Politburo And The Church, Kremlin Archives

N. Petrovsky, S.G. Petrov

On confiscation of church valuables

Letter from L. D. Trotsky to the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) with proposals to organize the confiscation of church valuables, with amendments by the Politburo. March 17-20, 1922

No. 23-14 * ¹⁵

March 17-20, 1922

ANNEX TO PROTOCOL No. 114, clause 6 of the MEETING OF THE POLITBURO of the Central Committee of the RCP dated 20.III - 22

1- In the center and in the provinces, create secret governing commissions for the confiscation of valuables similar to the Moscow commission of Sapronov-Unshlikht. All these commissions must certainly include either the secretary of the Gubkom, or the head of the agitation-propaganda department.

NOTE: In the most important provinces to establish the nearest time of withdrawal, in less important - later, after information about the withdrawal in Petrograd [] and other central provinces. distributed throughout Russia.

2. The Central Commission should consist of the chairman, comrade Kalinin, Yakovlev and Sapronov (after comrade Sapronov's departure, the commission should be included as his deputy, comrade Beloborodov, who should be in the loop no later than Wednesday 22.III [)], t. Unshlikht, Krasikova (deputy] [-] Galkin), Vinokurov, Bazilevich ¹ *.

3. In provincial cities, the commissioner of the division, brigade or the head of the political department is involved in the commission.

4. Along with these secret preparatory commissions, there are official commissions or tables under the famine relief committees for formal acceptance of values, negotiations with groups of believers, etc. Strictly observe that the national composition of these official commissions does not give rise to chauvinist agitation.

5. In each province, appoint an unofficial week of agitation and preliminary organization for the confiscation of valuables (of course, without announcing such a week). To do this, select the best agitators and, in particular, the military. The agitation should be given a character that is alien to any struggle with religion and the church, but is entirely aimed at helping the starving.

6. At the same time, to split the clergy, showing a decisive initiative in this respect and taking under the protection of state power those priests who openly advocate expropriation.

7. Of course, our agitation and the agitation of loyal priests should in no way merge, but in our agitation we refer to the fact that a significant part of the clergy has opened a struggle against the criminal stingy attitude to values on the part of inhuman and greedy "princes of the church."

8. For the entire duration of the campaign, especially during the week, it is necessary to ensure full awareness of everything that is happening in different groups of clergy, believers, etc.

9. In the event that bourgeois merchant elements, former officials, etc. were found to be the organizers of the performance, he was the boss. If necessary, especially if the Black Hundred agitation went too far to organize a manifestation with the participation of the garrison with weapons with placards: "Church values for saving the lives of the starving," etc.

10. If possible, do not touch prominent priests until the end of the campaign, but tacitly, but officially (on receipt, through the Gubpolitotdely) warn them that in case of any excesses they will answer first.

11. Along with campaigning work, organizational work should go: prepare the appropriate apparatus for the very accounting and seizure in such a way that this work was carried out as soon as possible. It is best to start with a withdrawal from a church headed by a loyal priest. If not, start with the most significant temple, carefully preparing all the details. (Communists should be on all neighboring streets, avoiding congestion, a reliable part, preferably CHON, should be in the vicinity, etc.).

12. Wherever possible, release in churches, at meetings, in the barracks of representatives of the hungry, demanding the prompt confiscation of valuables.

13. To allow the representatives of the loyal clergy in the provinces and in the center to take into account the confiscated church valuables during prayers, widely informing that the population will have full opportunity to ensure that not a single grain of church property will receive any other purpose than helping the starving.

14. In the case of a proposal from groups of believers to ransom for valuables, declare that the issue should be considered in each individual case in the Central Committee of Pomgol, in no case suspending the work on the seizure. Experience in the provinces shows that such negotiations are conducted without serious intentions to buy back and only introduce uncertainty and demoralization.

15. In Moscow, the work must go ^{on in the} established order, in order to begin the withdrawal no later than March 31st.

16. I believe that for Petrograd it would be possible to set approximately the same time limit by agreement with Comrade Zinoviev, in no case forcing too much a campaign and without resorting to the use of force, until the entire operation is politically and organizationally fully secured.

17. With regard to the provinces, the Gubkoms must, on the basis of this instruction, in accordance with the time appointed] in Moscow and under the control of the Central] Commission, set their own term, on the one hand, providing thorough preparation, and on the other hand, without delaying the case by any one extra day and so that the most important lips. let's go first.

17.III.22 g.

L. TROTSKY.

- L. 17-18. Certified typewritten copy of the 1930s

- APRF, f. 3, op. 1, d.266, l. 14-17. Draft minutes of the Politburo meeting. Typewritten original of the original document; signature - facsimile. Above the text of the document, the mailing address is printed: “TO COMRADE KAMENEV . TO COMRADE

MOLOTOV. TO COMRADE SAPRONOV ". On l. 14 at the top is a handwritten note about the document's belonging to the proceedings of the Politburo meeting, minutes No. 114, item 6 of March 20, 1922 (No. 2318). Here is another handwritten note: "Appendix] 114, p. 6". Above right, a typewritten stamp: “p. secret. " Stamp of the Secret Archives of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) with an inventory number.

The document has the following handwritten revision:

1) on l. 14 - a) crossed out at the beginning of the letter the heading "On the issue of confiscation of valuables" and the preamble:

“With regard to the confiscation of valuables, it was mainly done by the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, everything in order to disrupt the campaign. Commissioner of the Presidium, Comrade Lebedev, has never gathered a commission during my vacation. The seizure decree was issued and published completely irrespective of the course of preparation and turned out to be a blank shot, warning the priests of the need for serious preparation for a rebuff. The absence of any kind of work for the central troika (Lebedev, Krasikov, Sosnovsky) led to complete discord in the provinces. I think that the matter can be improved by placing it in the center of the party's attention. I propose the following specific activities. "

b) in item 1. before the "provinces" is inscribed above the line "most important", then the word is crossed out. At the end of the paragraph, added: "note", but the text of the note itself is missing, so the original version of the paragraph remained unchanged.

c) the text of clause 2 was revised several times. The original typewritten text:

“2. The central commission could consist of a member of the secretariat of the Central Committee. or the head of the agitprop. department Ts.K., from t. Sapronov, Unshlikht, Krasikov, Vinokurov and Bazilevich. The commission has a bureau working daily (representative of Ts.K., Sapronov, Unshlikht). The commission meets once a week with my participation. "

Handwritten editing of this paragraph was done first in the text above the line, then across the left margin l. 14, then the text of the paragraph was corrected in a separate clean sheet. 17, where it got a form that coincides with the published final (d. 23, l. 17).

Above the line, instead of the crossed out “could” it says “should”, instead of the crossed out “member of the secretariat of the Central Committee. or the head of the agit-prop. department Ts.K. " written "from the chairman - comrade Kalinin, Yakovlev", in brackets (bureau composition) instead of the crossed out "representative of the Central Committee." it says "Yakovlev", after the surname "Sapronov" is written "deputy] White-bearded", after the surname "Unshlikht" is written "Galkin". At the end of the text, "with my participation" is corrected to "with the participation of comrade Trotsky."Placed in the final version in brackets, the text about Sapronov's departure and about his deputy Beloborodov: “(after departure ... 22.III)” they first began to write after the words “v. Sapronov " above the second line of item 2, but since there was not enough space, they moved it to the left margin, where it was written twice - the first text ended with the surname " v. Beloborodov ”, for the second time the words about the date of its readiness were added. All three of these texts are crossed out - since the final text about Sapronov and Beloborodov, which did not differ from the text No. 23-14 published above, was written on fol. 17. In the original text of paragraph 2 on l. 14 on the composition of the commission above the line after the name of “Krasikova” was added “(deputy] Galkin)”;in the same place, after the surname of “Bazilevich” , “t. Yakovlev, obliging him to work correctly. " This text about Yakovlev was crossed out above the line and moved to the left margin: "to appoint comrade Kalinin as chairman of the commission, and comrade Yakovlev as the representative of the Central Committee in the commission, obliging him to work correctly." This text about Yakovlev ("a representative ... to work") was repeated during the final formulation of the text of paragraph 2 on p. 17, but then it was crossed out, and the name of Yakovlev on fol. 17 is inscribed above the line after Kalinin's surname. The original text on the Bureau of the Central Commission was not crossed out on l. 14, but on l. 17 did not hit.

2) on l. 16 - a) In the original text of clause 17, 2 insertions were made: after the words “in accordance with the deadline set in Moscow” added above the line “and under the control of the Central [al] Commission”; at the end of the text, after the words “not for a single extra day”, it is written “and in such a way that the most important provinces go first”.

On the left margin with the same hand and ink opposite to item 17 of the litter: "Enter from the minutes]", opposite to item 2 of the litter: "Write off to the minutes."

For the list of those present, see No. 23-17.

- RCKHIDNI, f. 5, op. 2, d.48, l. 16-17. A typewritten copy of the original document at that time, made at the Bureau of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) and certified by Assistant Secretary of the Politburo Sh. N. Manucharyants. Above the text of the document, the mailing address is printed: “TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE POLITBURO FOR INFORMATION vt. Lenin . Stalin, Zinoviev ". There is also the stamp "Comrade Lenin's Archive" with the handwritten date "25.IV.22" and the entry number. Handwritten outgoing number of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) with the date "19 / III-22".

- Ibid, l. 19. An uncertified typewritten copy of that time, made for V. I. Lenin. At the top is the stamp "Comrade Lenin's Archives" with the handwritten date "26.IV.22" and the incoming number.

- Ibid, f. 17, op. 3, d.283, l. 6-7. Another uncertified copy of the same typewritten bookmark.

- GARF, f. 1235, op. 140, d.59, l. 69. Another uncertified copy of the same typewritten bookmark.

- CA FSB, f. 1, op. 6, d.410a, l. 13, 14. Typewritten copy of that time, made at the Bureau of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) and certified by Assistant Secretary of the Politburo KT Sverdlova. A footnote to paragraph 2) is included in the main text. The unprinted letters of the left edge of the text (from 5 to 10 letters) of paragraphs 13) and 14) are inscribed by KT Sverdlova.

- Published according to the copy of the RCKHIDNI, f. 17, op. 3, d.283, l. 6-7 with spelling corrections: Izvestia of the Central Committee of the CPSU. 1990. No. 4. S. 194-195.

Notes and Comments:

The file contains a note by T. V. Sapronov, sent to V. M. Molotov at 12 o'clock on March 20, 1922 with a request “today to put up for discussion by the Politburo Comrade Trotsky on the question of the seizure of church [church] valuables []. " On the note from the note about the document's belonging to the office work of the Politburo meeting, minutes No. 115, item 12 of March 22, 1922 (No. 2322). Stamp of the Secret Archives of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) with an inventory number. (L. 33).

¹* The Commission has a bureau working daily (Yakovlev ³ *, Sapronov) Deputy [resident] Beloborodov ³ *, Unshlikht, Galkin. Once a week the Commission meets with the participation of t. Trotsky ¹⁶ .

²* Inserted above the line by hand.

³^* So in the document follows Yakovlev, Sapronov (deputy] Beloborodov).

⁴* Follows the perfect preparatory as deciphered in Yekaterinburg.

^fifteenThe final version of this directive of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), which came to the localities in the form of a resolution of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) of March 20, 1922, was sent on March 22 and March 23, 1922 in a slightly different version than the document adopted by the supreme party body (No. 23 -fourteen). The recently published texts of this directive, received in 1922 in Yekaterinburg and Ivanovo-Voznesensk, allow us to note the following serious discrepancies. At the beginning of the document, sent, as usual, signed by Molotov, the local authorities were informed that this decree, in addition to the telegram (for Ivanovo-Voznesensk - telegrams) of March 19, 1922 (No. 23-15) “is communicated for immediate and unswerving execution ". Further, in the first paragraph, the words "like the Moscow commission of Sapronov-Unshlikht" were omitted (the local authorities should not have known about the existence of such a commission). The list of members of the provincial CICC at the end of this paragraph has been expanded to include the persons listed in paragraph three. Thus, as an independent paragraph 3 was canceled, merging into the text of the first paragraph. Point number two has completely disappeared: it was considered inappropriate to report its content to the localities. The fourth item received the second number. Instead of the affirmative “are” in the first sentence of the now second paragraph, the prescriptive “create” appeared. Items five, six, seven, and twelve have been merged into one at number three. Points eight, nine and ten are number four. Items eleven and thirteen are at number five. Moreover, after the text of paragraph eleven, it was added: “The confiscation of valuables shall be carried out primarily in city churches, starting with the richest. To the peasant churches, poor parishes should be treated with caution and thoroughly clarified the situation. " Clause 6 of the directive to the localities was rewritten: “In those provinces and districts where, according to general conditions and completely⁴ * not prepared ⁴* seizure of valuables can be carried out or is already being carried out without the risk of excesses, etc., to carry out the seizure to the end under the guidance and responsibility of the provincial committees. In the same provinces, where the preparatory work was insufficient, where the provincial committees, assessing the situation, will come to the conclusion that there are dangers of excesses, postpone the seizure until the party congress, where representatives of this province, together with the central commission for seizure, will set the required time. To continue preparatory, agitation and organizational work in all provinces with all energy. " In part - this is a revised seventeenth paragraph of the text of the directive of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), the PB decree of March 16 (No. 23-10) was also taken into account. Under clause seven of the directive, the text of clause fourteen of the Politburo directive is included. Points fifteen and sixteen, concerning the seizure of church valuables in Moscow and Petrograd are absent in the directive to the localities. But a new text was added to paragraph eight: “The Central Committee once again emphasizes the absolute secrecy of all preparatory organizational work. To inform the Central Commission on a regular basis about the progress of work, terms, measures taken ”.

Unfortunately, neither in the thematic files of the archives of the Politburo, nor in the files of the archives of the draft minutes of the meetings of the Politburo were found materials reflecting the process of processing the directive adopted by the Politburo into a directive of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) in the field. Although, undoubtedly, a number of new clauses included in the directive after the revision prescribe to the local authorities a more restrained, and even “sparing” regime for the campaign of confiscation of church values. In particular, the text added to the new paragraph five on the removal of primarily from the city's wealthy churches. Apparently, this significant amendment was made under the influence of the decision of the Commission "for the registration and concentration of values" (Minutes No. 8, p. 4), the head of which was L. D. Trotsky (see P-51 and comm. 48 to the Appendix ). However, L.D. Trotsky (under the influence of V.I.Lenin's letter of March 19, 1922, No. (No. 23-16)?) Changed his point of view to the exact opposite. Only VM Molotov tried to defend a less radical regime for the removal of valuables from poor peasant churches (see No. 23-16, 23-22, 23-23). LD Trotsky sharply resisted at the same time, receiving support from the Politburo (see No. 23-24). The question arises: were the members of the Politburo informed about the revision of the text of the directive of the Politburo approved by them when Molotov sent cipher telegrams of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) to the localities? (Moreover, the cipher telegram with the corrected text was sent to Yekaterinburg on March 23, 1922, and adopted on March 24, 1922, that is, after the Politburo adopted a resolution recognizing Molotov's position on the seizure of church valuables as unacceptable (No. 23-24).) This assumption requires additional research.

All the texts of the points of the Politburo directive to the places cited in this commentary are given according to the published cipher telegram that arrived in Ivanovo-Voznesensk. They have minor discrepancies, practically not affecting the semantic content, with the published text of the cipher telegram that came to Yekaterinburg.

See: History of Russia. 1917-1940. Reader. Ekaterinburg, 1993.S. 226228; Also. Chelyabinsk, 1994.S. 226-228; Badelin V.I.Gold of the

Church. Historical sketches and modernity. Ivanovo, 1993.S. 133135; The chosen vessel: Collection of documents on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church. 1888-1932. SPb., 1994.S. 308-310.

^sixteenThe minutes of the meetings of the Bureau of the Central Commission for the confiscation of church valuables have been preserved, starting with minutes No. 1 of March 21, 1922 up to No. 16 of May 12, 1922 (GARF, f. 1235, op. 140, d. 59, l. 32-47 ). Excerpt from Minutes No. 14 see No. 23-44. Excerpt from minutes No. 17 see No. P-130. The first two meetings were attended by: Sapronov, Yakovlev, Unshlikht, Vinokurov and Krasikov, at the third meeting on March 27, 1922, Medved joined them, and Sapronov was replaced by Beloborodov, who became the chairman of the Bureau - GARF, f. 1235, op. 140, d.59, l. 32-34. From the fourth minutes of March 29, 1922, Bazilevich began to be noted in the column “Attended”, although already at the second meeting of the Bureau on March 24, 1922, two of his reports were heard - ibid., P. 35. Introduced at the suggestion of Trotsky by a resolution of the Politburo of 02.04 1922.

Various persons were sometimes invited to the Bureau meetings in connection with the discussion of individual agenda items. Thus, at the meeting on March 29, 1922 (minutes No. 4), he made a "Report on the seizure of church [church] valuables in Kaluga, comrade Osipov." On this report, an important resolution was adopted in a sharp dispute between this Commission and other bodies that carried out the seizure with Glavmusey (N.I. P-14). The Glavmuseum, announcing a number of churches and monasteries as a whole, with all their property under its protection, and understanding clause 6 as declaring the right of veto of the Glavmuseum to confiscate any items of historical or artistic value by Pomgol, sought to drastically reduce the scale of confiscation and destruction (melting ) church values. From the very first meeting, the Bureau of the Central Commission waged a successful struggle against this position of the Glavmuseum. According to Osipov's report, a resolution was adopted stating that all items falling under clause 6 of the instruction should not be left in functioning churches, but immediately transferred from there to the provincial museums (GARF, f. 1235, op. 140, d. 59, l. 35). According to the same report, it was decided to withdraw, contrary to the meaning of the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of 16 (23) .02 1922, from the functioning churches and "superfluous low-value items" in order to replace them in other churches objects made of precious metals. Directive of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee dated 02.04 1922 about this, see No. 23-36. 1235, op. 140, d.59, l. 35). According to the same report, it was decided to withdraw, contrary to the meaning of the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of 16 (23) .02, 1922, from the functioning churches and "superfluous low-value items" in order to replace them in other churches objects made of precious metals. Directive of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee dated 02.04 1922 about this, see No. 23-36. 1235, op. 140, d.59, l. 35). According to the same report, it was decided to withdraw, contrary to the meaning of the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of 16 (23) .02, 1922, from the functioning churches and "superfluous low-value items" in order to replace them in other churches objects made of precious metals. Directive of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee dated 02.04 1922 about this, see No. 23-36.

The fierce struggle with the Glavmuseum was reflected in many minutes of the Bureau of the Central CICC, starting from the first. At the first meeting on March 21, 1922, a proposal and a special statement by N. I. Trotskaya on amendments to clause 6 of the instruction, expanding the control rights of the Glavmuseum, were discussed (see No. P-71). But the decision was made exactly the opposite - no additions to be accepted; on the contrary, it was especially emphasized that “the absence of representatives of the

Glavmuseum and the Gubmuseum did not stop the seizure” (GARF, f. 1235, op. 140, d. 59, l. 32-33). Later, this decree was included in the "Rules and Procedure for the Work of District and Uyezd Subcommissions on the Seizure of Church Valuables" (ibid., Fol. 4v., P. 6.); it has been quoted many times in conflict situations.

When this conflict between the department of N.I.Trotskaya and the chief assistants of L.D. March 29, 1922 decided to develop additional instructions on church items of museum value - GARF, f. 1235, op. 140, d.59, l. 35ob .; N.I.Trotskaya insisted on this, having drawn up her 16-2640 draft of such an instruction. But the Bureau of the Central CICC entrusted this work to completely different people - Krasikov and Bazilevich; later, on April 10, 1922, it was instructed to finally approve the instruction to Beloborodov and Krasikov (GARF, f. 1235, op. 140, d. 59, l. 39). It is therefore understandable that when, finally, this additional instruction was distributed on April 27, 1922 on behalf of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, signed by Kalinin (see. No. P-114), the interests of the Glavmuseum were taken into account in it even worse than in the resolution of the Bureau of the Central CICC of March 29, 1922 according to Osipov's report (protocol No. 4, p. 2) - now, before the examination, disputed things should not have been sent to the Glavmuseum , and in Gokhran. And the threatening words of L.D.Trotsky in a letter dated March 22, 1922 about counterrevolutionary ecclesiastical sentiments in the Glavmuseum in connection with the confiscation of valuables turned into a harsh trial over a group of N.I. Tikhon in the Central Asia FSB, house 1780). The Bureau of the Central CICC did a lot for such a finale: at several meetings of the Bureau, the question was raised about the counter-revolutionary nature of the activities of the Glavmuseum experts who save church values from confiscation in the Gokhran - GARF, f. 1235, op. 140, d.59, l. 39, 44, 46. The same file No. 59 also contains a number of documents related to the attempts of the Glavmuseum to restrict the seizure of church items of museum value, and with the energetic resistance of the Bureau of the Central CICC to these attempts - ibid, l. 91-97.

The Bureau of the Central CICC has also repeatedly dealt with the acute problem of responding to the numerous requests of believers to replace the sacred vessels and salaries of revered icons to be removed with an equal amount of bread or precious metals. Replacement with bread was immediately strictly prohibited, and replacement with precious metals, officially authorized by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (see No. P-35), was subject to all sorts of restrictions by the Bureau. The main ones were formulated already at the second meeting of the Bureau on March 24, 1922, when a special “secret instruction was adopted to guide the Commissions for the confiscation of church valuables” (created along with the open instruction, for the text see: GARF, f. 1235, op. 140, d. 59, l. 9); it was decided to allow such a replacement only in exceptional cases and, moreover, for each individual subject - with the special permission of the Pomgol Central Committee (ibid., fol. 33; a telegram from the All-Russian Central Executive Committee signed by MI Kalinin about these conditions was sent on the eve of March 23, 1922 - see No. P-56). The Bureau of Central CICC has repeatedly returned to this problem of replacement and later. The already accepted restrictions on the replacement soon seemed insufficient, and on April 30, 1922 (Protocol No. 6, p. 3, erroneously designated in the document as p. 2), the Bureau decided that the replacement “should be made in the amount of the value of the item left and should be made immediately” - in the same place, l. 37. It was soon clarified that “in terms of value” means that when replacing, it was necessary to compensate not only the weight of the gold or silver item, but also its artistic and historical value. In reality, local CICCs often demanded when replacing gold or silver in double or triple size - No. P-139. 03 1922 - see No. P-56). The Bureau of Central CICC has repeatedly returned to this problem of replacement and later. The already accepted restrictions on the replacement soon seemed insufficient, and on April 30, 1922 (Protocol No. 6, p. 3, erroneously designated in the document as p. 2), the Bureau decided that the replacement “should be made in the amount of the value of the item left and should be made immediately” - in the same place, l. 37. It was soon clarified that “in terms of value” meant that when replacing, it was necessary to compensate not only the weight of the gold or silver item, but also its artistic and historical value. In reality, local CICCs often demanded when replacing gold or silver in double or triple size - No. P-139. 03 1922 - see No. P-56). The Bureau of Central CICC has repeatedly returned to this problem of replacement and later. The already accepted restrictions on the replacement soon seemed insufficient, and on April 30, 1922 (Protocol No. 6, p. 3, erroneously designated in the document as p. 2), the Bureau decided that the replacement “should be made in the amount of the value of the item left and should be made immediately” - in the same place, l. 37. It was soon clarified that “in terms of value” meant that when replacing, it was necessary to compensate not only the weight of the gold or silver item, but also its artistic and historical value. In reality, local CICCs often demanded when replacing gold or silver in double or triple size - No. P-139. 04 1922 (Minutes No. 6, p. 3, erroneously designated in the document as p. 2), the Bureau decided that the replacement “should be made in the amount of the cost of the item left and should be entered immediately” - ibid, l. 37. It was soon clarified that “in terms of value” meant that when replacing, it was necessary to compensate not only the weight of the gold or silver item, but also its artistic and historical value. In reality, local CICCs often demanded when replacing gold or silver in double or triple size - No. P-139. 04 1922 (Minutes No. 6, p. 3, erroneously designated in the document as p. 2), the Bureau decided that the replacement “should be made in the amount of the value of the item left and should be entered immediately” - ibid., L. 37. It was soon clarified that “in terms of value” meant that when replacing, it was necessary to compensate not only the weight of the gold or silver item, but also its artistic and historical value. In reality, local CICCs often demanded when replacing gold or silver in double or triple size - No. P-139. that when replacing, it was necessary to compensate not only the weight of the gold or silver object, but also its artistic and historical value. In reality, local CICCs often demanded when replacing gold or silver in double or triple size - No. P-139. that when replacing, it was necessary to compensate not only the weight of the gold or silver object, but also its artistic and historical value. In reality, local CICCs often demanded when replacing gold or silver in double or triple size - No. P-139.

At its fourth meeting on March 29, 1922, the Bureau encountered a problem that had not long before given rise to heated polemics in the Politburo. The Bureau considered the request of the Pskov CICC, which reported on the petitions of believers "to leave the vestments in poor villages." In his note on the letter of V. I. Lenin dated 19.03 1922 (No. 23-16) V. I. Molotov, proceeding from the official interpretation of the goals of the entire campaign for confiscation, suggested extending the action of the campaign only to those “provinces and cities .. where there are really great values. " On March 22, 1922, Molotov passed an amendment to the PB decree, requiring absolutely no seizures in churches that do not have "any significant values" - Nos. 23-22 and 23-23. But Trotsky was not at this meeting (and in general there were less than half of the PB). Already at the next PB meeting on March 23, 1922. Trotsky achieved the abolition of this amendment by Molotov (No. 23-24). The Bureau of the Central CICC, by the Pskov telegram, made an impeccable formal decision, which really meant a refusal: “Propose the Pskov

Commission to follow the instructions of the Politburo” - GARF, f. 1235, op. 140, d.59, l. 35-rev.

In connection with the difficult problems of a possible aggravation of interethnic relations during the seizure, which greatly worried the Politburo and, in particular, Lenin and Trotsky, the Bureau of the Central CICC, taking into account the Smolensk events, at the sixth meeting on 03.04 1922 decided: “2. Suggest the GPU to pay special attention to the situation in the Western Provinces in connection with the confiscation of church [church] valuables. Confirm the resolution of the Commission on the procedure for seizure: first of all, seizure should be made in Jewish synagogues, in the second - in Orthodox churches and in the third - in Catholic churches ”- ibid, l. 37. See also the minutes of the Bureau No. 7, paragraph 6 - comm. 82 to the appendix.

Although the Central CICC was not supposed to deal with the problems of formalizing the renovation movement and the split of the ROC - this was the sphere of exclusive interests of the GPU, as Dzerzhinsky demanded back in 1921 - such problems inevitably arose at the meetings of the Bureau of this commission, Trotsky's brainchild. On April 10, 1922, the Bureau of the Central CICC considered Pomgol's proposals on specific forms of implementation of Trotsky's initiative to involve the "Soviet" clergy in Pomgol's work, and above all Bishop Antonin Granovsky (PB decree on this dated April 13, see No. P-102). At the same time, to strengthen the work on the confiscation of valuables in Petrograd, the renovation priests Rusanov and Dedovsky were sent there - GARF, f. 1235, op. 140, d.59, l. 39-rev. See also the decision of the Moscow CICC - No. P-31.

In contrast to the Glavmuseum, in the field of vision of the Central CICC, judging by the minutes of the meetings, there were practically no separate, even outstanding, churches. It is all the more remarkable that two exceptions to this rule relate to the famous monuments of church architecture destroyed during the Soviet era and restored in the 1990s: the Cathedral of Christ the Savior and the Iberian Chapel. On 05/04/1922, it was decided that a revision of how fully valuables were removed from the Cathedral of Christ the Savior was necessary. For this purpose, Krasikov was instructed to organize a special commission of representatives of the NCJ, the GPU, the Moscow CICC and the Pomgol Central Committee; all work was proposed to be completed within 7 days. On the same day and at several subsequent meetings, the Bureau of the Central CICC dealt with the issue of the loss of valuables from the Iberian Chapel, hearing the reports of the GPU on the progress of the investigation (protocol No. 13, p. 6) - GARF, f. 1235, op. 140, d.59, l. 44; see also l. 45, 47. Even before this incident, on April 12, 1922, a general resolution of the Bureau was adopted - “henceforth, all cases of thefts and robberies in churches in connection with the confiscation of church [church] churches [are] should be conducted by the GPU,” and not by the threat. Let us recall that this included any attempts by the clergy and laity to conceal the values of the church from seizure (Minutes No. 9, p. 2) - ibid., L. 40.