tics': Jirkov (1931), p. 37.
[887] 'Some Questions Concerning the History of Bolshevism', Stalin, Works, vol. 13, p. 99.
[888] 'Per fajro de senindulga memkritiko ni kontrolu la tutan fronton de nia laboro', Bulteno de CK SEU 11 (1932): 13-14 (quotations p. 13).
[889]iKrupneishaia pobeda' (A great victory), Mezhdunarodnyi iazyk 10 (1932): 97-8; 'Marksisma lingvoscienco turnas sin vizage al la problemo pri lingvo internacia', La Nova Etapo 1 (1932): 115-16.
[890] 'Tezisy o mezhdunarodnom iazyke', Mezhdunarodnyi iazyk 10 (1932): 99-102; Esperanto trans- lation: 'Tezoj pri internacia lingvo', La Nova Etapo 1 (1932): 116-18.
[891]The institute director, Mark Bochacher, and a special representative ofIazykfront, A.M. Ivanov, greeted the SEU Congress at the end of November 1931: Bulteno de CKSEU 10 (1931): 131.
[892] E. Drezen, 'SESR na iazykovednom fronte' (SEU in the linguistics front), Mezhdunarodnyi iazyk 10 (1932): 291-4.
[893]Spiridovic (1932), pp. 157-60. Originaclass="underline" '"Istinnyi lozung bor'by" v markso-leninskom iazykoz- nanii', Mezhdunarodnyi iazyk 10 (1932): 338-42.
[894]The fact that Esperanto is easy to learn did not impress the authors, because, they claimed, 'the question of the easiness of a language will not have decisive significance under the conditions of
maximum cultural development in the communist society'.
[895] G.I. Gorbachenko, N.P. Sinel'nikova, T.A. Shub, 'Vylazka burzhuaznoi agentury v iazykoznanii' (Attack of the bourgeois agency in linguistics), in Protiv burzhuaznoi kontrabandy v iazykoznanii (Against bourgeois contraband in linguistics), Leningrad: GAIMK, 1932, pp. 129-40.
[896] A.P. Andreev, 'Sovetskoe iazykoznanie za 15 1et' (Soviet linguistics over 15 years), Mezhdunarodnyi iazyk 10 (1932): 288-91 (quotation p. 290). Earlier, the same author ('Lingvo internacia lau la marksisma vidpunkto', La Nova Etapo 1 [1932]: 79) expressed the opinion that the Soviet Esperanto movement meanwhile could hardly expect official support: 'A primary obstacle lies in the current political circumstances, which do not allow for free attention to our ideological "superstructures".'
[897] In 1933 SEU was still able to publish the collection of articles Novye problemy iazykoznaniia (New Problems in Linguistics), Moscow: SESR, 1933, with contributions by Drezen, Spiridovich, Loja, Zhirkov and others.
[898] On 7 July 1933; see the obituary in Sennaciulo 9 (1932/33): 108. Cf. Gerhard Simon (1991), pp. 85-86; Martin (2001), p. 348. In 1962 Skrypnyk was rehabilitated.
[899] Stalin declared: 'The chief danger is the deviation against which we have ceased to fight, thereby allowing it to grow into a danger to the state.' ('Report of the Seventeenth Party Congress [...]', Stalin, Works, vol. 13, p. 369.)
[900] Cf. Moret (2010).
[901] Cf. Kucera (1954), p. 27.
[902]Marr, lafeticheskaia teoriia (German translation: Borbe, Kritik, p. 89). Marr, whom Spiridovich criticized primarily for his inconsistent position, in 1933 confirmed the disillusionment of the Esperantists when he stated that Esperanto had been established 'from above', without consider- ation of its material base; quoted in Jindrich Kucera, Language Policy in the Soviet Union, doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1952, p. 334.
[903] Duc Goninaz (1993), p. 2.
[904]This is the title of a chapter in Stites (1989), pp. 225-41. The persecution of the Esperantists was, according to Stites, one characteristic of the 'anti-utopian war' (p. 293, note 22). Noteworthy is the observation of a contemporary: Eugene Lyons, Assignment in Utopia, London: Harrap, 1938, p. 151 (on 'idealistic "dreamers"' and 'internationalists').
[905] Note: Page numbers followed by 'n' refer to foot notes.
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016
U. Lins, Dangerous Language — Esperanto under Hitler and Stalin,
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54917-4
[906] Note: Page numbers followed by 'n' refer to foot notes.
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016 295
U. Lins, Dangerous Language — Esperanto under Hitler and Stalin, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54917-4