party committee went to the Commission of Party Control, there remitted punishment from SOKOLOV and imperceptibly struck off the register at us. A number of students who noticed over the years an outrage was called slanderers.

When SOKOLOV was moved away, the new director of OVChINNIKOV which conducted the line on removing SOKOLOV'S backs came. And here KUZNETSOV, MILYUKOV and SULEEV saw that they will be removed from institute too and began mad persecution against OVChINNIKOVA.

The last also made, in the turn, much wrong in

relation educational works. OVChINNIKOVA moved away, SMITHS and

Remained SULEEV and play the main violin at institute. The graduate student of SULEEV received year of a delay because combated against OVChINNIKOVA.

Later OVChINNIKOVA the director of institute was appointed by MALTSEV GULEVICH. We were indignant all the time why our Communist Party committee was not engaged in party work, was not engaged in education of students.

When the Communist Party committee gathered, everything came down to showing that everything is quiet. When at a party meeting put the report of the director of institute of GULEVIChA, there were performances of party members about serious malfunctions and shortcomings of work of institute. KUZNETSOV and SULEEV broke criticism, on twenty times proposed, amendments and tried to obtain that they adopted the resolution on that work satisfactory. They already foreknew about all signals. When article was published in Komsomolskaya Pravda, they nervously reacted to it. They said that it is the sheer slander, next day called edition that article absolutely incorrect. Then, when called expanded Communist Party committee and all students came, the fullest lead of Communist Party committee from the mass of students came to light. Business reached that the members of Communist Party committee sitting in presidium were nervous, tried to break a meeting. They did not want to allow to act to some companions, in particular the former student comrade of SOFINOVU who terminated this year and wanted to act. They knew that he will criticize them and did not want to pledge him the words. Only after intervention of the secretary of the Moscow Committee of Komsomol of t. SEDOVA, SOFINOVU pledged the word.

& lt;...>

Comrade EPSTEIN.

Our management of institute does not hold authority with students at all.

After we turned into maintaining People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs, no improvement is felt, there are no changes at all, GAU made nothing for improvement of institute. The director heartlessly treats requirements of students and it causes discontent. The institute cannot be in such situation, there are no audiences now, students where undress, there and are engaged. Also setting of study is unsatisfactory: most of teachers very weak, simply are not suitable for teaching at institute, and from us train workers of the ideological front therefore they have to strengthen Marxist-Leninist education of youth especially now. The director of institute is not a friend of youth and is not engaged in education of youth, and we have all opportunities for this purpose, cht

Steven Jackson
Other scientific works: