No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Yugoslav-Russian Dispute and its Implications
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2011
Extract
The Royal Institute of International Affairs has made available almost all of that correspondence between the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the U. S. S. R. which culminated in the open break between Tito and Moscow and between the Yugoslav Communist Party and the sister parties associated in the Communist Information Bureau.
The letters are most revealing. Not only do they give us a picture of the dispute, much clearer than we could glean from previous accusations and counter-accusations; their tone and material also provide a valuable insight into the workings of international communism. Here we have an instance of a “live” dispute within the highest circles of international communism rather than a case of resurrected quarrels from the past. There is no doubt as to the authenticity of the documents concerned. For once we have in our grasp material of first class importance and relevance.
- Type
- Review Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1949
References
1 Two Yugoslav letters, those of March 18, and May 20, 1948, referred to in the correspondence are missing in the collection.
2 Quoted in The Soviet-Yugoslav Dispute, p. 35.
3 Quoted ibid., p. 39.
4 The letter of C. P. S. U., March 27, in ibid., p. 12.
5 Ibid., p. 15.
6 See ibid., p. 18.
7 In the attacks of the Russian press and the Cominform's organ, For A Lasting Peace, these four names have been joined together while other prominent Yugoslav leaders have been usually and significantly not mentioned.
8 “Kardelj said he would like the Soviet Union to regard them, not as representatives of another country, capable of solving questions independently, but as representatives of one of the future Soviet republics, and the C. P. Y. as a part of the All-Union Communist Party; that is, that our relations should be based on the prospect of Yugoslavia becoming in the future a constituent part of the U. S. S. R.” Soviet ambassador, quoted in Soviet letter of May 4, 1948, ibid., p. 38.
9 Ibid., p. 19.
10 Ibid., p. 31.
11 Ibid., P. 52. It would be interesting but fruitless to speculate who actually composed the Russian part of the correspondence. The Russian letters are straightforward and blunt, and their authors are obviously fond of historical and military analogies and examples. It would not be surprising if they were actually composed by the highest element of the Soviet hierarchy.
12 See For A Lasting Peace, November 10, 1947.
13 “We do not flee from criticism about questions of principle, but in this matter we feel so unequal that it is impossible for us to have this matter decided now by the Cominform. Even before we were informed, the nine Parties received your first letter and took their stand in resolutions.” Tito and Kardelj in their letter of May 17, 1948, The Soviet-Yugoslav Dispute, p. 53.
14 Ibid., p. 42.
15 Popov, N. N.: Ocherk Istorii Vsesoiuznoy Kommunisticheskoy Partii, 3rd edition, Moscow, 1927, p. 296.Google Scholar
16 Ibid., pp. 302–303.
17 July 15, 1948.
18 The Soviet-Yugoslav Dispute, p. 49.
19 Ibid., p. 26.
20 Ibid., p. 66.
21 Ibid., p. 45.
22 Ibid., 43.
23 Typical of this fact is a most notable statement. In its letter of May 4, 1948, the Central Committee of the C. P. S. U. writes: “In his time Trotsky also rendered revolutionary service ….” ibid., p. 52. No man in public life in Russia, no Soviet historian, would have dared to make this statement in the past twenty years.
24 They are found in For A Lasting Peace, November 10 and December 1, 1947.
25 Of course, a thing like this works both ways. Gomulka at the time of his removal from the post of the Secretary-General of the Polish Workers' (Communist) party was accused of having evidenced “nationalist deviations” right after the September meeting.