Index
Contents: This Issue
Search CHNN
CHNN Home
The History of the Comintern in the Light of New Documents
Since the late 1980s and particularly since 1991 the Comintern Archive in Moscow has been opened up to both Russian and western researchers. How has this unprecedented access to the vast holdings of the Archive enriched our understanding of Comintern history? What do we know now that we didn't even five or six years ago? How have Russian and western historians differed in their methodological approaches to the Comintern and its relations with the 'national sections'?. What are the pitfalls, if any, of relying on the Comintern Archive as the prime source for the history of the inter-war international communist movement? These are the main questions I want to address in this paper.
First, the studies of Russian scholars in the late 1980s and early 1990s emphasised the pernicious influence of Stalin and Stalinism on the Comintern. The early Leninist phase was not neglected, certainly, but the bulk of the work focused on the later period, 1924-43. The nature of united front tactics, the origins of the sectarian 'Third Period', the impact of the Terror and of the Nazi-Soviet Pact loomed large in this re-evaluation of the Stalinist Comintern. One of the key sources to have emerged from the Comintern Archive is the diary of Georgy Dimitrov, the Bulgarian Secretary of the International, 1934-43. Dimitrov's entries provide an invaluable glimpse into the mental landscape of Stalin at the time of the Terror, his disdain for foreign communist leaders and his determination to crush all 'enemies'. We now know more about the mechanisms of the Terror process in the Comintern, about its victims (especially in the ECCI apparatus), and about the sheer scale of the NKVD's 'investigations' into suspect foreign communists. We also have a better understanding of the contradictory role of Comintern leaders in the whole bloody process — from outright complicity to defence of the innocent.
Whereas Russian experts have tended to focus on the central institutions and organs of the Comintern, it is fair to say that many western historians come to the study of the Comintern from an interest in their native communist parties. Their starting point is often an awareness that communist activists, and party leaders to a certain extent, were able to carve out a measure of autonomy in implementing the 'Moscow line'. To be sure, scope for local initiative narrowed massively in the Stalinist thirties, but even so national party bosses were able to influence the framing of Comintern strategy. The best example, of course, is the 'turn' of the 1934-35 to the Popular Front orientation. There is a near consensus that PCF leader Maurice Thorez played a pivotal role in extending the united front into the Popular Front in the autumn of 1934 and that Stalin merely gave the go-ahead once he had decided on collective security with the western powers.
These differing methodologies indicate the possible pitfalls of relying on the Comintern Archive. In my opinion the Archive should not be regarded as a bottomless Pandora's box for the simple reason that the most important decisions may well have been taken over the telephone or in private conversation, and thus never found their way into any archive. Then there is the problem of authenticity of the documents, particularly in the Stalinist period. Can we be sure that what we read on the page is an accurate rendition of what was actually said at Comintern congresses and ECCI plena? Finally, the very nature of the Comintern Archive may distort our understanding of the international communist movement. By concentrating on the central decision-making and control mechanisms in Moscow there is the danger of underestimating the relative autonomy of the parties in the actual implementation of policy. The Stalinists in the ECCI may decide strategies, but local activists on the ground in Sheffield, the Ruhr or the mountains of Yenan have to carry out those strategies. To what extent were they able to adapt or mould Comintern directives to suit indigenous realities?
