columbia dissertation proquest

Ed.D. Deposit Gateway

Please download the Electronic Deposit of the Ed.D. Dissertation Bulletin . This brochure will provide detailed information on how to  complete the electronic submission of your Dissertation.

There are five steps to completing your Ed.D. Deposit (see below for a more detail explanation:

1.  Complete the Ed.D./Ed.D. CTAS Dissertation Manuscript Approval Form;

2.  Complete the Ed.D. Degree Application Form;

3.  Pay the $95 processing fee;

4.  Submit the required Survey of Earned Doctorates online;

5.  Upload and submit a PDF copy of your dissertation.

The deadline for depositing your Dissertation for all degree periods are noted on the Academic Calendar.

Please refer to the Academic Calendar  HERE  for more information.

1.  Complete the Ed.D./Ed.D. CTAS Manuscript Approval Form

Please fill out the top portion of the form and submit to your Sponsor for signature (or Corrections Committee if you received a Line 2 for your defense). The Office of Doctoral Studies will be unable to finalize your manuscript's title to be placed on the Convocation website until this is received.

This is a fully fillable Adobe Acrobat form and it should be e-mailed to  [email protected] .

2.  Complete the Ed.D. Degree Application Form.

Click  Ed.D. Degree Application Form  for the Ed.D. Degree Application Form

This form needs to be filled out and submitted to the Manager of ODS for processing.  This form is fully Adobe Acrobat fillable and signable and should be e-mailed to  [email protected] .

Please ensure that your Diploma Mailing Address is up to date by following  these instructions .

3. Pay the $95 processing fee.

Click here  to make payment of the $95 processing fee directly to Teachers College via credit card or bank transfer. A message will be sent directly to the Office of Doctoral Studies upon completion.

4.  Submit the required Survey of Earned Doctorates online.

The Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) is an ongoing survey sponsored by the  National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Humanities,  the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Teachers College requires completion of this survey as part of the Dissertation Final Deposit.

Please note the following points before accessing the SED website  - failure to follow these steps may delay processing of your deposit. 

When registering for the SED site:

• Please use your Teachers College e-mail address! This allows us to keep track of who has completed the survey.   
• For institution, enter: Teachers College, Columbia University

At the end of the survey:

• When complete, SED will automatically send a copy to the Office of Doctoral Studies.

If you have read and understand the information above, then  CLICK HERE  to access the Survey of Earned Doctorates.

5. Upload and submit a PDF copy of your Dissertation

The digital copy of your Dissertation is uploaded to ProQuest/UMI, as well as to Academic Commons (Columbia University's online research repository).

Your Dissertation must be uploaded in PDF format, in one single file. If you have not already created a PDF, or if you are unable to do so, there is a PDF Conversion Tool available as part of the upload process.  You will also need a copy of your Abstract that you can copy and paste into a text box.

PLEASE NOTE: ODS will review your manuscript for adherence to the required corrections prior to being approved for publishing. If corrections still need to be made, ODS will reach out to you through ProQuest.

Regarding the optional copyright registration service offered by ProQuest/UMI :  Please note that under copyright law, you automatically hold a  copyright on your work. This is why we have you include a copyright page  in your work.  Copyright  registration  provides certain important  practical and legal benefits in addition to those you already enjoy as  the creator of an original work. Columbia University provides extensive  information about copyright issues through the  Copyright Advisory Office . Of particular interest is  this page ,  which explains your rights as an author of a dissertation (or any other  original work). Please note that the optional service offered by  ProQuest/UMI costs $55.00 and can be paid via credit card directly to  ProQuest through the upload system. You can also register your copyright  yourself with the  U.S. Copyright Office .

If you have read and understand the information above, then  CLICK HERE  to access the upload system.

Office of Doctoral Studies

Address: 528 West 121st St., Room 324

Box: 172 Phone: (212) 678-4050 Fax: (212) 678-3005

Monday - Friday 9 am - 5 pm

Finding a dissertation Print

Modified on: Thu, 27 Jul, 2023 at 2:13 PM

Digital Dissertations

The Gottesman Libraries subscribes to ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global . There you can search for dissertations through a number of fields such as Abstract, Advisor, Author, Citation, Degree, Department, Document Title, School, Subject, and more.

Teachers College Digital Dissertations

Please note that many Teachers College Ed.D. dissertations and Master's degree dissertations up through 1996 are digitized and accessible through digital archives portal, Teachers College Digital Collections. 

Teachers College Ed.D dissertations produced after 1996 are available through ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global . 

Teachers College Ph.D. dissertations before 1996 are not yet digitized.

Teachers College Ph.D. dissertations produced after 1996 can be found via ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global but are assigned to Columbia University in the database. To find these dissertations please follow the instructions and image below.

1. From the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global homepage, click on Advanced Search

2. In the first field type "Columbia University" (including the quotation marks). Then click on the dropdown box and click on "University/Institution -- SCH" option. In the next field type "Teachers College" (including the quotation marks). Click  If you are searching by school for a Teachers College Ph.D., enter "Columbia University" in the Universities/Institution field. 

3. You click on "+Add a row" to refine you search even further with keywords.

Physical Dissertations

Physical copies of Teachers College Ed.D. and Ph.D. dissertations are available at the Libraries. To search Educat+ for a dissertation, conduct an Advanced Search. Under the filter "Material Type," select "Dissertations” and then proceed with your search as usual.

Most dissertations are located in the closed stacks. You may place a request through   Educat+  or in person at the Information Desk located on the first floor of Gottesman Libraries.

Did you find it helpful? Yes No

Related Articles

Columbia University Libraries

Text mining: proquest tdm studio, proquest tdm studio.

• Social Media
• Text Sources

Columbia University Libraries has a license providing current affiliates free access to ProQuest's TDM Studio , a web-based portal into doing TDM research using ProQuest's many databases of full-text sources. TDM Studio has two flavors:

• Maps that show the results of n amed-entity recognition  of the  toponyms   in the corpus
• Tables that cluster the corpus into various "topics," determined algorithmically and featuring keywords in common, a process called " topic modelling ."
• Workbench   is available to any Columbia affiliate but requires meeting with Research Data Services (email [email protected] to set up an appointment) first and a pre-existing knowledge of programming in either Python or R. As with Visualization, Workbench allows the researcher to build a corpus of relevant ProQuest documents, but then they are provided with a  Jupyter Notebook   environment where they can pursue nearly any mode of TDM analysis possible with either programming language.

Creating a Dataset in TDM Studio

In TDM Studio, corpora are referred to as "datasets," and constructing one is the first step in using TDM Studio.

Important Limitations:

• A dataset can contain no more than two million documents (newspaper articles, dissertations, books, etc.).
• Workbenches can only have ten datasets  available at any given time ( five  for Visualizations), although once datasets are imported into the Jupyter notebook, they can be safely discarded from the list of ten.

Similar to using regular ProQuest search , in TDM Studio, the researcher:

• Selects the relevant ProQuest databases or publication titles (more than one can be selected),
• Refines the initial dataset by filtering based on type, date, or other metadata, and/or using specific search terms, including with  ProQuest's field codes , and
• Creates the dataset.

The dataset will take a few minutes to be generated, but once it is available, the researcher can access it from their TDM Studio Jupyter environment.

Using the TDM Studio Jupyter Notebook Environment

Once a researcher has created a dataset, after a few minutes they can set up a Jupyter Notebook environment that has unique access to their dataset(s).

• The virtual machine provisioned by ProQuest has  16gb of RAM ,  100gb of hard drive space , and  4 CPUs .
• The virtual machine also only allows  15mb of downloads per week , to prevent downloading datasets.
• The environment can crash if the researcher uses Jupyter Notebook to browse the dataset. They should use the embedded terminal, instead.

ProQuest is somewhat flexible on these limitations, but relaxing them requires having RDS mediate between the researcher and ProQuest.

The default Jupyter Notebook includes helpful tutorials from ProQuest about accessing the TDM Studio datasets. Once the dataset is copied to the bucket, it can be deleted from the TDM Studio Workbench Dashboard, freeing up one of the ten slots for datasets.

The dataset takes the form of a folder that contains all of the documents, each an XML file with rich metadata.

For Python users, the environment has access to all of the packages that are available for install via  conda . Custom libraries can also be uploaded into the environment.

Research Data Librarian

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Social Media >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 1:42 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.columbia.edu/text-mining
• Donate Books or Items
• Suggestions & Feedback
• Report an E-Resource Problem
• The Bancroft Prizes
• Student Library Advisory Committee
• Jobs & Internships
• Behind the Scenes at Columbia's Libraries

Victor Mukhin

• Scientific Program

Title : Active carbons as nanoporous materials for solving of environmental problems

However, up to now, the main carriers of catalytic additives have been mineral sorbents: silica gels, alumogels. This is obviously due to the fact that they consist of pure homogeneous components SiO2 and Al2O3, respectively. It is generally known that impurities, especially the ash elements, are catalytic poisons that reduce the effectiveness of the catalyst. Therefore, carbon sorbents with 5-15% by weight of ash elements in their composition are not used in the above mentioned technologies. However, in such an important field as a gas-mask technique, carbon sorbents (active carbons) are carriers of catalytic additives, providing effective protection of a person against any types of potent poisonous substances (PPS). In ESPE “JSC "Neorganika" there has been developed the technology of unique ashless spherical carbon carrier-catalysts by the method of liquid forming of furfural copolymers with subsequent gas-vapor activation, brand PAC. Active carbons PAC have 100% qualitative characteristics of the three main properties of carbon sorbents: strength - 100%, the proportion of sorbing pores in the pore space – 100%, purity - 100% (ash content is close to zero). A particularly outstanding feature of active PAC carbons is their uniquely high mechanical compressive strength of 740 ± 40 MPa, which is 3-7 times larger than that of  such materials as granite, quartzite, electric coal, and is comparable to the value for cast iron - 400-1000 MPa. This allows the PAC to operate under severe conditions in moving and fluidized beds.  Obviously, it is time to actively develop catalysts based on PAC sorbents for oil refining, petrochemicals, gas processing and various technologies of organic synthesis.

Victor M. Mukhin was born in 1946 in the town of Orsk, Russia. In 1970 he graduated the Technological Institute in Leningrad. Victor M. Mukhin was directed to work to the scientific-industrial organization "Neorganika" (Elektrostal, Moscow region) where he is working during 47 years, at present as the head of the laboratory of carbon sorbents.     Victor M. Mukhin defended a Ph. D. thesis and a doctoral thesis at the Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia (in 1979 and 1997 accordingly). Professor of Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia. Scientific interests: production, investigation and application of active carbons, technological and ecological carbon-adsorptive processes, environmental protection, production of ecologically clean food.   

Quick Links

• Conference Brochure
• Tentative Program

Hugo Dewar 1957

The Moscow Trials ‘Revised’

Source : Problems of Communism , Volume 6, no 1, January-February 1957. Scanned and prepared for the Marxist Internet Archive by Paul Flewers.

For many years Soviet propagandists and pro-Soviet Western observers presented ‘Soviet justice’ as a forward step in the advancement of legal science. Thus, the British jurist DN Pritt wrote, in a contemporary eulogy of the Moscow purge trials of the 1930s, that ‘the judicature and the prosecuting attorney of the USSR [Andrei Vyshinsky] have established their reputation among the legal systems of the world’. [1] Pritt was not at all disconcerted by the singular fact, unparalleled in Western jurisprudence, that the accused in the Soviet trials did not raise a finger to defend themselves, but instead confessed with seeming eagerness to the most heinous crimes. The Soviet government, he blandly stated, ‘would have preferred that all or most of the accused should have pleaded not guilty and contested the case’. [2]

The naïveté, or wilful blindness, of such statements has long been apparent. As early as 1937, an independent commission of inquiry conducted an exhaustive investigation into the Moscow trials of 1936 and 1937 and found them to be clear-cut travesties of justice. [3] The commission’s findings were bolstered by an ever-mounting accumulation of evidence regarding the methods employed to produce the victims’ obviously abnormal eagerness to sign their own death warrants.

Today not even the most naïve apologist can continue his self-deception. At the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU the myth was broken for all time when Nikita Khrushchev, in a secret report to a closed session of the congress, revealed the depths to which Soviet ‘justice’ had sunk:

Stalin originated the concept ‘enemy of the people’. This term automatically rendered unnecessary that the ideological errors of a man or men engaged in a controversy be proven... The formula was specifically introduced for the purpose of physically annihilating such individuals... [4]

It is significant, however, that, in denouncing ‘violations of socialist law’, Khrushchev made no direct mention either of the show trial as such, or of its exportation to the satellites. His remarks about Zinoviev and Kamenev and about the ‘annihilation’ of Lenin’s closest colleagues as ‘enemies of the party’ were furthermore clear attempts to restrict the discussion to ‘violations of socialist law’ in the period following Kirov’s assassination in December 1934 – to the great trials and purges of the 1930s. [5]

This effort is a transparent indication that the present collective leadership cannot make a decisive, radical break with their Stalinist past. It is to Stalin that the present Soviet leaders owe their positions, and it was during his reign that their methods of ‘governing’ and dispensing ‘justice’ were decisively moulded. That is why Khrushchev and his colleagues will not admit that the genesis of the Stalin-type inquisitorial trial goes much farther back than 1934, indeed, as far back as 1922.

The idea of exploiting the judicial trial of political opponents for the purpose of ‘educating’ the masses was first given concrete expression in 1922, when a trial of 22 prominent members of the Social Revolutionary Party was staged. At that time the technique of the show trial had not been perfected, and only ten police stooges consented to play the role of cringing penitents and government propagandists. At first, the state was content with this number and even permitted the rest to defend themselves stoutly. They openly proclaimed their political convictions and even refused to recognise the court. Just prior to the trial, the Bolsheviks entered into an agreement in Berlin with representatives of the international socialist movement by which several prominent socialists were invited to participate in the defence; and in the early stages of the trial they were very active on behalf of the accused. As the trial progressed, however, the intolerable contradictions between accepted conceptions of justice and a Soviet-sponsored political trial were revealed. Bit by bit the essential elements of the show trial, with which the world later became familiar, emerged.

The presiding judge struck the keynote for the proceedings by declaring that the court would be guided not by objective considerations but by the interests of the government. During the course of the trial Bukharin declared the Berlin agreement null and void, and this, coupled with the prosecution’s obstructive tactics, caused the foreign socialists to withdraw. Perhaps most important in the development of the show trial, however, was the first utilisation of the technique of agitating against the accused outside of court. Yuri Pyatakov, the president of the tribunal, spoke at one of the mass demonstrations, as did Bukharin, who applauded the role played in the trial by the ten who had ‘confessed’. [6]

In the course of the next few years the show trial was gradually brought to a high stage of perfection. ‘Evidence’ was manufactured and, by means of inhuman tortures, the accused were brought into court ‘prepared’ to cooperate in arranging their own destruction. During the course of the so-called Shakhty trial (1928), for example, a group of engineers, personifying the ‘bourgeois specialists’, took the blame for the country’s chronic economic ills and accused foreign ‘interventionist circles’ of directing their sabotage. [7] By 1930 the technique had been further perfected, and during the Industrial Party trial every single one of the accused confessed to ‘planned’ sabotage in drafting or implementing the First Five-Year Plan. One of the witnesses, brought in under heavy GPU guard, was Professor Osadchy, formerly a member of the CEC (Central Economic Council) of the Supreme Soviet, and assistant chairman of the State Planning Commission. Incredible as it may seem, Osadchy, who was one of the prosecutors at the Shakhty trial, confessed to having plotted with the very men whom he had sentenced to death in 1928! [8]

Stalin’s speech at the Sixteenth Congress (June-July 1930) gave at least the outward rationale for all the great Moscow trials. [9] His thesis was that whenever the contradictions inherent within the capitalist system grow acute, the bourgeoisie tries to solve them by turning on the Soviet Union. By the bourgeoisie Stalin meant primarily foreign nations, but his main purpose was to justify the purge of internal opposition to his rule. The vast international ‘plots’ which were uncovered regularly involved certain native Communists; often these were among the most celebrated of the revolutionary heroes, their ‘crimes’ consisting in their opposition to Stalin’s dictatorship. Without respect to their previous service, these men were condemned as saboteurs working in collaboration with the outside enemy to wreck the economy of the Soviet Union.

Thus, the Great Purge, as well as the thousands of unpublicised local purges, served the double purpose of removing those who opposed Stalin and of providing for the population an ‘explanation’ of the continuing low standard of living. Vyshinsky made the point in the following manner:

It is now clear why there are interruptions of supplies here and there, why with our riches and abundance of products, there is a shortage first of one thing and then of another. It is these traitors who are responsible. [10]

Vyshinsky also underlined the connection between the various trials. Stalin’s thesis had been proved, he said: all the trials had uncovered ‘systematically conducted espionage... the devilish work of foreign intelligence...’. [11]

Characteristically, although it was ostensibly against Stalin’s thesis and its implications that Khrushchev railed at the Twentieth Congress, his anger was aroused most of all by the fact that Stalin’s wrath had been turned against the party itself:

Using Stalin’s formulation... the provocateurs who had infiltrated the state security organs together with conscienceless careerists... [launched] mass terror against party cadres... It should suffice to say that the number of arrests based on charges of counter-revolutionary crimes had grown ten times between 1936 and 1937. [12]

Khrushchev summed up the Stalin era in anguished tones:

In the main, and in actuality, the only proof of guilt used, against all norms of current legal science, was the ‘confession’ of the accused himself; and, as subsequent probing proved, ‘confessions’ were acquired through physical pressures against the accused. [13]

Khrushchev’s speech is a masterpiece of hypocrisy. To be sure, of the 1966 delegates to the Seventeenth Party Congress (1934), 1108 were arrested on charges of counter-revolutionary activity. But Khrushchev well knows that it was not a question of ‘subsequent probing’: every leading Communist in the Soviet Union knew at the time what was going on. They were aware that the ‘confessions’ were shot through with contradictions and obvious absurdities; they knew that the trials were frame-ups.

As a matter of fact, Khrushchev’s speech itself corroborates our previous evidence that the Politburo was well aware of what was going on:

At the February-March Central Committee Plenum in 1937 many members actually questioned the rightness of the established course regarding mass repressions under the pretext of combating ‘two-facedness’. [14]

Khrushchev thus confirms that opposition to Stalin’s iron-heel policy was expressed even within the Politburo. People who had employed the most despicable methods against both non-party and party opponents began to voice ‘doubts’ when the police terror menaced them. Among those who ventured to speak up in 1937 was Pavel Postyshev, candidate member of the Politburo. Indeed, Khrushchev said that Postyshev expressed his doubts ‘most ably’, as did Stanislav Kossior, a member of the Politburo – both were liquidated. Other prominent Stalinist victims of the monster they themselves helped create were Vlas Chubar, Yan Rudzutak, Grigory Petrovsky and Robert Eikhe: all men of the Lenin era who had thrown in their lot with Stalin in his struggle for power.

How was it, then, that Molotov, Mikoyan, Voroshilov, Khrushchev and others survived? They saved themselves either by keeping their mouths shut or, where their closeness to Stalin made this impossible, by sedulously fostering the cult of the ‘brilliant leader’. Certainly Khrushchev was not unaware of what was going on. Kossior, for example, was purged in the Ukraine while he was closely associated with Khrushchev.

Without speculating about the possible splits and rivalries within the top leadership of the CPSU revealed by the varying degrees of vehemence with which individual Soviet leaders condemned Stalin’s ‘cult of personality’, the central goal of the leadership as a whole is perfectly obvious. Khrushchev and his supporters are vitally concerned with ‘rehabilitating’ the party and strengthening its authority vis-à-vis the police apparatus. The terrors of the Stalinist era left party cadres either demoralised and spiritless or, much worse, cynically and brutally opportunistic. In any event, the leadership felt that the support of the new generation of Communists – the managerial caste and the intellectuals – required assurances that the days of arbitrary terror were over. In Khrushchev’s words:

Arbitrary behaviour by one person encouraged and permitted arbitrariness in others. Mass arrests and deportations of many thousands of people, execution without trial and without normal investigation created conditions of insecurity, fear and even desperation. [15]

The exportation of the macabre and revolting confessional trial to Eastern Europe was never much of a success. The process that had transformed the CPSU into a terrorised and docile instrument of the leader took 14 years; in Poland, Bulgaria and Hungary it was telescoped into less than four years – somewhat longer in Czechoslovakia and Rumania. During this time the weak satellite Communist parties (only in Czechoslovakia could the Communists claim any sizeable following) were deprived of their ablest leaders. It was clear from the trials, moreover, that these leaders were imprisoned and executed because they attempted to stand up to the Soviet Union and that the leaders who remained were mere Soviet satraps. The confession trials of ‘national Communists’ therefore destroyed what little basis the Communist parties had for claiming to represent national interests, or even the interests of the industrial workers. At the same time, they failed dismally to destroy either national sentiment among the people or Titoist tendencies within the rank-and-file of the Communist parties.

Quite on the contrary, there can be no doubt that the confession trials in Eastern Europe played a great role in enhancing anti-Soviet feeling and in undermining the Communist parties’ faith in themselves. The enormous crowds that attended the reinternment of Rajk in Hungary after his posthumous rehabilitation were symptomatic of the anti-Soviet mood that had been generated by the ‘educational’ methods of Soviet-inspired ‘justice’. The bloodless revolt in Poland and the heroic uprising of the Hungarian workers, peasants and intellectuals were due in large part to the exposure of Soviet methods and aims which resulted from the export of the ‘modern inquisition’. The people of the satellite nations share with the Russian people a deep and bitter hatred of the secret police, and a deathless desire to end the insufferable horrors which the confession trial represented.

That the Soviet leaders were, and remain, keenly aware of this was implicit in their repudiation at the Twentieth Congress of the Stalinist inquisition and in the gradual steps that have been instituted to correct some of the more objectionable features of the police and judicial apparatus. They obviously are attempting to restore public confidence in a party and system that had become thoroughly and openly compromised. In so doing, however, they paradoxically underlined still further the bankruptcy of the system that claimed to have produced that ‘glorious workers’ paradise’, the ‘most advanced country in the world’, and they reveal nakedly their inability to cast off the imprint of this system of terror and ‘educational justice’.

1. DN Pritt, The Moscow Trial Was Fair (Russia Today, London, nd).

2. DN Pritt, The Zinoviev Trial (Gollancz, London, 1936).

3. This Commission was headed by the noted American philosopher, John Dewey. Its findings were published in two books: The Case of Leon Trotsky (Secker and Warburg, London, 1937); and Not Guilty (Secker and Warburg, London, 1938).

4. The Anti-Stalin Campaign and International Communism: A Selection Of Documents (Columbia University Press, New York, 1956), p. 13.

5. For a full discussion of these trials see this author’s The Modern Inquisition (Allan Wingate, London, 1953).

6. The most complete record of this trial is in VS Voitinski, The Twelve Who Are About To Die (Delegation of the Party of Socialists-Revolutionists, Berlin, 1922). The death sentences passed against the accused were never carried out.

7. No official records of this trial have been published. Of secondary sources, the best are HH Tiltman, The Terror in Europe (Frederick A Stokes, New York, 1932); and Eugene Lyons, Assignment in Utopia (Harcourt, Brace, New York, 1937), especially pp. 114-33.

8. Andrew Rothstein (ed), Wreckers on Trial (Modern Books, London, 1931).

9. Some of the sources on the most important Moscow trials are the following: on the 1931 Menshevik trial – The Menshevik Trial (Modern Books, London, 1931); on the 1933 Metropolitan-Vickers Industrial Company Trial – The Case of NP   Vitvitsky... [and others] Charged With Wrecking Activities at Power Stations in the Soviet Union (three volumes, State Law Publishing House, Moscow, 1933); on the 1936 trial – The Case of the Trotskyite – Zinovievite Terrorist Centre (People’s Commissariat of Justice of the USSR, Moscow, 1936); on the 1937 trial – Report of Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre (People’s Commissariat of Justice of the USSR, Moscow, 1937); on the 1938 trial – Report of Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet ‘Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites ’ (People’s Commissariat of Justice of the USSR, Moscow, 1938).

10. Report of Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet ‘Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites ’, pp. 636-37.

11. Report of Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet ‘Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites ’, pp. 636-37.

12. The Anti-Stalin Campaign , p. 30.

13. The Anti-Stalin Campaign , p. 12.

14. The Anti-Stalin Campaign , p. 29.

15. The Anti-Stalin Campaign , p. 14.

Hugo Dewar Archive