Is it true that Lenin died of syphilis?

For many decades now, there have been rumors that the cause of death of the founder of the Soviet state was either a venereal disease or its consequences. We checked whether such rumors have any basis.

In 2009, the British edition The Telegraph reported that historian and writer Helen Rappaport, after studying the documents, came to the conclusion: the leader of the world proletariat “died of syphilis, which he picked up from a Parisian prostitute in 1902.” This is allegedly evidenced by the report of the world famous scientist Ivan Pavlov, which says that “the revolution was made by a madman with syphilis of the brain.” This news was spread world And Russian resources. Also, at different times, according to the media, they came to this conclusion Israeli doctors and Russian neurophysiologist Valery Novoselov.

However, this version is not new. During the Soviet era, it was actively mentioned in emigrant literature ("Red Bonaparte's Conspiracy" (1958) Boris Solonevich, "New Economic Policy and the Crisis of the Party after Lenin's Death" (1971) Nikolai Valentinov, "Armageddon: in the fifth circle" (1972) by Pavel Gorbachevsky), and in the Land of Soviets itself it was passed on from mouth to mouth.

Counts, that the first public printed assumption about syphilis as the cause of V. I. Lenin’s death was made by the head of the department of skin and venereal diseases of the Imperial Nicholas University (Saratov) Vladislav Terebinsky. During the Civil War, he emigrated to the Balkans, where he published the work “On the causes of the death of V.I. Lenin according to the autopsy report (Lues cerebri).” Terebinsky did not have any serious documents, so it is difficult to evaluate his assumption. Let's see how things stand with the documents.

Vladimir Lenin died at 18:50 on January 21, 1924, having previously suffered three strokes in two years. The next day an autopsy was performed, which resulted in a detailed protocol, signed by 11 specialists led by Professor Abrikosov. Its two key sections are the anatomical diagnosis and the conclusion: “Anatomical diagnosis. Widespread arteriosclerosis of the arteries with pronounced damage to the arteries of the brain. Arteriosclerosis of the descending aorta. Hypertrophy of the left ventricle of the heart. Multiple foci of yellow softening (due to vascular sclerosis) in the left hemisphere of the brain during the period of resorption and transformation into cysts. Fresh hemorrhage in the choroid plexus of the brain under the quadrigeminal. Callus of the left humerus. Encapsulated bullet in the soft tissue of the upper left shoulder.

Conclusion. The basis of the deceased’s illness is widespread arteriosclerosis of blood vessels due to their premature wear (Abnützungssclerose). Due to the narrowing of the lumens of the arteries of the brain and disruption of its nutrition from insufficient blood flow, focal softening of the brain tissue occurred, explaining all the previous symptoms of the disease (paralysis, speech disorders). The immediate cause of death was: 1) increased circulatory disorders in the brain and 2) hemorrhage into the pia mater in the quadrigeminal region.”

Moreover, on February 14, 1924, Alexey Abrikosov, after additional study signed a new conclusion, which noted: “Microscopic examination confirmed the autopsy data, establishing that the only basis for all changes is atherosclerosis of the arterial system with predominant damage to the arteries of the brain. No indications of the specific nature of the process (syphilis, etc.) were found either in the vascular system or in other organs.”

It would seem extremely clear? However, it's not that simple. One of the main arguments of adherents of the “syphilitic” theory of Lenin’s disease is the mention in the 1922 recipe of salvarsan, a drug created to combat syphilis. However, as the authors of the article in the journal note "Knowledge is power", at that time doctors invariably followed the rule “In dubio suspice luem” (“In doubtful cases, look for syphilis”): “There was an assumption that the cause of Lenin’s illness was advanced syphilis. By the way, he himself also did not exclude this possibility and therefore took salvarsan, and in 1923 he also tried to be treated with drugs based on mercury and bismuth. It was no coincidence that the invitation of Max Nonne, the author of the classic reference book “Syphilis and the Nervous System” (1902) and one of the authoritative experts in this field, who, like no one else, knew how to diagnose late forms of syphilis. However, the conjecture was refuted. “There was absolutely nothing to indicate syphilis,” Nonna later wrote. However, the very presence of this doctor gave rise to rumors about Lenin having syphilis. You can still find echoes of these rumors in Lenin’s biographies.”

Next, let us turn to the arguments of Valery Novoselov. Several years ago, the revelations of this specialist separated according to many popular media. He claimed that, as an exception, he received access from the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (RGASPI) to the 410-page diary of doctors of Ulyanov (1922–1924), closed for reading by mere mortals. In 1999, at the request of Lenin’s niece, this restriction was extended for 25 years (the first 75 years were the standard period under the law), and before their expiration, Novosyolov cannot give a detailed assessment of the diary in his book, but from what he read, a diagnosis of neurosyphilis allegedly follows.

However, there are several points in this story that are questionable.

1. Novoselov claims that, according to the card index, he was the first to read this document. Considering that almost a century has passed since Lenin’s death, and much higher-ranking people than a simple neurophysiologist could probably access the archive, this looks somewhat strange. Still, the question of the cause of death of the leader of a huge country, at least after perestroika and the collapse of the USSR, could have been studied somewhat more seriously.

2. The German-language term Abnützungssclerose (“sclerosis from wear”), according to Novosyolov, did not exist and was used for the first and only time. This is not entirely true. Although it is not found in modern medicine, it can be found in German multi-volume 1911 (as Abnutzungsklerose), dedicated to pathological anatomy. It is quite possible that Abrikosov or one of his colleagues was familiar with this work, otherwise why would they even insert a German-language term into a Russian-language text. 

3. The word “syphilis” or “neurosyphilis” in the diary, in my own words Novoselova, is not found anywhere. He draws a conclusion about this disease based on the methods and means of treatment.

4. All three doctors who kept the diary were neurologists. At the same time, as Novoselov himself admits, only Alexey Kozhevnikov.

5. In various interviews with Novoselov there is the following statement: “The main attending physician of German origin, Max Nonne, a leading specialist in neurosyphilis in Germany, who came in 1923 and confirmed the correctness of treatment by Russian doctors before this period.” However, from the wording “Vladimir Ilyich’s disease... is based on a disease of the corresponding blood vessels. Recognizing the treatment used so far as correct, the council finds that this disease, judging by the course and data of an objective examination, is one of those in which almost complete restoration of health is possible. Currently, the manifestations of the disease are gradually decreasing…” it does not at all follow that this remark applies specifically to antisyphilitic drugs. Moreover, Novoselov, claimingthat Nonna, according to the canons of medical ethics, remained silent until the end of his life, either does not know, or deliberately skips the above-mentioned quote from the German’s diaries: “There was absolutely nothing to indicate syphilis.”

Note that there are other arguments not in favor of the syphilitic theory. Thus, in 1991, academician Boris Petrovsky (former Minister of Health of the USSR) devoted extensive research to Lenin’s disease. study, from which, in particular, he concluded that she could not be connected with the injury by the Socialist Revolutionary Fanny Kaplan on August 30, 1918. Having excluded this version, which was quite popular in early Soviet literature, he at the same time confirmed all the primary conclusions of the doctors who performed the autopsy of the leader: “The medical history of V.I. Lenin itself, the authentic protocols of the autopsy of his body and microscopic examinations absolutely accurately determine the diagnosis of the disease: atherosclerosis of the left carotid artery, softening of the brain and, as a culmination, hemorrhages in the area of ​​the vital centers of the brain.” Boris Petrovsky lived to be 95 years old, dying in 2004, but did not make any revelations for the rest of his life.

Denied symptoms of syphilis and other specialists who examined Lenin - the ophthalmologist Averbakh and the German therapist Klemperer (also in the diaries many years later, far from the USSR). Moreover, Lenin’s brain, or rather, its elements stored at the Brain Institute, was examined many times by specialists, but no conclusions were made about syphilis.

Thus, we can draw some conclusions. Apparently, suspicions that Vladimir Ilyich Lenin had syphilis existed at least at the beginning of the exacerbation of his illness. This was a natural assumption for its time, and Lenin even took appropriate medications. However, not a single practical study known to date has confirmed these suspicions on paper. Therefore, the arguments given in modern articles, today, until all the archives are opened, are insufficient to conclude that Lenin died from syphilis or its consequences. The verdict below is not a medical assessment, but an opinion about the weight and fundamentality of the arguments that cast doubt on the official version of the death of the Soviet leader.

Cover image: Wikipedia

Most likely not true

What do our verdicts mean?