Did Lenin Arrive to Finland Station via a ‘Sealed Train’?

IBDP History Internal Assessment

Candidate Number: hsb598

Word Count: 2175

Lenin’s ‘Sealed Train’

Did Vladimir Lenin Arrive to Finlyandskaya Station on the 16^th April 1917 via a ‘Sealed Train’?

Section A: Identification and Evaluation of Sources

This investigation is focused on answering the question “did Vladimir Lenin arrive to Finlyandskaya Station on the 16^th April 1917 via a ‘Sealed Train’?”.

The source seen in image 1 is a legal document outlining conditions of the journey drafted prior to it by German Officials and signed by Bolshevik participants. It is highly relevant as it is the legal framework defining what the ‘sealed’ wagon was to be[1]. The content of the document is thus vital to the investigation as it establishes the very ground for the debate between perspectives suggesting whether the ‘seal’ was maintained or not. The purpose of the source being the constitution of a legal agreement between parties is also valuable, as it ensures that the information in it is dispassionate, thus not subject to emotional bias. The origin of the document being German adds value as the information in it is credible because, unlike within the Soviets, there was no motivation to conceal a collaboration of the parties. Moreover, the origin of the signatures on the document being eyewitnesses of the ‘sealed train’ is valuable to the investigation as it outlines further sources to be referred to for accounts of the journey for comparison and evaluation. However, the document’s origin from before the journey is a limitation for the purpose of the investigation, due to a lack of hindsight. From this document it is therefore unclear whether this specific agreement was kept, amended or completely abolished for the journey.

The second source, being an extract from pages 150-152 of Sean McMeekin’s “Russian Revolution: A New History” published in 2017, is highly relevant as it uses a collection of primary sources to dispute the myth of the ‘sealed train’, thus directly supporting the perspective arguing against its existence. The purpose of the text, being aiming to “dispassionately” analyse original sources and facts regarding the Russian Revolution, without an ideological bias[2], is of great value to this investigation. That is because the author doesn’t intend to conceal points of information to create a certain narrative and is on the contrary focused on unveiling the truth, which is the same as the purpose behind this investigation. The source’s origin makes it valuable, as its publication in 2017[3] not only provides hindsight on the events, but also does not bind the author to an ideological bias which was prevalent in earlier Western works as a result of cold war tensions. Furthermore, a publication after the opening of the Russian archives provided an insight into actions and motivations of the Soviets, the previous unavailability of which is the ground for the existence of the ‘sealed train’ myth. The content is valuable as it provides factual information disputing the Soviet perspective, however, the occasional lack of sources of facts limits the value of the source as it is impossible to check the consistency of the information with its original source. The conciseness of the section focusing specifically on the ‘sealed train’ limits the source’s value, as it lacks information to be able to fully complete the investigation.

Section B: The Investigation

Vladimir Lenin’s return from exile in Switzerland was celebrated by the citizens of Saint Petersburg at Finlyandskaya Station in April of 1917. However, cracks have appeared in the myth of the ‘sealed train’ that was used by the Soviets in attempts to eliminate concerns of Lenin’s involvement with “The Enemy“[4], Germany. This narrative propagated in Krupskaya’s memoirs[5] and works of Bolsheviks such as Karl Radek[6], who were previously relied on for information on the journey as eyewitnesses and participants, suggests that the Bolsheviks were completely isolated from German land and people. Nevertheless, investigation of primary sources in the Russian archives, such as the work of McMeekin[7], demonstrates through the comparison of Russian and German accounts (from archives and eyewitnesses) suggests that the ‘seal’ of the train not only could have been easily broken, but the agreement of extraterritoriality was in fact not followed at all. The concept of extraterritoriality in this case would consist of both the Bolsheviks and those accompanying them on board not stepping off onto German land[8], as well as people not stepping into the Wagon or communicating with those inside from German land[9]. This investigation will however exemplify how this condition of extraterritoriality was broken during the trip.

Whether the concept of extraterritoriality was kept on the train, in terms of not allowing anyone into the ‘sealed’ carriage but the Bolsheviks and Fritz Platten, who was responsible for the communications between the Germans and Lenin as well as the overall organization of the trip[10], officially remains unclear. However, the exclusive mention of Platten as the accompanying person to the Bolsheviks in the signed contract[11] raises questions about a formal ‘breaking’ of the seal. Even Karl Radek himself, a member of the Bolsheviks in whose interest it is to conceal evidence of broken extraterritoriality, casually mentions (in both his article for Pravda[12] and extract written for Fritz Platten’s account of the journey[13]) two other German officers being on the train with the group throughout their journey through Germany[14]. This suggests, as is supported by McMeekin[15], that the policy of extraterritoriality was not taken seriously from the very start, as formally, the presence of any Germans other than Platten is a breach of the seal. Furthermore, there are accounts that only three of the four doors of the wagon in question were shut – the fourth being on the end where the German officers were seated giving them easy access to the outside of the wagon[16]. However, despite writing about the presence of the German officers, both Krupskaya and Radek stress the importance of the famous chalk line drawn by Lenin separating the German officers and the Bolsheviks[17], which was only allowed to be crossed by Platten who was established as a ‘mediator’[18]. Despite his claim about the Germans’ presence being a breach of the contract, McMeekin himself later recognizes the existence of this chalk line and its existence as a ‘border’. This therefore suggests that despite the Bolsheviks not being completely enclosed in a separate wagon, there was as planned a clear separation between them and anyone other than Platten, allowing for the agreement to be followed. McMeekin further argues that the seal was later again broken at Karlsruhe by the entrance of a representative of the German trade union, Janson, presumably to greet and talk to the Bolsheviks[19]. What is however not considered by McMeekin is Jansen being rudely turned away[20] and forced into the cabin with the German officers on the other side of the chalk border despite his friendliness[21], as recorded by eyewitnesses Krupskaya and Radek. While the Soviet perspective on the matter of the investigation is subject to a strong bias, support for this narrative is found in Radek being forced into the baggage compartment to hide, to avoid any further attempts by Janson to make conversation due to their familiarity[22]. Therefore, considering the existence of a border and the lack of explicit mention of the Bolsheviks’ isolation in a whole separate wagon in the agreement[23], this suggests that the seal was not broken by ‘unwanted’ persons stepping onto Bolshevik territory of the train.

Krupskaya, a crucial source of the investigation not only as someone close to Lenin as his wife but also an active member of the Bolshevik party, further states that “nobody went on or off the train”[24]. However, while it is possible that formally no German but Platten entered the Bolshevik ‘territory’, the possibility that nobody stepped off is simply impossible. Radek writes about an encounter with German customs officers, prior to boarding the train which would take them through Germany, that presumably took place at Schaffhausen, Switzerland, suggesting that the Bolsheviks did not step onto German soil. On the contrary, McMeekin argues that the Bolsheviks had only boarded their dedicated train at Gottmanningen[25] – a town that is next to Shaffhausen, but on the German side of the border. Consulting railway maps of the area from 1917, it would simply be impossible for the Bolsheviks to have changed onto the ‘sealed’ wagon already at Shaffhausen, as there were no direct connections between the town and the railway the Bolsheviks took to cross Germany – they would need to have changed at Gottmaningen to take that route[26]. The group would in this case not only have had set foot on German land at the Gottmanningen station, but have furthermore been in a public train to travel between the towns. Despite this journey would only having had taken 15 minutes[27], the narrative pushed by the Bolsheviks of not having stepped onto German land is dismantled even before they could step onto their train. Additionally, while the often-quoted incident of Germans breaking through guards to bring beer and food to the wagon “with great joy”[28] during the prolonged connection to Frankfurt was “presumably” caused by Platten revealing to the bistro servers who was on the train[29], testimonies of Russian officers in prisoner-of-war camps state that Lenin’s passage was well-known and anticipated long before the carriage’s arrival at the station[30]. As suggested by McMeekin, the testimonies not only accounted for people’s awareness of the journey, but also more importantly for Lenin giving political speeches when the train was at a halt[31], which the seal had to be broken for. Regardless, technical difficulties in Berlin caused the need to arrange a hotel for the Bolsheviks stay at in Sassnitz to wait for the next ferry, as revealed by the German Foreign Office archives[32]. This arrangement in itself, due to the need to relocate, would mean that the extraterritoriality would be formally broken, despite the promise for the rooms to be “locked” (which McMeekin also cites to be “less than credible”[33]). Following other accounts that the Bolsheviks did not spend the night in the arranged hotel and the train instead spent the whole time in Berlin[34], it is likely that a meeting between Lenin and the German authorities took place, as pointed at by the ease of logistics[35]. This would also suggest that the ‘seal’ on the train would be broken, to an even more grand extent. Nevertheless, regardless of which of the two circumstances took place, the narrative propagated by the Bolsheviks stressing a lack of contact with Germans is shown to be a deliberate lie.

To conclude, the train Lenin arrived to Finlyandskaya Station in was not sealed, as the extraterritoriality of the train was formally broken on multiple occasions, even if presumably no German other than Platten stepped over the chalk ‘border’. After all, the widespread knowledge of Lenin’s passage through Germany suggests that Lenin stepped off the train to give speeches, and the fact that it would not even be possible to board the Bolsheviks’ train of off Swiss land. Lastly, both possible outcomes of the events in Berlin point at Bolsheviks having left the carriage.

Section C: Reflection

The investigation highlighted to me the problems faced by historians especially when focusing on Russia and the Soviet Union. As a Russian speaker, I was able to find misinterpretations of Russian sources in works of non-native speakers, where information was taken out of context such as in To The Finland Station where Edmund Wilson exaggerates words from Krupskaya’s memoirs. While this did not make many arguments completely irrelevant, these instances highlighted to me the importance of evaluating secondary sources before using them in support of an argument as well as enabled me to strive to refer to primary sources such as those cited in order to obtain accurate information. Referencing additional sources for information brought forward the implications of translation difficulties. For example, the contradicting accounts of Radek and McMeekin on the location of train exchange were clarified by analyzing another source such as maps, the purpose of which is not specifically a focus on the Sealed Train, which eliminated possible bias in regard to the investigation. Furthermore, it is commonly assumed, that the ‘opening’ of the Russian archives in 1991 allowed an easy access to everyone of previously concealed information. However, my experience in said archives in Moscow showed this to be a misconception; despite being granted access inside, I was only able to obtain very limited amounts of useful information in the time I had available. This exemplified to me that “finding” a document in the archives is, contrary to popular belief, not as simple as taking a labelled folder out of a shelf, as many documents to this day are left unsorted and unanalyzed – seemingly forgotten. Furthermore, the dichotomy of a strictly restricted access to document storage and lack of an organized, intuitive system for access of files requested by an investigator highlighted the challenge of time, patience and thorough perseverance needed for a serious historical investigation. I personally managed to overcome this challenge for the sake of this investigation by relying on publicly accessible photographs of primary sources and citations within historical works, while however acknowledging the fact that the method is not ideal.

Bibliography

Krupskaya, Nadezhda. Reminisces of Lenin. New York: International Publishers, 1970.

Mad, Mitchell. “Zurich-Petrograd, One-way.” Figures Of Speech. 19 Nov. 2017. http://figures-of-speech.com/2017/03/lenin.htm.

McMeekin, Sean. The Russian Revolution A New History. London: Profile Books, 2017.

Pearson, Michael. The Sealed Train. New York: Putnam, 1975.

Platten, Fritz. Die Reise Lenins durch Deutschland im plombierten Wagen. Berlin: Neuer Deutscher Verlag, 1924.

Radek, Karl. “In the ‘sealed train’.” Leninism. 12 May 2010. https://leninism.su/memory/3347-v-qplombirovannom-vagoneq.html?start=2.

Radek, Karl. “Through Germany In The Sealed Coach.” Marxists Internet Archive. 18 Oct. 2011. https://www.marxists.org/archive/radek/1924/xx/train.htm.

Wilson, Edmund. To The Finland Station. London: The Fontana Library, 1960.

[1] Fritz Platten, Die Reise Lenins durch Deutschland im plombierten Wagen (Berlin: Neuer Deutscher Verlag, 1924), 55.

[2] Sean McMeekin, The Russian Revolution A New History (London: Profile Books, 2017), 14.

[3] Ibid., 1.

[4] McMeekin, The Russian Revolution, 149.

[5] Nadezhda Krupskaya, Reminisces of Lenin (New York: International Publishers, 1970), 112.

[6] Karl Radek, “In the ‘Sealed Train’,” Leninism, 12 May 2010. https://leninism.su/memory/3347-v-qplombirovannom-vagoneq.html?start=2.

[7] McMeekin, The Russian Revolution, 14.

[8] Krupskaya, Reminisces of Lenin, 113.

[9] Platten, Die Reise Lenins, 56.

[10] McMeekin, The Russian Revolution, 151.

[11] Platten, Die Reise Lenins, 56.

[12] Radek, “In the ‘Sealed Train’.”

[13] Karl Radek, “Through Germany In The Sealed Coach,” Marxists Internet Archive, 18 Oct. 2011. https://www.marxists.org/archive/radek/1924/xx/train.htm.

[14]Ibid.

[15] McMeekin, The Russian Revolution, 152.

[16] Michael Pearson, The Sealed Train (New York: Putnam, 1975), 47.

[17] Edmund Wilson, To The Finland Station (London: The Fontana Library, 1960). 468

[18] Krupskaya, Reminisces of Lenin, 119.

[19] McMeekin, The Russian Revolution, 151.

[20] Radek, “In the ‘Sealed Train’.”

[21] Krupskaya, Reminisces of Lenin, 113.

[22] Radek, “In the ‘Sealed Train’.”

[23] Platten, Die Reise Lenins, 56.

[24] Krupskaya, Reminisces of Lenin, 113.

[25] McMeekin, The Russian Revolution, 151.