Why did Stalin remove Zhukov from power?

[Rafiq]

Why?

[JoeySteel]

From what I know the reason was only revealed recently thanks to some archival documents. The full text of these documents is in Furr, Krushchev Lied but I don't have a copy handy. Essentially he was stealing large amounts of Nazi war loot and hoarding it in his dacha. He was probably lucky to have escaped public disgrace, which for someone of his stature would have been a pretty serious thing with the war having just ended.

[khad]

Something like half a dozen train cars filled with loot were impounded. How he would have even been able to fit all that in his apartment is an open question.

Aah, Zhukov, still the peasant boy at heart. A more white collar criminal would have tried to launder money, not furniture.

[A Marxist Historian]

Why?

I wouldn't take Furr seriously. Was Zhukov a bit crooked? Well, so were lots of folk in Stalin's coterie. And that sure as hell wasn't the reason given in public. So if it were the real reason, why would that not also be the reason Stalin gave? Stalin was a liar by nature, but he didn't lie just for the sheer fun of it.

The obvious reason is simply that, as the most well respected and admired leader of the Army, and deservedly so, he would have been the only military leader actually capable of carrying out a coup against Stalin. Stalin being of a suspicious nature, he wanted to prevent that sort of thing in advance. If Tukhachechevsky saw the Hitler-Stalin pact as a betrayal of the revolution, for example, he might have done something about it.

So Stalin saved his personal position and ravaged the army, the result of which is that Hitler made it all the way to Moscow. Tukha would have kicked the blitzkriegers' teeth in. He knew more about tank warfare in his fingertips than Guderian and that lot knew in their whole bodies.

According to J. Arch Getty, Bukharin had some hopes in Tukhachevsky saving his bacon. It is a fact that Bukharin capitulated to his interrogators and confessed to treason and all that the day after Tukha was arrested. But that probably reflects more Bukharin's own illusions and delusions than any actual alliance. Bukharin was not a very capable politician.

-M.H.-

[Rafiq]

That is a good question. Khad: Why would Stalin lie about the reasons he gave to remove Zhukov from power?

[Born in the USSR]

Some people believe that after the war Stalin was "jealous" of Zhukov, and that's why he "removed" him from Moscow. This, of course,is ridiculous and stupid. The writer Zenkovich was absolutely right when he wrote that Stalin saved this way Zhukov from the court and prison.

In those years, a greed was not welcomed, thieves and plunders were punishing mercilessly. For a missappropriation of the trophy property were imprisoned Zhukov's deputies generals Telegin,the Hero of the Soviet Union, Kryuchkov,and his wife, the famous singer Ruslanova, and many other prominent military men. But Zhukov was spared and was only demoted.

Here are some documents in Russian.Everyone can translate them easily.

Товарищу Сталину

В Ягодинской таможне (вблизи г. Ковеля) задержано 7 вагонов, в которых находилось 85 ящиков с мебелью.
При проверке документации выяснилось, что мебель принадлежит Маршалу Жукову.
Установлено, что И. О. Начальника Тыла Группы Советских Оккупационных Войск в Германии для провоза мебели была выдана такая справка: "Выдана Маршалу Советского Союза тов. ЖУКОВУ Г.К. в том, что нижепоименованная мебель им лично заказанная на мебельной фабрике в Германии "Альбин Май" приобретена за наличный расчет и Военным Советом Группы СОВ в Германии разрешен вывоз в Советский Союз. Указанная мебель направлена в Одесский Военный Округ с сопровождающим капитаном тов. ЯГЕЛЬСКИМ. Транспорт № 15218431".
Вагоны с мебелью 19 августа из Ягодино отправлены в Одессу.
Одесской таможне дано указание этой мебели не выдавать до получения специального указания.
Опись мебели, находящейся в осмотренных вагонах, прилагается.

Булганин
23 августа 1946 года.






АКТ О передаче Управлению Делами Совета Министров Союза ССР
изъятого Министерством Государственной Безопасности СССР
у Маршала Советского Союза Г.К.ЖУКОВА
незаконно приобретенного и присвоенного им трофейного имущества, ценностей и других предметов.
I

Кулоны и броши золотые (в том числе один платиновый) с драгоценными камнями - 13 штук
Часы золотые - 9 штук
Кольца золотые с драгоценными камнями - 16 штук
Серьги золотые с бриллиантами - 2 пары
Другие золотые изделия (браслеты, цепочки и др.) - 9 штук
Украшения из серебра, в том числе под золото - 5 штук
Металлические украшения (имитация под золото и серебро) с драгоценными камнями (кулоны, цепочки, кольца) - 14 штук
Столовое серебро (ножи, вилки, ложки и другие предметы) - 713 штук
Серебряная посуда (вазы, кувшины, сахарницы, подносы и др.) - 14 штук
Металлические столовые изделия под серебро (ножи, вилки, ложки и др.) - 71 штука
Шерстяные ткани, шелка, парча, бархат, фланель и другие ткани - 3.420 метров
Меха - скунса, норка, выдра, нутрии, черно-бурые лисы, каракульча и другие - 323 штуки
Шевро и хром - 32 кожи
Дорогостоящие ковры и дорожки больших размеров - 31 штука
Гобелены больших размеров художественной выделки - 5 штук
Художественные картины в золоченых рамах, часть из них представляет музейную ценность - 60 штук
Дворцовый золоченый художественно выполненный гарнитур гостиной мебели - 10 предметов
Художественно выполненные антикварные вазы с инкрустациями - 22 штуки
Бронзовые статуи и статуэтки художественной работы - 29 штук
Часы каминные, антикварные и напольные - 9 штук
Дорогостоящие сервизы столовой и чайной посуды (частью некомплектные) - 820
предметов Хрусталь в изделиях (вазы, подносы, бокалы, кувшины и другие) - 45 предметов
Охотничьи ружья заграничных фирм - 15 штук
Баяны и аккордеоны художественной выделки - 7 штук
Пианино, рояль, радиоприемники, фарфоровая и глиняная посуда и другие предметы, согласно прилагаемых поштучных описей.
Всего прилагается 14 описей Сдали: Заместитель Министра Госбезопасности СССР,

Генерал-лейтенант Блинов А.С. Начальник отдела "А" МГБ СССР,
Генерал-майор Герцовский А.Я. Приняли: Управляющий делами Совета Министров СССР Чадаев Я.Е. Зам. Управделами Совета Министров Союза ССР Опарин И.Е.

3 февраля 1948 года,
город Москва.






Протокол допроса
арестованного С И Д Н Е В А Алексея Матвеевича
от 6 февраля 1948 года
СИДНЕВ Л. М., 1907 года рождения,
уроженец гор. Саратова,
с незаконченным высшим образованием,
член ВКП(б) с 1931 года.
Бывший начальник оперативного сектора МВД в Берлине.
Последнее время работал Министром
государственной безопасности Татарской АССР,
генерал-майор


... СЕРОВ и ЖУКОВ часто бывали друг у друга, ездили на охоту и оказывали взаимные услуги. В частности, мне пришлось по поручению СЕРОВА передавать на подчиненные мне авторемонтные мастерские присланные ЖУКОВЫМ для переделки три кинжала, принадлежавшие в прошлом каким-то немецким баронам.
Несколько позже ко мне была прислана от ЖУКОВА корона, принадлежавшая по всем признакам супруге немецкого кайзера. С этой короны было снято золото для отделки стэка, который ЖУКОВ хотел преподнести своей дочери в день ее рождения.
(Допрос прерван.)
Протокол записан с моих слов правильно, мною прочитан.
Сиднев
ДОПРОСИЛ: Ст. Следователь следственной части
по особо важным делам МГБ СССР,
подполковник Путинцев

[Kléber]

OF course a cowardly cop who only visited 50km away from the front in an old camouflaged train, with himself and his clique disguised as common peasants, would have envied and feared a heroic Red Army commander who really smashed fascism.

[Jose Gracchus]

Who cares, or what Kleber said

[A Marxist Historian]

I wouldn't take Furr seriously. Was Zhukov a bit crooked? Well, so were lots of folk in Stalin's coterie. And that sure as hell wasn't the reason given in public. So if it were the real reason, why would that not also be the reason Stalin gave? Stalin was a liar by nature, but he didn't lie just for the sheer fun of it.

The obvious reason is simply that, as the most well respected and admired leader of the Army, and deservedly so, he would have been the only military leader actually capable of carrying out a coup against Stalin. Stalin being of a suspicious nature, he wanted to prevent that sort of thing in advance. If Tukhachechevsky saw the Hitler-Stalin pact as a betrayal of the revolution, for example, he might have done something about it.

So Stalin saved his personal position and ravaged the army, the result of which is that Hitler made it all the way to Moscow. Tukha would have kicked the blitzkriegers' teeth in. He knew more about tank warfare in his fingertips than Guderian and that lot knew in their whole bodies.

According to J. Arch Getty, Bukharin had some hopes in Tukhachevsky saving his bacon. It is a fact that Bukharin capitulated to his interrogators and confessed to treason and all that the day after Tukha was arrested. But that probably reflects more Bukharin's own illusions and delusions than any actual alliance. Bukharin was not a very capable politician.

-M.H.-

Whoops! Serious egg on face. I crossed Tukhachevsky with Zhukov.

As for removing Zhukov, that was obvious. Stalin wanted to take undeserved credit for the victories at the front, which Zhukov had vastly better credit for. Without Zhukov around, who else could claim the glory? And Zhukov, according to rumor, was *not* the kind of 100% yes man Stalin liked having around him.

Compared to the kind of incompetent creeps Stalin preferred, like his old buddy Budyonny, Zhukov was a much better general, much more popular, and therefore quite possibly a threat.

Was Zhukov a bit crooked? Well, most everybody in the Soviet bureaucracy was by then. Starting with Stalin himself, who behind his facade of proletarian ascetism lived a life of luxury any Tsarist noble would have been quite satisfied with.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

Was Zhukov a bit crooked? Well, most everybody in the Soviet bureaucracy was by then. Starting with Stalin himself, who behind his facade of proletarian ascetism lived a life of luxury any Tsarist noble would have been quite satisfied with."Stalin was, in fact, not a vain, self-obsessed man who had to be surrounded by fawning and flattery. He detested this mass adulation of his position, and throughout his life he went to great lengths to avoid demonstrations in his honor. Indeed, he was to be seen in public only at party congresses and at ceremonial occasions on Red Square, when he was a remote figure standing on Lenin's mausoleum. He had the same lack of personal vanity as Peter the Great or Lenin....

Stalin had not changed greatly. He had power and position, but showed no interest in possessions and luxuries. His tastes were simple and he lived austerely. In summer he wore a plain military tunic of linen and in winter a similar tunic of wool, and an overcoat that was some fifteen years old. He also had a short fur coat with squirrel on the inside and reindeer skin on the outside, which he started wearing soon after the Revolution and continued to wear with an old fur hat until his death. The presents, many of them valuable and even priceless works of craftsmanship, sent to him from all parts of the country and, on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, from all over the world, embarrassed him. He felt that it would be wrong to make any personal use of such gifts. His daughter noted: 'He could not imagine why people would want to send him all these things.'"
(Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979., pp. 234-35.)

I haven't seen anything about him living a "life of luxury any Tsarist noble would have been quite satisfied with."

[Revolutionair]

So is that the main reason for your support for Marxism-Leninism? You believe that dictators are well-hearted?

[Ismail]

So is that the main reason for your support for Marxism-Leninism? You believe that dictators are well-hearted?I don't see how responding to "Stalin lived in a way akin to a Tsarist nobleman" is the same as "I support Stalin because he was a nice guy." I support Stalin because he was a Marxist-Leninist who struggled to build socialism in the USSR.

[Dr Mindbender]

Well if i remember correctly from Red Alert it was because he failed to steal the chronosphere from those allied dogs.

[Rafiq]

So is that the main reason for your support for Marxism-Leninism? You believe that dictators are well-hearted?

I'm far from a Marxist Leninist, but I don't think that Ismail is a Marxist Leninist just because he thinks Stalin was a decent fellow.

[A Marxist Historian]

"Stalin was, in fact, not a vain, self-obsessed man who had to be surrounded by fawning and flattery. He detested this mass adulation of his position, and throughout his life he went to great lengths to avoid demonstrations in his honor. Indeed, he was to be seen in public only at party congresses and at ceremonial occasions on Red Square, when he was a remote figure standing on Lenin's mausoleum. He had the same lack of personal vanity as Peter the Great or Lenin....

Stalin had not changed greatly. He had power and position, but showed no interest in possessions and luxuries. His tastes were simple and he lived austerely. In summer he wore a plain military tunic of linen and in winter a similar tunic of wool, and an overcoat that was some fifteen years old. He also had a short fur coat with squirrel on the inside and reindeer skin on the outside, which he started wearing soon after the Revolution and continued to wear with an old fur hat until his death. The presents, many of them valuable and even priceless works of craftsmanship, sent to him from all parts of the country and, on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, from all over the world, embarrassed him. He felt that it would be wrong to make any personal use of such gifts. His daughter noted: 'He could not imagine why people would want to send him all these things.'"
(Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979., pp. 234-35.)

I haven't seen anything about him living a "life of luxury any Tsarist noble would have been quite satisfied with."

I have, plenty of places. You will find a particularly good description in Edvard Radzinsky's extremely well researched Stalin bio, conveniently available in English. Radzinsky's own politics are dreadful, but he is a perceptive and honest historian in his own way, with a particularly good understanding of the personal side of politics, him being a successful playwright.

According to Radzinsky, Stalin really was an ascetic till his wife committed suicide in 1932, as she had a very good influence on him. After that, the man changed tremendously, in very bad ways. He blamed the Bukharinists she hung out with for her suicide, which has a lot to do with his taking of revenge on them in the late '30s, as well as the Trotskyists etc. At one time Bukharin and Stalin had been very close friends.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

I have, plenty of places. You will find a particularly good description in Edvard Radzinsky's extremely well researched Stalin bio, conveniently available in English. Radzinsky's own politics are dreadful, but he is a perceptive and honest historian in his own way, with a particularly good understanding of the personal side of politics, him being a successful playwright.So being a playright somehow makes you an authority on "personal" politics or some such? You're free to provide sources for Stalin living life like a Tsarist noble.


According to Radzinsky, Stalin really was an ascetic till his wife committed suicide in 1932, as she had a very good influence on him. After that, the man changed tremendously, in very bad ways. He blamed the Bukharinists she hung out with for her suicide, which has a lot to do with his taking of revenge on them in the late '30s, as well as the Trotskyists etc. At one time Bukharin and Stalin had been very close friends.Well let's see what Stalin thought about conspiracies two years before her suicide.

"It appears that already in the early 1930s Stalin was convinced that the oppositional leaders, who had given up their resistance against him, were involved in a widely ramified imperialist conspiracy. Starting in the summer of 1930, a number of prominent specialists in various state institutions – N.D. Kondrat'ev, Leonid Ramzin and others – were arrested on charges of sabotaging Russian finance, industry and agriculture on the orders of emigrant Russian capitalists and Western European governments, who were preparing an invasion of the Soviet Union. Stalin's correspondence suggests that he believed in the accusations....

And he directly linked the old oppositionists in the party to these cases. He wrote to Molotov that former leftist leader Piatakov was inspired by the plotters. He did not doubt that there existed a 'Rykov–Piatakov bloc,' allied with the 'Kondrat'ev–defeatist tendencies.'

And that was not all. During 1930, Stalin received a report from Menzhinskii that chief of the general staff Tukhachevskii might be preparing a coup d'état. Thereupon Stalin wrote to his comrade Ordzhonikidze that he did not know whether to believe this. But there existed at least the possibility that the 'Kondrat'ev–Sukhanov–Bukharin party' aimed for 'a military dictatorship, if only they can get rid of the CC, of the kolkhozy and sovkhozy, of the bolshevik tempos of development of industry.' Fortunately, the leader convinced himself some time later that, as he wrote to Molotov, Tukhachevskii 'appeared 100% pure. That's very good.' Subsequently, the matter petered out. Nevertheless, strikingly, in 1930 we already have the fully developed concept of a bloc of rightists and leftists, in league with conspirators in the Red Army and bourgeois specialists, who again co-operated with the imperialist powers to prepare military intervention against the USSR. And all this appears not from statements for public consumption but from Stalin's private mail...

In 1930, the authorities were informed that RSFSR Prime Minister Syrtsov was conspiring with First Secretary of the trans-Caucasian District Committee Lominadze. Stalin took this 'Left–Right bloc' seriously. He commented to Molotov about the 'anti-party (in essence right deviationist) little factional group' and added: 'They played at a takeover.' ...

Stalin always suspected even his closest comrades of not recognising counter-revolutionary plots. In August 1932, for example, he complained to Kaganovich that Politburo member Stanislav Kosior failed to recognise that, through his 'direct agents' in the Ukrainian party, Polish leader Pilsudski was organising an espionage network."
(Erik Van Ree. The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin: A Study in Twentieth-Century Revolutionary Patriotism. New York: RoutledgeCurzon. 2002. pp. 118-119.)

The Lominadze bit wasn't idle speculation, Getty established that Lominadze really did form a bloc (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1521611&postcount=7) with confirmation from Trotsky's own son, who told Trotsky himself.

As for Bukharin's relationship with Stalin, Anna Larina, Bukharin's wife, claims that Stalin openly expressed a positive (yet "deceptively" so) view of Bukharin into 1934 and 1935. But Thurston in Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, along with Getty and others, have pointed out that Stalin trusted Bukharin as late as December 1936 at least. E.g. Volkogonov notes that, on accusations made against Bukharin, "Stalin reassured him: 'Nikolai, don't panic. We'll sort things out... We don't believe you're an enemy. But as you been implicated by Sokolnikov, Astrov, Kulikov and other double-dealers, who have admitted to being wreckers, we have to look into it calmly. Don't worry!'" (Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy, p. 285.) As Thurston notes during the December 1936 Central Committee plenum, "When Stalin asked Bukharin why people would lie about him, he replied that he did not know." (Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, p. 40.)

To return to Van Ree, he notes Stalin's words at that plenary meeting when Rykov and Bukharin both asked to have their words be trusted. Stalin replied, "All right, let’s talk of sincerity and trust. When Kamenev and Zinov'ev declared in 1932 that they revoked their mistakes and recognised the correctness of the position of the party we believed them.… but we made a mistake…. When Smirnov and Piatakov declared that they revoked their views, declared about that openly in the press, we believed them…. We made a mistake. Try to believe in the sincerity of people after that! We drew one conclusion: one cannot believe former oppositionists on their word." (Van Ree, p. 121.)

In 1929 Van Ree also notes that, when Bukharin reminded Stalin that they were both friends, Stalin replied, "I think that all these lamentations and screams aren't worth a penny. We don't have a family circle, no collective of personal friends, but a political party of the working class. We can't allow interests of personal friendship to be put above the interests of the cause." (Ibid. pp. 155-156.)

Now here's the kicker, the same year in which Bukharin was stressing to Stalin that they were friends, Bukharin was privately discussing with his rightist friends the "decision to utilise individual terror to rid themselves of Stalin." See: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv8n1/bukharin.htm

[A Marxist Historian]

So being a playright somehow makes you an authority on "personal" politics or some such? You're free to provide sources for Stalin living life like a Tsarist noble.

I think the book is a damn good source, very well researched. His research was very professionally done. It was his good understanding as a playwright of human emotion that helped him in understanding some of the *personal* dynamics going on at the top levels of the Soviet state. But the *facts* he found about Stalin's lifestyle are not subjective interpretation, they are facts. Read the book.


Well let's see what Stalin thought about conspiracies two years before her suicide.

"It appears that already in the early 1930s Stalin was convinced that the oppositional leaders, who had given up their resistance against him, were involved in a widely ramified imperialist conspiracy. Starting in the summer of 1930, a number of prominent specialists in various state institutions – N.D. Kondrat'ev, Leonid Ramzin and others – were arrested on charges of sabotaging Russian finance, industry and agriculture on the orders of emigrant Russian capitalists and Western European governments, who were preparing an invasion of the Soviet Union. Stalin's correspondence suggests that he believed in the accusations....

And he directly linked the old oppositionists in the party to these cases. He wrote to Molotov that former leftist leader Piatakov was inspired by the plotters. He did not doubt that there existed a 'Rykov–Piatakov bloc,' allied with the 'Kondrat'ev–defeatist tendencies.'

And that was not all. During 1930, Stalin received a report from Menzhinskii that chief of the general staff Tukhachevskii might be preparing a coup d'état. Thereupon Stalin wrote to his comrade Ordzhonikidze that he did not know whether to believe this. But there existed at least the possibility that the 'Kondrat'ev–Sukhanov–Bukharin party' aimed for 'a military dictatorship, if only they can get rid of the CC, of the kolkhozy and sovkhozy, of the bolshevik tempos of development of industry.' Fortunately, the leader convinced himself some time later that, as he wrote to Molotov, Tukhachevskii 'appeared 100% pure. That's very good.' Subsequently, the matter petered out. Nevertheless, strikingly, in 1930 we already have the fully developed concept of a bloc of rightists and leftists, in league with conspirators in the Red Army and bourgeois specialists, who again co-operated with the imperialist powers to prepare military intervention against the USSR. And all this appears not from statements for public consumption but from Stalin's private mail...

In 1930, the authorities were informed that RSFSR Prime Minister Syrtsov was conspiring with First Secretary of the trans-Caucasian District Committee Lominadze. Stalin took this 'Left–Right bloc' seriously. He commented to Molotov about the 'anti-party (in essence right deviationist) little factional group' and added: 'They played at a takeover.' ...

Stalin always suspected even his closest comrades of not recognising counter-revolutionary plots. In August 1932, for example, he complained to Kaganovich that Politburo member Stanislav Kosior failed to recognise that, through his 'direct agents' in the Ukrainian party, Polish leader Pilsudski was organising an espionage network."
(Erik Van Ree. The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin: A Study in Twentieth-Century Revolutionary Patriotism. New York: RoutledgeCurzon. 2002. pp. 118-119.)

The Lominadze bit wasn't idle speculation, Getty established that Lominadze really did form a bloc (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1521611&postcount=7) with confirmation from Trotsky's own son, who told Trotsky himself.

On Syrtsov and Lominadze, that's perfectly right that they were conspiring vs. Stalin and were seeking links with Trotsky by way of Sedov. The plan was to replace Stalin as general secretary, not assassinate him or stage a military coup or some such. Lominadze thought Syrtsov would make a better gensec, and he was probably right. Nothing wrong with that in my book, not at all.

Trotsky was in favor of an opposition bloc, but not with the rightists, whom he considered to be ultimately capitalist restorationists, whether they realized it or not. He was opposed to the simple "down with Stalin" slogan being floated by Riutin for example, as he saw the Bukharinists, and Riutin was nothing if not a Bukharinist, as potentially worse than Stalin. However Syrtsov and Lominadze were opposing Stalin from the left not the right, another matter.

Trotsky's tactical slogan at that point was a "coalition Politbureau," with the three historically defined tendencies in the party, the Trotsky-Zinoviev left, the Stalin-Molotov center, and the Bukharin right, each getting equal representation on the Politbureau, as a transitional measure to restoring party democracy, in the context of course of restraining the worst Stalinist blunders of the Third Period forced collectivization period.

Something even Stalin himself recognized was necessary, which is why you had the great tactical retreat in 1932, the so-called "new NEP." Which was far too late to avert the Ukrainian famine disaster.

As for all the rest of Stalin's conspiratorialism, the best verdict on that is I think is that of Volkogonov, the Stalin biographer who had the best access to the Stalin files. Volkogonov wrote that Stalin combined a keen political intelligence with an absolute lack of moral sense. The ideal combination for conspiratorial thought, as Stalin always feared all his political opponents would do what Stalin himself would do in their position.


As for Bukharin's relationship with Stalin, Anna Larina, Bukharin's wife, claims that Stalin openly expressed a positive (yet "deceptively" so) view of Bukharin into 1934 and 1935. But Thurston in Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, along with Getty and others, have pointed out that Stalin trusted Bukharin as late as December 1936 at least. E.g. Volkogonov notes that, on accusations made against Bukharin, "Stalin reassured him: 'Nikolai, don't panic. We'll sort things out... We don't believe you're an enemy. But as you been implicated by Sokolnikov, Astrov, Kulikov and other double-dealers, who have admitted to being wreckers, we have to look into it calmly. Don't worry!'" (Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy, p. 285.) As Thurston notes during the December 1936 Central Committee plenum, "When Stalin asked Bukharin why people would lie about him, he replied that he did not know." (Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, p. 40.)

To return to Van Ree, he notes Stalin's words at that plenary meeting when Rykov and Bukharin both asked to have their words be trusted. Stalin replied, "All right, let’s talk of sincerity and trust. When Kamenev and Zinov'ev declared in 1932 that they revoked their mistakes and recognised the correctness of the position of the party we believed them.… but we made a mistake…. When Smirnov and Piatakov declared that they revoked their views, declared about that openly in the press, we believed them…. We made a mistake. Try to believe in the sincerity of people after that! We drew one conclusion: one cannot believe former oppositionists on their word." (Van Ree, p. 121.)

In 1929 Van Ree also notes that, when Bukharin reminded Stalin that they were both friends, Stalin replied, "I think that all these lamentations and screams aren't worth a penny. We don't have a family circle, no collective of personal friends, but a political party of the working class. We can't allow interests of personal friendship to be put above the interests of the cause." (Ibid. pp. 155-156.)

Now here's the kicker, the same year in which Bukharin was stressing to Stalin that they were friends, Bukharin was privately discussing with his rightist friends the "decision to utilise individual terror to rid themselves of Stalin." See: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv8n1/bukharin.htm

That Stalin had certain feelings of personal friendship for Bukharin as late as 1936 I believe is perfectly accurate.

As for the testimony from Humbert-Droz, that is another matter. This is H-D's memory of a conversation with Bukharin in which Bukharin, to H-D's extreme horror, discussed with him Bukharin's quite genuine attempt to form an alliance at the moment he was about to lose power with Zinoviev, Kamenev and even Trotsky vs. Stalin. An alliance exposed to public view by none other than Trotsky, who found the idea abhorrent, and published the transcript of the discussion in the Bulletin of the Left Opposition, blowing the whistle on this unprincipled maneuver.

Barring any other evidence, and I certainly don't consider Kaganovich's musings so many years later as worthwhile evidence, I would dismiss it as added coloration H-D found convenient to add to the story. The human mind is a strange thing, H-D may well have talked himself into believing it.

If you want to know what Bukharin, an erratic and unstable politician, was really up to behind Stalin's back, read Menshevik leader Nikolayev's once-famous book on the alleged Great Conspiracy of Stalin vs. Kirov. Despite Anna Larina's denials, I do believe Nikolayev's source was indeed Bukharin. That they met on a number of occasions is well established.

The misreadings and misunderstandings of top-level Soviet maneuverings reflected in Nikolayev's book are exactly what one would expect from Bukharin, who as a CC member was allowed to attend Politburo meetings. He totally misinterpreted the minor spat (recorded in the PB minutes) between Stalin and Kirov when Stalin wanted to appoint Kirov his deputy as gensec and Kirov refused, as he wanted to stay in Leningrad and not move to Moscow.

Much like Politburo member Bukharin's total misunderstanding of what was going on around him in 1928-29, that anyone can read in the Bukharin-Zinoviev transcript.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

But the *facts* he found about Stalin's lifestyle are not subjective interpretation, they are facts. Read the book.You can't recall any of the "facts"?


Trotsky was in favor of an opposition bloc, but not with the rightists, whom he considered to be ultimately capitalist restorationists, whether they realized it or not. He was opposed to the simple "down with Stalin" slogan being floated by Riutin for example, as he saw the Bukharinists, and Riutin was nothing if not a Bukharinist, as potentially worse than Stalin.In the Moscow Trials many Rightists actually attacked the Trotskyists on this issue. The Rightists tended to claim that they relied on "mass action" while the Trotskyists were either "terrorism"-oriented or were "conspiratorial." Of course the Rightists were also accused of both during the Trials. As Getty does point out in his article, though, "In the light of the apparent similarities between his and Bukharin's critiques, Trotsky was anxious to maintain the separate identity of the Left Opposition. He wrote in 1932 that although 'practical disagreements with the Right will hardly be revealed . . . it is intolerable to mix up the ranks and blunt the distinctions'. (WLT Supplement (1929-1933), p. 174). In a secret letter to his son about the 1932 bloc, he warned Sedov not to 'leave the field to the rights' (Trotsky Papers, 13095)." So he did back the formation of a bloc, even though he obviously didn't want the Rightists to take it over.


If you want to know what Bukharin, an erratic and unstable politician, was really up to behind Stalin's back, read Menshevik leader Nikolayev's once-famous book on the alleged Great Conspiracy of Stalin vs. Kirov. Despite Anna Larina's denials, I do believe Nikolayev's source was indeed Bukharin. That they met on a number of occasions is well established.Getty noted the spurious nature of Nicolaevsky's "Letter" (Origins of the Great Purges, pp. 214-215.) as did Roy Medvedev.

[A Marxist Historian]

You can't recall any of the "facts"?.

I'll do better than that, I'll fish out my copy and give you some exact quotes tomorrow, in the interests of accuracy and precision on this not unimportant matter.


In the Moscow Trials many Rightists actually attacked the Trotskyists on this issue. The Rightists tended to claim that they relied on "mass action" while the Trotskyists were either "terrorism"-oriented or were "conspiratorial." Of course the Rightists were also accused of both during the Trials. As Getty does point out in his article, though, "In the light of the apparent similarities between his and Bukharin's critiques, Trotsky was anxious to maintain the separate identity of the Left Opposition. He wrote in 1932 that although 'practical disagreements with the Right will hardly be revealed . . . it is intolerable to mix up the ranks and blunt the distinctions'. (WLT Supplement (1929-1933), p. 174). In a secret letter to his son about the 1932 bloc, he warned Sedov not to 'leave the field to the rights' (Trotsky Papers, 13095)." So he did back the formation of a bloc, even though he obviously didn't want the Rightists to take it over.

Yes, he backed the formation of a bloc, indeed a bloc was formed, including Zinoviev, Kamenev, Syrtsov/Lominadze, and perhaps a few others. Smirnov was the person who put it together, after consultation in Berlin with Sedov. But the Rightists, primarily Riutin at that point, were not included. Trotsky's articles against the "down with Stalin" slogan were intended as a *polemic* against the famous Riutin platform.


Getty noted the spurious nature of Nicolaevsky's "Letter" (Origins of the Great Purges, pp. 214-215.) as did Roy Medvedev.

I am not unaware of that. I happen to believe that both of them were wrong. The letter was indeed technically spurious, but I believe the indications are that it was constructed primarily out of Bukharin's conversations with Nikolayev, with or without Bukharin's permission, and doubtless with some colorful additions of Nikolayev's own. There is of course no proof of this one way or the other.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I have fished out RAdzinsky's biography of Stalin, and am once again impressed by how perceptive the book is. (Edward Radzinsky, Stalin, trans. H. T. Willetts, Anchor Boos/Doubleday, New York, 1996). Despite the author's quite dreadful politics, he does not allow his anti-communist biases to distort his perceptions of events. The book is based on extensive research, innumerable interviews and the wide access he was given to Stalin's files, correspondence and papers, which was more extensive than that of any author other than Volkogonov. Not all his conclusions are correct, about the Kirov affair for example, or the "doctor's plot." But the book is very worth reading.
He hates Stalin, but the Stalin he portrays is a genuine, understandable, albeit highly unpleasant human being, not the demon or monster or paranoid lunatic of the usual portrayals. He views everything from his rightist perspective, but I was not able to notice a single example of distortion of the facts in his book, which is really quite unusual these days.
So here is what Radzinsky says about Stalin's lifestyle, quoted from a subsection entitled "Stalin in carpet slippers," starting on page 300:

"For years now the Boss had been fashioning a new lifestyle for the Bolshevik leaders. Gone never to return were the democratic ways of the early years after the Revolution, when the families of Kremlin bigwigs travelled by public transport, stood in line with their fellow citizens, and were short of money.... The Boss's children were now taken to school in limousines, with bodyguards. Massive villas for use of the rulers were erected outside Moscow, each in its own spacious grounds and with its own security guards. Academician E. Varga, an eminent economist and Comintern activist, noted sadly that 'they have gardeners, cooks, maidservants, special doctors and nurses working for them--sometimes a staff of fifty or so--and all this at state expense. They have special trains, personal airplanes, personal guards, fleets of cars to service them and their families.... They get all their provisions and household goods for next to nothing. To live at this level in America you would have to be a multimillionaire.'...
The former royal residences, and the palaces of the aristocracy, which Lenin in a special decree had graciously presented to the working masses, soon passed into the hands of the new tsar and the new aristocracy. Stalin would be assigned the royal family's favorite palace, at Livadia in the Crimea.... (In fact the Boss made use of his palace only once, he preferred to take his holidays in one of the many government dachas in his native Caucasus.) Stalin was, however, careful to keep up appearances: all the luxuries with which he corrupted and demoralized the Party remained state property...."

Many have written about the unpleasant atmosphere of bourgeois luxury and fear of Stalin's final years. Radzinsky p. 545:

"Forty years later his ancient former bodyguards would tell me about the secret life of this lonely man in the hermetically sealed nearer dacha. When he banqueted with his henchmen, clean plates, cutlery and wineglasses stood near a luxurious buffet. It was self-service, so that there would be no servants to overhear their conversation. From time to time he would call for a clean tablecloth. The servants would appear, take the festive tablecloth by its four corners, and make a bundle of it--crockery, uneaten food, and all. All would then hear the sound of fine glass breaking. Every dish was accompanied by a certificate: 'No poisonous substances found." A doctor retained for this purpose periodically tested the air....
They whiled away the small hours by telling dirty jokes. Among his henchmen he liked using obscene language. He made his guests drink too much. They dared not refuse: to do so meant that they had something to hide and were afraid that drinks would loosen their tongue..."

But enough.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

While it's true that privileges grew under Stalin, both sympathetic foreign observers and also workers criticized privileges under Lenin as well. The latter can be seen to some extent in Simon Pirani's book The Russian Revolution in Retreat.

For instance of the former Emma Goldman, who was initially sympathetic to the Bolsheviks, wrote in her 1923 book My Disillusionment in Russia (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1920s/disillusionment/index.htm) of such examples:

When we pulled into the Moscow station my chaperon, Demyan Bedny, had vanished and I was left on the platform with all my traps. Radek came to my rescue. He called a porter, took me and my baggage to his waiting automobile and insisted that I come to his apartments in the Kremlin. There I was graciously received by his wife and invited to dinner served by their maid. After that Radek began the difficult task of getting me quartered in the Hotel National, known as the First House of the Moscow Soviet. With all his influence it required hours to secure a room for me.

Radek's luxurious apartment, the maidservant, the splendid dinner seemed strange in Russia. But the comradely concern of Radek and the hospitality of his wife were grateful to me. Except at the Zorins and the Shatovs I had not met with anything like it. I felt that kindliness, sympathy, and solidarity were still alive in Russia.
Narishkin Palace is situated on the southern bank of the Neva, almost opposite the Peter-and-Paul Fortress. The place was prepared for the expected guests and a number of servants and cooks installed to minister to their needs....

The British Mission was entertained royally with theatres, operas, ballets, and excursions. Luxury was heaped upon them while the people slaved and went hungry. The Soviet Government left nothing undone to create a good impression and everything of a disturbing nature was kept from the visitors. Angelica hated the display and sham, and suffered keenly under the rigid watch placed upon every movement of the Mission. "Why should they not see the true state of Russia? Why should they not learn how the Russian people live?" she would lament. "Yet I am so impractical," she would correct herself; "perhaps it is all necessary."Although this is obviously not good, it's worth noting that there's a difference between living well off and actually having money to live well off.

Radzinsky also mentions Varga. While what Varga says there isn't unbelievable (though, again, there's a difference between privileges and being a millionaire who exploits labor), his "testament" in which he wrote such things is apparently a forgery (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv6n1/varga.htm). He was also an ally of Khrushchev (http://ml-review.ca/aml/AllianceIssues/Varga.html).

[A Marxist Historian]

While it's true that privileges grew under Stalin, both sympathetic foreign observers and also workers criticized privileges under Lenin as well. The latter can be seen to some extent in Simon Pirani's book The Russian Revolution in Retreat.

For instance of the former Emma Goldman, who was initially sympathetic to the Bolsheviks, wrote in her 1923 book My Disillusionment in Russia (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1920s/disillusionment/index.htm) of such examples:
Although this is obviously not good, it's worth noting that there's a difference between living well off and actually having money to live well off.

Neither are unbiased sources. I'll take Radzinsky, whom nobody could possibly confuse with a Bolshevik sympathizer. If anything he is a Tsarist, insofar as he is political at all. Wrote a surprisingly objective and informative book about the execution of Nicholas and his relatives and family, despite his obvious sympathy for them.

Former Trotskyist Simon Pirani I actually ran into during one of my visits to Russia. He is now sympathetic to the Whites, or at least thinks that the classic Red criticisms of them are unfair. Published a pamphlet about a pro-White worker uprising in a military production factory town in Siberia. He has gone far to the right.

And the same was true for Emma Goldman. After she left Russia she went very far to the right, further than Pirani, and in her last few years was very much a supporter of the Whites vs. the Bolsheviks. Liked Mussolini too.

Of course there was some corruption here and there, despite the best efforts of Lenin and especially of course Dzherzhinsky. Indeed that was the social basis for the rise of the Stalinist bureaucracy. But *nothing* like what happened under Stalin.


Radzinsky also mentions Varga. While what Varga says there isn't unbelievable (though, again, there's a difference between privileges and being a millionaire who exploits labor), his "testament" in which he wrote such things is apparently a forgery (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv6n1/varga.htm). He was also an ally of Khrushchev (http://ml-review.ca/aml/AllianceIssues/Varga.html).

There are such differences, and Radzinsky even points them up, for that matter. Russia under Stalin was not a capitalist country. In a sentence I three-dotted out to avoid the posting being too long Radzinsky pointed out that no bureaucrats were given *ownership* of any of this, and when fired, suddenly discovered that they were dirt poor and had nothing. So Kaganovich for example instantly went from living the life of a multimillionaire to being a Soviet pensioner with a typical Soviet pensioner's income and nothing but his one-room apartment and some furniture.

I don't know if the quote from Varga comes from this apparently disputed "testament." As Radzinsky does not footnote it is hard to be sure. He does have a pretty good sources appendix, though not fully up to professional historical standards, likely because Doubleday would not have allowed that. Not comprehensive enough however to include every reference in the book, and the Varga quote is not one that is sourced there.

That Varga was an ally of Khrushchev can hardly discredit what he says. With the solitary exception of a poet named Felix Chuev, just about *nobody* in the USSR was anything other than enthusiastic about Khrushchev's purge of Stalin's last defenders, the "gang of four" of Molotov, Kaganovich and the other two guys. It'd be hard to find a significant figure from the old days who wasn't an "ally of Khrushchev."

Especially since Khrushchev after all fed just as well at the trough as anyone else. So those words were directed against him as well as the others.

Indeed, if there was any of the people around him whom Stalin trusted enough to be his successor, it was probably Khrushchev. As Kaganovich, Khrushchev's original sponsor, says in the Chuev interviews. Kaganovich was almost as worried about being purged in the last few years as Molotov and Beria were. Molotov's wife of course was in fact arrested.

Khrushchev ended up on top in the struggles after Stalin died primarily because he had Stalin's old post as party secretary. Which Stalin had appointed him to.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

Out of curiosity I asked Grover Furr what he thought of the two quotes. He replied:

I have a copy of Radzinski's book in Russian, in electronic form. It's available in several places.

I found the first passage. There are no references, no notes anywhere.

Varga is cited, but no book by Varga is listed in R's bibliography.

I searched for the quotation on the Russian-language Internet. It is reproduced in many places, either from R's book or from another popular book, _Dremuchie Dvery_, where there is also no specific reference.

Bottom line: I can't find this reference in any work by Varga -- without, that is, doing some big research project of finding all of Varga's works, or maybe a memoir.

* * * * *

My guess is that Radzinski -- always assuming this is really a quotation by Varga -- has put it here in the year 1933, but it really belongs in the post-WW2 period. I have certainly read about corruption among the top Party elite during that period.

* * * * *

I have never read anything like the second quotation in any reliable source. There are a couple of books by former bodyguards, though. I haven't searched those.

I searched for it on the Russian Internet too. It occurs only in Radzinski's book, evidently. It purports to quote "I. Orlov", commander of Stalin's guard. But no book by that author is listed in the bibliography.

* * * * *

Radzinski is a professional anticommunist, not a researcher. The goal of his biography, like all the other biographies of Stalin I have ever read, is to make Stalin "look bad."

The lack of specific references for any of the statements made in this book is consistent with that kind of book. There are a lot of books like this.

You can't establish something as a fact without some evidence -- normally, without at least two pieces of evidence. But Radzinski is interested in writing anticommunist propaganda and making money, not in discovering the truth about things.

[A Marxist Historian]

Out of curiosity I asked Grover Furr what he thought of the two quotes. He replied:

Furr is quite right that Radzinskii is not a professional historian, and does not footnote properly. Which is unfortunate. It makes it very difficult to verify the quote from Varga. However, the sad fact is that not all books about the Soviet Union are by professional historians, and he in fact does a better job of referencing his sources than most popular works by nonprofessionals. If you dismiss the book on that basis that is much too narrow-minded.

The quote has the ring of genuineness, and Furr is a good enough historian to notice that, and *not* claim it is a forgery. I think his guess that the quote stems from the postWWII period is unlikely, it has much more of a '30s "feel" than a late '40s "feel," and is highly consistent with lots of other accounts of the period I am familiar with.

Radzinskii is not a professional anti-communist, he is a professional playwright, and there is considerably less anti-communism in it than in most such popular works, or for that matter most Western historical works. As anyone who reads it will pick up on. Radzinskii does not like communism, but he is much more interested in portraying Stalin accurately than grinding anti-communist axes.

And Furr himself, as most folk understand, is one of the great axe grinders of all time for his particular political beliefs. Anyone who takes *his* judgments for good coin without verification is making a big mistake.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Out of curiosity I asked Grover Furr what he thought of the two quotes. He replied:

One more minor point. Furr objects that no book by guard "I. Orlov" is listed in Radzinskii's bibliography.

Of course not. As Radzinskii states right there in the quote, which Furr surely must have noticed if he read it, Radzinskii's sources were not books by former Stalin guards, but interviews with former Stalin guards.

It would have been better if there was a section in the bibliography listing all his interviews, I suppose, though that by itself would not necessarily answer all questions, unless interview transcripts are all properly deposited in an archive. But that does not justify Furr pulling that kind of sleight-of-hand.

-M.H.-

[Robocommie]

Furr is quite right that Radzinskii is not a professional historian, and does not footnote properly. Which is unfortunate. It makes it very difficult to verify the quote from Varga. However, the sad fact is that not all books about the Soviet Union are by professional historians, and he in fact does a better job of referencing his sources than most popular works by nonprofessionals. If you dismiss the book on that basis that is much too narrow-minded.

It's too narrow minded for a professional historian to dismiss a direct citation by a non-historian without any references? Since when? What's the point of being a professional if you're not going to hold work up to any standard of methodology?



The quote has the ring of genuineness, and Furr is a good enough historian to notice that, and *not* claim it is a forgery. I think his guess that the quote stems from the postWWII period is unlikely, it has much more of a '30s "feel" than a late '40s "feel," and is highly consistent with lots of other accounts of the period I am familiar with.


How a quote "feels" is a rather empty metric to judge material by. It's puzzling that you feel this playwright is such an authoritative source, even though you yourself admit that his citation is poor to non-existent, even though you yourself have admitted that his interest is in the personal character of the individuals in question, not the politics. As I personally would suggest, he's an artist more interested in the sublime romanticism and drama built up around Stalin than in pursuing history for its sake. In any case, his motives are pointless, because his methodology apparently sucks.

[A Marxist Historian]

It's too narrow minded for a professional historian to dismiss a direct citation by a non-historian without any references? Since when? What's the point of being a professional if you're not going to hold work up to any standard of methodology?.

Yup. That's right. It is too narrow minded.

Nobody except professional historians footnotes *at all.* Radzinsky does a better job on references than most. By that criteria, professional historians would have to dismiss *all* books by anybody else other than themselves. That would be downright Mandarin.

Moreover, if he'd wanted to include footnotes, Doubleday wouldn't have let him, it'd have greatly increased the page count. The bibliography at the end is called, quite honestly, a "selected bibliography," and is only nine pages long. If if included a listing for every quote in this over 600 page book, Doubleday would have screamed.

Now if Radzinsky *was* a professional historian, and put something like that in with there without a footnote, while footnoting other things, then you'd have to have serious questions.

Lacking footnotes to check, one can't be absolutely sure and one has to use one's noggin.

Did Radzinsky simply make this up? Extremely unlikely, and Furr, not wanting to look like a fool, did not claim this, only hinted in that direction. So where did it come from? He suggests it comes from something called "Varga's testament," which I am not familiar with. But it doesn't sound like the sort of thing one would put in a "testament."

He also mentioned that it might have come out of Varga's memoirs, if he wrote any. A very plausible suggestion. He also said he didn't have the time to go hunting down Varga's memoirs, very reasonable. Still, that's the best guess as to where this comes from.

Anyway, this argument is a tempest in a teapot, as there is *vast* memoir literature from the '30s, which I am somewhat familiar with and Furr no doubt even more so. Portraits of the life of the Stalinist bureaucracy are all just like the way Varga did it, only difference being that Varga writes well and is very well known, which no doubt is why Radzinsky picked up the quote from there instead of from one of the hundreds, indeed thousands, of similar accounts people in the ex-Soviet Union, and not just historians, are familiar with.

You wanna check this? Try and find a detailed nitty-gritty account of the way of life of top Soviet officials in the 1930s from *Stalinist* sources. You will discover that it is impossible to find one. This is not accidental.

For a better sourced and very easily accessible account of the bureaucratic lifestyle in the 1930s, granted without footnotes, you might try reading Trotsky's *Revolution Betrayed.* But you won't I suspect.

Probably the very best accounts came from the Soviet Union's most famous investigative journalist of the 1920s, Lev Sosnovsky. As this stuff did not begin in the 1930s of course. He wrote great exposes of what he called the "automobile/harem factor" in corrupting the Soviet bureaucracy.

A Trotskyist of course.


How a quote "feels" is a rather empty metric to judge material by. It's puzzling that you feel this playwright is such an authoritative source, even though you yourself admit that his citation is poor to non-existent, even though you yourself have admitted that his interest is in the personal character of the individuals in question, not the politics. As I personally would suggest, he's an artist more interested in the sublime romanticism and drama built up around Stalin than in pursuing history for its sake. In any case, his motives are pointless, because his methodology apparently sucks.

Yes. He's an artist not a historian. But he is one who is very careful with his facts, and sometimes (far from always) surprisingly perceptive in his political judgments.

Somebody primarily interested in the *personal* character of people is a very good source for judging corruption, if he is the kind who is careful with his facts.

-M.H.-

[Kiev Communard]

For all my dislike for Furr-style Stalinist apologetics, I should note that Radzinsky is merely a reactionary playwright, and his depictions of revolutionary political figures (not only those of the Russian Revolution, but of the French Revolution too, which the modern Russian political Right seems to be hating as much as the former) are notoriously subjective and unreliable. The fact that Stalin did not probably lead a lavish lifestyle does not make him less exploitative in his class position, as it is a similar case with austere lifestyles of early American capitalists or the personal asceticism of some Medieval monarchs. It is not a personal lifestyle but the real socioeconomic policies that matter there.

[agnixie]

And the same was true for Emma Goldman. After she left Russia she went very far to the right, further than Pirani, and in her last few years was very much a supporter of the Whites vs. the Bolsheviks. Liked Mussolini too.

Prove it, source it, I want direct quotes from her, not fucking Stalinist apologetics, because right now, you're full of shit. Clearly the person who wrote this must have liked Mussolini a lot.


The sponsors of neutrality are trying to make the world believe that they are acting with the best intentions; they are trying to stave off a new world carnage. One might, by a considerable stretch of imagination, grant them the benefit of the doubt had their embargo on arms included both sides in this frightful civil war. But it is their one-sidedness which makes one question the integrity as well as the logic of the men proclaiming neutrality. It is not only the height of folly, it is also the height of inhumanity to sacrifice the larger part of the Spanish people to a small minority of Spanish adventurers armed with every modern device of war.

Moreover, the statesmen and political leaders of Europe know only too well that it is not out of love that Hitler and Mussolini have been supplying Franco and Mola with war material and money. Unless the men at the helm of the European Governments utterly lack clear thinking they must realise, as the rest of the thinking world already has, that there is a definite pact between the Spanish Fascists and their Italian and German confreres in the unholy alliance of Fascism. It is an open secret that the imperial ambitions of Hitler and Mussolini are not easily satisfied. If, then, they show such limitless generosity to their Spanish friends, it must be because of the colonial and strategic advantages definitely agreed to by Franco and Mola. It hardly requires much prophetic vision to predict that this arrangement would put all of Europe in the palm of Hitler and Mussolini.

Now the question is, Will France go back on her glorious revolutionary past by her tacit consent to such designs? Will England, with her liberal traditions, submit to such a degrading position? And, if not, will that not mean a new world carnage? In other words, the disaster neutrality is to prevent is going to follow in its wake. Quite another thing would happen if the anti-Fascist forces were helped to cope with the Fascist epidemic that is poisoning all the springs of life and health in Spain. For Fascism annihilated in Spain would also mean the cleansing of Europe from the black pest. And the end of Fascism in the rest of the world would also do away with the cause of war.

It is with neutrality as it is with people who can stand by a burning building with women and children calling for help or see a drowning man desperately trying to gain shore. No words can express the contempt all decent people would feel for such abject cowardice. Fortunately, there are not many such creatures in the world, m time of fire, floods, storm at sea, or at the sight of a fellow-being in distress human nature is at its best. Men, in danger to their own life and limb, rush into burning houses, throw themselves into the sea, and bravely carry their brothers to safety. Well, Spain is in flames. The Fascist conflagration is spreading. Is it possible that the liberal world outside Spain will stand by and see the country laid in ashes by the Fascist hordes? Or will they muster up enough courage to break through the bars of neutrality and come to the rescue of the Spanish people?

The main effect of neutrality so far has been the bitter disillusionment of the Spanish masses about France and England, whom until now they had valued and respected as democratic countries. They cannot grasp the obvious contradiction on the part of those who shout to the heavens that democracy must be preserved at all costs yet remain blind to the grave danger to democracy in the growth of Fascism. They insist that the latter is making ready to stab democracy in the back. The Spanish people quite logically have come to the conclusion that France and England are betraying their own past and that they have turned them over to the Fascist block like sheep for slaughter.

However, the Fascist conspiracy and the criminal indifferences of the so-called democratic countries will never bring the defenders of Spanish liberty to their knees. The callousness of the outside world has merely succeeded in steeling the will to freedom of the antifascist forces. And it has raised their courage to the point of utter disregard of the worst tribulations. Everywhere one goes one is impressed by the iron determination to fight until the last man and the last drop of blood. For well the Spanish workers know that peace and well-being will be impossible until Fascism has been driven off their fruitful soil.

[A Marxist Historian]

Prove it, source it, I want direct quotes from her, not fucking Stalinist apologetics, because right now, you're full of shit. Clearly the person who wrote this must have liked Mussolini a lot.

I'm *provisionally* withdrawing the statement. I remember picking that up many years ago from the second volume of Wexler's book about Emma Goldman on the exile years. Not of course that she liked Mussolini in the '30s during the Spanish Civil War, but that in the late '20s she was saying nasty things about Lenin and nicer things about Mussolini.

But, not having read the book for twenty years, and not having a copy of it to hand, and not claiming to have a perfect memory, I am provisionally withdrawing the comment till I can check.

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why?

The same reason why Khrushchev eventually sacked and retired that Marshal of the Soviet Union 'come Minister of Defense shortly after defeating the so-called "Anti-Party Group."

[crazyirish93]

The same reason why Khrushchev eventually sacked and retired that Marshal of the Soviet Union 'come Minister of Defense shortly after defeating the so-called "Anti-Party Group."

So Khrushchev got rid of Zhukov after he had helped secure his position?
ive also heard in Zhukov's memoirs/biography he was rather kind to Stalin giving him credit and such does anyone know if that is true ?

[Ismail]

ive also heard in Zhukov's memoirs/biography he was rather kind to Stalin giving him credit and such does anyone know if that is true ?As far as I know the answer is yes. Zhukov's memoirs were partly in response to the more ridiculous aspects of Khrushchev's "destalinization" campaign. Khrushchev had claimed in his 1956 speech, for instance, that Stalin planned military operations on a globe. Zhukov (among others) noted the falseness of this statement.

[A Marxist Historian]

As far as I know the answer is yes. Zhukov's memoirs were partly in response to the more ridiculous aspects of Khrushchev's "destalinization" campaign. Khrushchev had claimed in his 1956 speech, for instance, that Stalin planned military operations on a globe. Zhukov (among others) noted the falseness of this statement.

Be it noted that Khrushchev should not be given huge amounts of credibility, as so many people do. A remarkable amount of the things he said about Beria in particular were reminiscent of the sort of things Stalin used to say about his opponents, Beria allegedly being a British agent and so forth. And this is far from accidental, Khrushchev was trained in the Stalin school.

Khrushchev is the original source of the notion that Stalin conspired to murder Kirov, though he was careful enough never to say so directly. Material coming out since the opening of the archives has proven once and for all I should think that this is purely an urban legend.

-M.H.-

[Jose Gracchus]

Former Trotskyist Simon Pirani I actually ran into during one of my visits to Russia. He is now sympathetic to the Whites, or at least thinks that the classic Red criticisms of them are unfair. Published a pamphlet about a pro-White worker uprising in a military production factory town in Siberia. He has gone far to the right.

And the same was true for Emma Goldman. After she left Russia she went very far to the right, further than Pirani, and in her last few years was very much a supporter of the Whites vs. the Bolsheviks. Liked Mussolini too.

Prove it. All I ever see is that you run at the mouth with whatever lines buttress Spart nonsense, and I am sure as shit not going to take your word for it. Its pretty extreme you've led me to feel bad for the icepick brigade with your debating tactics.

[A Marxist Historian]

Prove it. All I ever see is that you run at the mouth with whatever lines buttress Spart nonsense, and I am sure as shit not going to take your word for it. Its pretty extreme you've led me to feel bad for the icepick brigade with your debating tactics.

On Emma Goldman, see earlier in the thread, I withdrew that comment. Hey, if I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it.

As for Pirani, if that is what you were objecting to, I met the guy and talked to him. I didn't have a tape recorder running.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

On Emma Goldman, see earlier in the thread, I withdrew that comment. Hey, if I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it.

As for Pirani, if that is what you were objecting to, I met the guy and talked to him. I didn't have a tape recorder running.

-M.H.-

In fact, let me be clearer on that.

My statement about Emma Goldman was provocative, and I shouldn't have made a statement like that without solid evidence I could bring out to back it up.

My bad.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

For all my dislike for Furr-style Stalinist apologetics, I should note that Radzinsky is merely a reactionary playwright, and his depictions of revolutionary political figures (not only those of the Russian Revolution, but of the French Revolution too, which the modern Russian political Right seems to be hating as much as the former) are notoriously subjective and unreliable. The fact that Stalin did not probably lead a lavish lifestyle does not make him less exploitative in his class position, as it is a similar case with austere lifestyles of early American capitalists or the personal asceticism of some Medieval monarchs. It is not a personal lifestyle but the real socioeconomic policies that matter there.

Your last point about it's policy not lifestyle that matters is correct of course, but for the rest, I disagree.

I picked up the book off my shelf and started rereading it, and got fascinated all over again. He is anti-socialist, no doubt about it, and does not hide his light under a bushel about it. But he is much more concerned about the truth than proving political points.

He has unkind things to say about Lenin etc., but there is always some relationship to reality, he is not a slanderer, even of Stalin, dispelling many urban legends about Stalin as a baby eater and such. Rather he is critical of leftists because he is not one himself, and everything he has to say makes some sense from his POV.

In fact, it was a bit unfair of me to call him a monarchist just 'cuz he wrote a book about the killing of the Tsars. He really comes off in this book at any rate more like a bourgeois liberal.

I think the book is very perceptive and subjective in a *good* way. Have you read it? If you haven't, I wouldn't jump to judgment about it before you do so.

-M.H.-

[Kiev Communard]

I think the book is very perceptive and subjective in a *good* way. Have you read it? If you haven't, I wouldn't jump to judgment about it before you do so.

-M.H.-

I have read through some of his books, and I do not think they are really "perceptive". Basically Radzinsky throws up a melodrama around the "bestiality" of the "Reds" in the Russian Revolution and "the Parisian mob" in the French Revolution and generally acts as some sort of Chauteaubriand's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/François-René_de_Chateaubriand) clone, without the latter's literary talent, of course. His mystical interpretation of the revolutionary "excesses" is nothing new and may be dated back to de Maistre and other 19th century French Catholic writers. And, of course, his view on Stalin and Napoleon as "incomplete" restorers of "proper" authority, yet ultimately tainted with revolutionary spirit, is nothing new either.

[A Marxist Historian]

I have read through some of his books, and I do not think they are really "perceptive". Basically Radzinsky throws up a melodrama around the "bestiality" of the "Reds" in the Russian Revolution and "the Parisian mob" in the French Revolution and generally acts as some sort of Chauteaubriand's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/François-René_de_Chateaubriand)clone, without the latter's literary talent, of course. His mystical interpretation of the revolutionary "excesses" is nothing new and may be dated back to de Maistre and other 19th century French Catholic writers. And, of course, his view on Stalin and Napoleon as "incomplete" restorers of "proper" authority, yet ultimately tainted with revolutionary spirit, is nothing new either.

Haven't read his stuff on the French Revolution, just the Stalin bio and the killing of the Tsar's family book. In neither of those two books does he create an image of red "bestiality," not even with Stalin.

His political interpretations are dubious and ignorable. Indeed whenever he tries to make a *political* judgment of something he gets it wrong. What the book is worthwhile for is accounts of what actually happened, and psychologically acute descriptions of people. He does make some dark hints about Lenin allegedly being involved and responsible for some of Stalin's worst behavior, but stops short of making direct charges.

One of the things I liked best in the book is his description of just how *all out* Lenin worked at getting rid of Stalin in his last year, even after his stroke.

-M.H.-

[DiaMat86]

"The Marxist Historian"

You have my vote for "Most Pretentious Revlefter UserName"

You'll never understand the USSR by reading fiction books.

[A Marxist Historian]

"The Marxist Historian"

You have my vote for "Most Pretentious Revlefter UserName"

You'll never understand the USSR by reading fiction books.

Diamat alas has a point about the user name. I originally intended "a Marxist historian," but my first post was in a hurry and now I am stuck with it.

Radzinsky's book is good for understanding Stalin, and is bio not fiction, unlike some of the things the PLP has written about Stalin.

But lousy for understanding the USSR. Best book for that is Trotsky's "Revolution Betrayed," which probably Diamat wouldn't ever read, as he'd fear reading it like a vampire fears garlic and holy water.

-M.H.-

[DiaMat86]

Ho humm...One may as well read George Orwell as read Trotsky. Those two were collaborators weren't they?

What has PLP written about Stalin that is false?

[A Marxist Historian]

Ho humm...One may as well read George Orwell as read Trotsky. Those two were collaborators weren't they?

What has PLP written about Stalin that is false?

Just about everything PLP has written about Stalin is false, where would I start? Am not ignorant on this question, having been around PL myself, long long ago.

Post a link to something beyond where he was born etc. by PL on Stalin, and I'll gladly read it and critique its many and inevitable errors.

Trotsky and Orwell were never collaborators. At Orwell's leftmost point, during the Spanish Civil War, he was close to the POUM, led by ex-Trotskyist and anti-Trotskyist Andres Nin, and a Bukharinist named Maurin.

The Orwell Spain book, "Homage to Catalonia," is actually pretty good. You could do worse than to read it.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

Trotsky and Orwell were never collaborators. At Orwell's leftmost point, during the Spanish Civil War, he was close to the POUM, led by ex-Trotskyist and anti-Trotskyist Andres Nin, and a Bukharinist named Maurin.

The Orwell Spain book, "Homage to Catalonia," is actually pretty good. You could do worse than to read it.Orwell himself later became a right-wing social-democrat of the "Communists want to destroy our freedoms, the Labour Party is confidently marching towards socialism and is saving civilization from Soviet domination" type.

Also note the following two quotes:

"The much-publicized disunity on the Government side was not a main cause of defeat. The Government militias were hurriedly raised, ill-armed and unimaginative in their military outlook, but they would have been the same if complete political agreement had existed from the start. At the outbreak of war the average Spanish factory-worker did not even know how to fire a rifle (there had never been universal conscription in Spain), and the traditional pacifism of the Left was a great handicap. The thousands of foreigners who served in Spain made good infantry, but there were very few experts of any kind among them. The Trotskyist thesis that the war could have been won if the revolution had not been sabotaged was probably false. To nationalize factories, demolish churches, and issue revolutionary manifestoes would not have made the armies more efficient. The Fascists won because they were the stronger; they had modern arms and the others hadn't. No political strategy could offset that."
(George Orwell. A Collection of Essays. Orlando: Harcourt, Inc. 1981. pp. 203-204.)

"Actually I've given a more sympathetic account of the POUM 'line' than I actually felt, because I always told them they were wrong and refused to join the party. But I had to put it as sympathetically as possible, because it has had no hearing in the capitalist press and nothing but libels in the left-wing press. Actually, considering the way things have gone in Spain, I think there was something in what they said, though no doubt their way of saying it was tiresome and provocative in the extreme."
(George Orwell. George Orwell: An Age Like This, 1920-1940 Vol. 1. Boston, Mass.: David R. Godine. 2000. p. 366.)

[A Marxist Historian]

Orwell himself later became a right-wing social-democrat of the "Communists want to destroy our freedoms, the Labour Party is confidently marching towards socialism and is saving civilization from Soviet domination" type.

Also note the following two quotes:

"The much-publicized disunity on the Government side was not a main cause of defeat. The Government militias were hurriedly raised, ill-armed and unimaginative in their military outlook, but they would have been the same if complete political agreement had existed from the start. At the outbreak of war the average Spanish factory-worker did not even know how to fire a rifle (there had never been universal conscription in Spain), and the traditional pacifism of the Left was a great handicap. The thousands of foreigners who served in Spain made good infantry, but there were very few experts of any kind among them. The Trotskyist thesis that the war could have been won if the revolution had not been sabotaged was probably false. To nationalize factories, demolish churches, and issue revolutionary manifestoes would not have made the armies more efficient. The Fascists won because they were the stronger; they had modern arms and the others hadn't. No political strategy could offset that."
(George Orwell. A Collection of Essays. Orlando: Harcourt, Inc. 1981. pp. 203-204.)

"Actually I've given a more sympathetic account of the POUM 'line' than I actually felt, because I always told them they were wrong and refused to join the party. But I had to put it as sympathetically as possible, because it has had no hearing in the capitalist press and nothing but libels in the left-wing press. Actually, considering the way things have gone in Spain, I think there was something in what they said, though no doubt their way of saying it was tiresome and provocative in the extreme."
(George Orwell. George Orwell: An Age Like This, 1920-1940 Vol. 1. Boston, Mass.: David R. Godine. 2000. p. 366.)

Quite true. Homage to Catalonia is much better than things he wrote later, including about Spain, has these quotes demonstrate. The second indicates that he was to the right of the POUM even in '37, though it would be hard to tell that from reading the book.

-M.H.-

[DiaMat86]

The Trotskyist Historian said:

"Just about everything PLP has written about Stalin is false, where would I start? Am not ignorant on this question, having been around PL myself, long long ago"

Such as??Post some links! Hold yourself to a higher standard.

Whenever a revisionist says they left PL it makes me proud of the leadership. Trotsky abandoned the Marxist principal of self-criticism. That's why you can't get anywhere.

[S.Artesian]

Diamat alas has a point about the user name. I originally intended "a Marxist historian," but my first post was in a hurry and now I am stuck with it.

-M.H.-


No you're not stuck with it. People can change their user names. Miles did it; Scarlet Ghoul did it.

[A Marxist Historian]

The Trotskyist Historian said:

"Just about everything PLP has written about Stalin is false, where would I start? Am not ignorant on this question, having been around PL myself, long long ago"

Such as??Post some links! Hold yourself to a higher standard.

Whenever a revisionist says they left PL it makes me proud of the leadership. Trotsky abandoned the Marxist principal of self-criticism. That's why you can't get anywhere.

Let's do better than that. You obviously know more about PL than I do, and if I spend a lot of time hunting out some horrible example, that would be PL at its worst, and a bit unfair.

Why don't you, a supporter of PL, give us what you see as the *best* thing PL has written on Stalin, and I will critique it.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

No you're not stuck with it. People can change their user names. Miles did it; Scarlet Ghoul did it.

Request sent to proper channels.

-M.H.-