Another look at the Sisson forgeries and their background

Abstract

offices of the German Government in Petrograd. Sisson's commentary on the meaning of the papers spelled it out unequivocally: the Bolsheviks were Germany's paid agents. In the ensuing controversy over the authenticity of the documents, the debaters tended to make judgments according to their political inclinations. The collection was subjected to serious scrutiny only twice: in 1940, by S. Mel'gunov2 and in 1956, by G. Kennan.3 Kennan traced the origins of the different parts of Sisson's purchase, analysed their language and technical aspects, such as lettering, seals, and handwriting, and tested the 68 items for their general and specific historical plausibility. He demonstrated that the papers were not what Sisson had believed them to be and identified the probable forger as Anton Martynovich Ossendowsky.4 He nevertheless concluded: 'It is quite conceivable that the texts published in the pamphlet were based on genuine letters and merely touched up, in certain instances, by the addition of the reference to leading Communist figures'.5 Mel'gunov had previously made a similar assessment. The amount of relevant material published in the past three decades warrants another look at the question. Moreover, the terms in which the problem is often conceived need to be clarified. To prove the existence of ties between Parvus and the Bolsheviks does not mean to establish that Lenin was a German spy. Lenin inadvertently contributed to the longevity of the fallacious latter proposition by protesting equally vehemently against both charges.