Was Trotsky a Fascist spy?

[tir1944]

I've seen claims and sources that talk about Trotsky being a fascist spy,however i haven't seen enough conclusive evidence for this claim.
What do you think about the issue and what are your own insights?
Thanks.

[HEAD ICE]

No.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yup... I mean NO!:blink:

Shit, I broke the anarcho-trot conspiracy code of silence! I must consult with the cryogenically preserved brains of James Cannon and Emma Goldman to find out what to do about this.

Edit: Oops, I thought this was chit-chat but it's in history. Ok, my real comment is: no, he was not, that's crazy-talk. Trotsky never signed a pact with NAZI Germany.

[Ismail]

The charges at the Moscow Trials weren't that he was a "fascist spy," but that he had met with Hess and had agreed to allow for Nazi assistance in order to take power in the USSR, that the Ukraine would be severed from the USSR, that German capital would be able to flow into the USSR, etc. Other charges were that Trotsky promoted the sabotaging of Soviet industry and the assassination of Stalin. Nowhere was it suggested that Trotsky actually was a fascist or admired fascism.

You can find the three Moscow Trials transcripts below:
* http://sovietlibrary.info/Library/Union%20of%20Soviet%20Socialist%20Republics/1936_Report%20of%20Court%20Proceedings_Trotskyite-Zinovievite%20Terrorist%20Centre_1936.pdf
* http://sovietlibrary.info/Library/Union%20of%20Soviet%20Socialist%20Republics/1937_Report%20of%20the%20Court%20Proceedings%20Ant i-Soviet%20Trotskyite%20Centre_1937.pdf
* http://sovietlibrary.info/Library/Union%20of%20Soviet%20Socialist%20Republics/1938_Report%20of%20Court%20Proceedings_Anti-Soviet%20Bloc%20of%20Rights%20and%20Trotskyites_19 38.pdf

Grover Furr's article is a good place to start if you want to look for any evidence on the charges: clogic.eserver.org/2009/Furr.pdf (http://clogic.eserver.org/2009/Furr.pdf)

[Искра]

You can find the three Moscow Trials transcripts
Enough said :rolleyes:

I would like to be a Stalinst for a day. I guess itis fun.

[Who?]

I'm pretty sure he wasn't a fascist spy. Just a narcissist with some OK ideas and some really lame ideas.

[Ismail]

This thread really doesn't belong in History.

Moved to Learning.

[mrmikhail]

How did I know it would be Tir who created this thread without even looking?

No kidding, how can you even post such a pointless and blatantly known lie, and as Ismail even pointed out...not even Stalin said this in the very (show) trials where he convicted Trotsky. Next time comrade, I recommend you take the time to do some research before making a threat filled with such a baseless accusation.

[RED DAVE]

Grover Furr's article is a good place to start if you want to look for any evidence on the charges: clogic.eserver.org/2009/Furr.pdf (http://clogic.eserver.org/2009/Furr.pdf)Frankly, it's more fun scribbing my face with steel wool than reading Furr, but I started reading his crap. On page 14, I found this:


June 1937 was a time of tremendous crisis for the Soviet leadership. ... The month of May had begun with an internal revolt against the Spanish Republican government in which anarchists and Trotskyists participated. The Soviet leadership knew this revolt had involved some kind of collaboration between pro-Trotsky forces there and both Francoist and German – Nazi – intelligence.This is an out-and-out Stalinist lie. At that point, I decided I would read something with a little credibility, like maybe Nixon's speech in which he said he wasn't a crook.

Frankly, Ismail, you should resign as a History mod. You are a constant purveyor of lies.

RED DAVE

[thesadmafioso]

Alright, so does anyone else recall the fact that Trotsky had charges against him in Germany as a result of his actions in WWI?

That is to say that he could not legally enter Germany, let alone act as a spy for its fascist government of the time. And this is before we even get into his actions and ideology, through which he certainly made active opposition to the deplorable reaction of fascism at in imaginable instance and at every conceivable turn.

[citizen of industry]

From the introduction to James P. Cannon Writings and Speeches, 1940 - 1943, The Socialist Workers Party in World War II (Lev Evans, 1975)



Though he was the leader of a small and persecuted movement, none of the world's governments doubted that Trotsky and the Fourth International remained a force to contend with. They knew that the Bolsheviks under Lenin had also been a numerically insignificant group in 1914. The French ambassador to Germany, Coulondre, in his last interview with Hitler, on August 25th, 1939, told the German dictator, "I would also have the fear that as a result of the war, there would be only one real victor - Mr. Trotsky." Hitler shouted in reply, "Why do you then give Poland a blank check?" - accepting as though self-evident the ambassadors statement.

[citizen of industry]

I've seen claims and sources that talk about Trotsky being a fascist spy,however i haven't seen enough conclusive evidence for this claim.
What do you think about the issue and what are your own insights?
Thanks.

This thread is also a great exercise in how show trials are run, just throwing around wild, unsubstantiated claims and then poking around for little out-of-context factoids from debatable sources to make it palatable. Not surprising coming from a stalinist.

I've seen claims and sources that talk about tir1944 being a fascist spy, however I haven't seen enough conclusive evidence for this claim. What do you think about the issue and what are your own insights? If I can't find any evidence disproving my fanciful notion, I'll take that as proof I'm correct.

[mrmikhail]

This thread is also a great exercise in how show trials are run, just throwing around wild, unsubstantiated claims and then poking around for little out-of-context factoids from debatable sources to make it palatable. Not surprising coming from a stalinist.

I've seen claims and sources that talk about tir1944 being a fascist spy, however I haven't seen enough conclusive evidence for this claim. What do you think about the issue and what are your own insights? If I can't find any evidence disproving my fanciful notion, I'll take that as proof I'm correct.

I agree, where is *your* evidence, comrade? Not looking too good for you tir.....

[RadioRaheem84]

The only reason why this thread is bullshit is because no one is answering the OP in a serious manner.

I do not know much about Soviet history and have heard about the claims that Trotsky turned fascist or something like that later in life, but never followed up on it.

I would like some interesting answers to this question but instead all I've read are inane childish posts as if the OP insulted a rock star or something.

Who is Grover Furr? I was under the impression that he was a good scholar to cite against rampant anti-communist Robert Conquest-like propaganda.

Since this is in the learning thread, I would prefer to learn about the history of the USSR. Ismail was the only one attempting to get the ball started and he was hassled. Even if you don't agree with him, at least challenge what he is saying.

2 pages of sarcasm?!

[Искра]

Answer is: NO.

Why? Because there are no proff and all this "fascist" thing is nothing but Stalinist slander.

If you are interested in Trotsky, here's a book to read:
http://www.amazon.com/Prophet-Trotsky-1879-1940-Vol-1-3/dp/1844673936

[Die Rote Fahne]

The only reason why this thread is bullshit is because no one is answering the OP in a serious manner.

I do not know much about Soviet history and have heard about the claims that Trotsky turned fascist or something like that later in life, but never followed up on it.

I would like some interesting answers to this question but instead all I've read are inane childish posts as if the OP insulted a rock star or something.

Who is Grover Furr? I was under the impression that he was a good scholar to cite against rampant anti-communist Robert Conquest-like propaganda.

Since this is in the learning thread, I would prefer to learn about the history of the USSR. Ismail was the only one attempting to get the ball started and he was hassled. Even if you don't agree with him, at least challenge what he is saying.

2 pages of sarcasm?!
The obvious answer for the OP is, as I posted, no. There is no amount of historical revisionism that can be taken seriously. We know by the writings of Trotsky, by his actions that he was no fascist. We know that Stalin had show trials, that he accused people of things to get them out of the way. So why is this Stalinite (tir1944) who has expressed his anti-Trotskyist views by accepting the ideology of a tyrant, asking this absurd question?

I'll answer. He is goading on the forum's Trotskyist population, essentially trolling them. He has a history of trolling, it has gone unchecked by the moderators who refuse to even say "we will look into it" or "this isnt trolling". He isn't here to seriously find out whether or not Trotsky was "a fascist spy", he's had his mind made up from the day he accepted to follow Stalinite dogma.

Nowhere in his post did he cite any sources, or do any critical thinking of the topic. He just blatantly asked the question, mentioned how he hasn't seen the evidence, and contnued on with not even replying to any of the arguments, besides thanking Ismail --who has yet to answer to comrade thesadmafioso and RED DAVE's posts.

I'm not a Trotskyist, and I have my differences with him, and acknowledge that some of his works make him look better than he actually was. It is time the Stalinites realize that Stalin had a PERSONAL vendetta against Trotsky. The accusations, the trials, were not legitimate, but the result of a despot who felt threatened by a democratic force.

It's high time that those who approve of what Stalin did in regards to economic policy, theory, etc. also disapprove of his historical revisionism, brutality, mass and ineffective bureaucracy and anti-democratic nature.

Stalinites want their cake, but too eat it as well.

[Commissar Rykov]

The obvious answer for the OP is, as I posted, no. There is no amount of historical revisionism that can be taken seriously. We know by the writings of Trotsky, by his actions that he was no fascist. We know that Stalin had show trials, that he accused people of things to get them out of the way. So why is this Stalinite (tir1944) who has expressed his anti-Trotskyist views by accepting the ideology of a tyrant, asking this absurd question?

I'll answer. He is goading on the forum's Trotskyist population, essentially trolling them. He has a history of trolling, it has gone unchecked by the moderators who refuse to even say "we will look into it" or "this isnt trolling". He isn't here to seriously find out whether or not Trotsky was "a fascist spy", he's had his mind made up from the day he accepted to follow Stalinite dogma.

Nowhere in his post did he cite any sources, or do any critical thinking of the topic. He just blatantly asked the question, mentioned how he hasn't seen the evidence, and contnued on with not even replying to any of the arguments, besides thanking Ismail --who has yet to answer to comrade thesadmafioso and RED DAVE's posts.

I'm not a Trotskyist, and I have my differences with him, and acknowledge that some of his works make him look better than he actually was. It is time the Stalinites realize that Stalin had a PERSONAL vendetta against Trotsky. The accusations, the trials, were not legitimate, but the result of a despot who felt threatened by a democratic force.

It's high time that those who approve of what Stalin did in regards to economic policy, theory, etc. also disapprove of his historical revisionism, brutality, mass and ineffective bureaucracy and anti-democratic nature.

Stalinites want their cake, but too eat it as well.
Well except that Stalin never even accused Trotsky of being a fascist spy in the Moscow Trials. That is truly the humor of this situation.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Well except that Stalin never even accused Trotsky of being a fascist spy in the Moscow Trials. That is truly the humor of this situation.
That as well. I mean, the absurdity if Stalin did accuse him is one thing, but he never, so why even ask the question?

Ridiculous.

[RedGrunt]

I'll agree that it certainly appears that Tir was goading. But.. two pages of useless posts? Wonderful. If it was such a shit thread, why didn't you all just not post.. or not all thank each other over one liners and equally childish responses.

Also.. Red Dave's post was inflammatory and doesn't need a response. Mafioso's was appropriate, though.

[RadioRaheem84]

It's high time that those who approve of what Stalin did in regards to economic policy, theory, etc. also disapprove of his historical revisionism, brutality, mass and ineffective bureaucracy and anti-democratic nature.I think there is a better way to analyze Stalin's reign than just accusations of being a brute, tyrant, despot, etc.

I am sure he did have a personal vendetta against Trotsky, but to characterize the debacle as an exercise in despotic drama queen antics is too much.

I DO NOT want to be mistaken as a Stalinist, but I am really, really, skeptical of the label, it usage against others and really skeptical that all he was, was a tyrant. I tend to look at the historical development of the USSR before I rule any of it's leaders a tyrant. To me, being fervently anti-Stalin for the sake of it, seem like saving face in front of liberals. Sorry that is just what it appears to me. I could be completely wrong, totally dead wrong, but on surface appearance instead of a strict analysis, that period is just dumped into the ash heap of history; just a Stalinist time, no need to worry about it.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well except that Stalin never even accused Trotsky of being a fascist spy in the Moscow Trials. That is truly the humor of this situation.

This is something that should've been mentioned from the beginning.

[RadioRaheem84]

That as well. I mean, the absurdity if Stalin did accuse him is one thing, but he never, so why even ask the question?

Ridiculous.

No, the OP didn't ask anything about Stalin, just Trotsky and the accusations hurled against him. That's all. Everyone else flipped out about "Stalinism",

The history of the poster is irrelevant, regardless if he is a flame war starter. His question should've been answered with something backed up by facts.

[Commissar Rykov]

In response to the question: "Was Trotsky a fascist spy?"

Are there any serious communists on this site?
I fail to see how that addreses Tir's question. In fact I am growing tired of people just not answering questions instead attacking the OP or just appealing to emotion in a manner that is completely useless for the Learning Section.

[Kadir Ateş]

I fail to see how that addreses Tir's question. In fact I am growing tired of people just not answering questions instead attacking the OP or just appealing to emotion in a manner that is completely useless for the Learning Section.

I'm not a Trotskyist, but the man spent years writing about fascism and evening warning socialists about it before Churchill, who was considered the first to do so.

I think the hang-up of many a Stalinist is the fact that they were the ones who after all signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact--only to later break it.

There--now you have your answer.

[citizen of industry]

If the OP would kindly cite some the sources he claims to have seen, perhaps he might get more thoughtful responses. As it stands, the answer is pretty self-evident.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think the hang-up of many a Stalinist is the fact that they were the ones who after all signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact--only to later break it.

Did you really want to use this as a way to debunk what you believe to be a bogus question?

[ClearlyChrist]

I Wouldn't Read Too Much Into The Ramblings Of Stalin, My Friend. Trotsky, As Much As I Can Occasionally Argue About Him, Was No Spy. That's An Insult To Him.

[RadioRaheem84]

I'm sure he wasn't. I was just upset that there was no adequate answer in the thread, just antics.

[Battlecat]

I Wouldn't Read Too Much Into The Ramblings Of Stalin, My Friend. Trotsky, As Much As I Can Occasionally Argue About Him, Was No Spy. That's An Insult To Him.
Exactly. One Can Disagree With Trotsky's Theories About Organisation, Or His Criticism Of The Soviet Union, However, That Doesn't Mean We Should Resort To Meaningless Slander And Name Calling.

[ClearlyChrist]

Exactly. One Can Disagree With Trotsky's Theories About Organisation, Or His Criticism Of The Soviet Union, However, That Doesn't Mean We Should Resort To Meaningless Slander And Name Calling.

I Must Say, Comrade, It Is Genuinely Refreshing To Find Someone That Has Common Sense, You Have My Thanks.

[RadioRaheem84]

Exactly. One Can Disagree With Trotsky's Theories About Organisation, Or His Criticism Of The Soviet Union, However, That Doesn't Mean We Should Resort To Meaningless Slander And Name Calling.

I am sure the accusation is baseless, but it had less to do with name calling or calling Trotsky a fascist and more to do with accusing him of allying with Nazis to topple Stalin. So the accusation was not that he was fascist himself, but that he thought Stalin as such a threat that he would've collaborated with fascists to topple him.

I hope I am getting this right, because the accusation is so out there, that I think I may be getting some things wrong.

Also, there is the accusation that was a Menshevik?

I mean all this is beside the point. These are claims made against him. I doubt they're true.

The point is that it goes much deeper than just calling Trotsky a fascist.

[Kadir Ateş]

Did you really want to use this as a way to debunk what you believe to be a bogus question?

Yep, you bet. Stalinists are counterrevolutionaries, state capitalists par excellence. That's good enough for me.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yep, you bet. Stalinists are counterrevolutionaries, state capitalists par excellence. That's good enough for me.

The USSR also had pacts with Lithuania, Finland, Latvia, Poland, France, Afghanistan, etc. Some before Stalin was in power.

What is your point?

[ColonelCossack]

Despite my tendency, I really don't think so.

[Rooster]

His question should've been answered with something backed up by facts.

Oh come on. How can you even put facts to this question? It's a baseless slander. Nothing in his writings or actions promoted fascism. There is nothing to link Trotsky was the Nazis. No documents, no witnesses, no first hand accounts linking him with the Nazi party.

[Crux]

I've seen claims and sources that talk about Trotsky being a fascist spy,however i haven't seen enough conclusive evidence for this claim.
What do you think about the issue and what are your own insights?
Thanks.
Well just the other day I was informed by a clearly confused man that Trotsky's real name was in fact Lev Davidovitch Bronstein. Furthermore he was apparently the son of a banker and related to the Rothschilds. I think your claims are on about the same level of accuracy. So what are your thoughts on the jewish-bolshevik banker conspiracy? Do you have any insights? It's funny you claim to have not seen "enough conclusive evidence" as to Trotsky being a fascist. Have you seen any evidence, let alone "conclusive evidence"? Of course you have not. Like other conspiracy theorists, like the one I met, you do not operate with facts.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Rather than underscore that there is no evidence for this, which comrades have ably done, I will say this. It makes no sense. None. If Trotsky were some kind of Bonapartist, he could have seized power when he was at the head of the Red Army. The man was the second most instrumental Bolshevik in winning the Russian Revolution. He wrote eloquently about DEFENDING the USSR up until the time of his death. He was consistent (unlike papa joe) in his program and policies. Doesn't it worry you that Stalin had to kill every living member of the CCP Central Committee of 1920? Does it make sense that they were all traitors, especially Trotsky? Of course it doesn't. You have drunk of the Stalinist kool-aid and it has compromised your ability to think.

[tir1944]

From the book "Evidence of Leon Trotsky’s Collaboration with Germany and Japan "

The reason why i asked this question in the first place is because i wanted to see what other,more knowledgeable members think of this.I also wanted to see if other people have some better sources for whichever claim regarding this issue.
I'm not really convinced that Trotsky really was a fascist spy,i don't think he was,however i'm interested in sources.Those who don't want discuss this issue in a reasonable and polite way can take their chit-chat and jokes to Chit-chat,IMO.


In June 1937 in Moscow, at the address of the Central Executive Committee
(CEC) which was then formally the highest organ of state power in the USSR a
telegram arrived from L.D. Trotsky in Mexico: [text of telegram]. Of course this
telegram ended up not in the CEC but in the NKVD, whence it was directed to
Stalin as a so-called “special communication.” He wrote on it the following
remark: “Ugly spy.11 Brazen spy of Hitler.” Stalin not only signed his name
under his “sentence,” but gave it to V. Molotov, K. Voroshilov, A. Mikoian, and
A. Zhdanov to sign

[Rooster]

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the evidence for Trotsky being a fascist spy: Stalin wrote it on a memo so it must be true! Do you think Trotsky was ugly as well, tir? Is this all of the conclusive evidence that you have?

I'm suffering terribly for déja vu here....

http://www.revleft.com/vb/evidence-leon-trotsky-t132632/index.html?t=132632

[Per Levy]

I am sure the accusation is baseless, but it had less to do with name calling or calling Trotsky a fascist and more to do with accusing him of allying with Nazis to topple Stalin. So the accusation was not that he was fascist himself, but that he thought Stalin as such a threat that he would've collaborated with fascists to topple him.

well all these claims are not true, that is the whole point. there is no prove to any of these claims. all that there is are tortured confessions and thats it. people make fun about this thread because not only is it well known that trotsky was neither a fascist spy nor a collaborateur. it is alaos well know that the only ones who still bring this up are grover furr junkies or are just have that much love for stalin that they belive any of his words no matter the facts.

and about grover furr, read this the whole thread if you want, single out the ones who deal with op linked text and you'll see how full of shit grover furr is: http://www.revleft.com/vb/evidence-leon-trotsky-t132632/index.html?t=132632

[RadioRaheem84]

well all these claims are not true, that is the whole point. there is no prove to any of these claims. all that there is are tortured confessions and thats it. people make fun about this thread because not only is it well known that trotsky was neither a fascist spy nor a collaborateur. it is alaos well know that the only ones who still bring this up are grover furr junkies or are just have that much love for stalin that they belive any of his words no matter the facts.

and about grover furr, read this the whole thread if you want, single out the ones who deal with op linked text and you'll see how full of shit grover furr is: http://www.revleft.com/vb/evidence-leon-trotsky-t132632/index.html?t=132632

Well that sucks, I was hoping Furr was a respected scholar to cite against over the top Conquest like anti-communist junk.

[Commissar Rykov]

Well that sucks, I was hoping Furr was a respected scholar to cite against over the top Conquest like anti-communist junk.
Unfortunately most Far Left scholars are just as waist deep in the tendency war as anyone else is and thus typically ignore evidence that would not frame their argument in a good light. Unfortunately I don't know if you can get too many historians that can completely put aside their preconceived notions before taking on a project. I know I have a hard time doing it myself in the discipline and I'm just an undergrad student at the moment.

[RadioRaheem84]

Unfortunately most Far Left scholars are just as waist deep in the tendency war as anyone else is and thus typically ignore evidence that would not frame their argument in a good light. Unfortunately I don't know if you can get too many historians that can completely put aside their preconceived notions before taking on a project. I know I have a hard time doing it myself in the discipline and I'm just an undergrad student at the moment.

The power of the presupposition!

[Smyg]

Well just the other day I was informed by a clearly confused man that Trotsky's real name was in fact Lev Davidovitch Bronstein. Furthermore he was apparently the son of a banker and related to the Rothschilds. I think your claims are on about the same level of accuracy. So what are your thoughts on the jewish-bolshevik banker conspiracy? Do you have any insights? It's funny you claim to have not seen "enough conclusive evidence" as to Trotsky being a fascist. Have you seen any evidence, let alone "conclusive evidence"? Of course you have not. Like other conspiracy theorists, like the one I met, you do not operate with facts.

Euhm, yes?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Note taken.

What SF thread? What are you talking about?
Well,actually,i didn't even argue with you or anyone else for that matter.I don't know much about this subject,that's why i made a thread,as i previously noted,to see other people's insights into/opinions on this.

This thread is for learning. If you're just gonna be petty, then don't bother posting.

Why don't you try to engage with people in this thread, instead of trying to apologise for/peddle ridiculous conspiracy theories. Even your fellow M-L enthusiast Ismail has admitted that Trotsky wasn't a fascist spy.

And we all know the technique of 'do you think xyz'; we're not stupid, we know that you want us to validate this frankly absurd theory. Just get over it, it's not true and has no basis in fact, in source or anywhere outside the most banal and biased literature.

[AmericanCommie421]

Trotsky founded and led the Red Army. Trotsky also wrote polemics warning against fascism and the rise of it in Europe. He also encouraged Social Democrats and Marxists to unite and fight the threat.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The only reason why this thread is bullshit is because no one is answering the OP in a serious manner.

I do not know much about Soviet history and have heard about the claims that Trotsky turned fascist or something like that later in life, but never followed up on it.

I would like some interesting answers to this question but instead all I've read are inane childish posts as if the OP insulted a rock star or something.

Who is Grover Furr? I was under the impression that he was a good scholar to cite against rampant anti-communist Robert Conquest-like propaganda.

Since this is in the learning thread, I would prefer to learn about the history of the USSR. Ismail was the only one attempting to get the ball started and he was hassled. Even if you don't agree with him, at least challenge what he is saying.

2 pages of sarcasm?!

Grover Furr is a nutjob who's life's mission is to prove that wildfires in the Soviet Union were actually the result of kulak arsonists, and that everyone convicted during the Moscow Trials were subjected to a fair hearing, in which they were convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of being evil kulak-Trotskyist-Bukharinist-fascist saboteurs. Also, that Stalin's random deluded doodlings on a telegram represent rock solid proof.

He's one can short of a six-pack, in short.

The thread didn't get a serious response because it wasn't a serious question to start with.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well that sucks, I was hoping Furr was a respected scholar to cite against over the top Conquest like anti-communist junk.

Respected scholar? That doofus would be shunned from any serious academic debate because of his crimes against facts. :lol:

See Red Dave's post on the Barcelona May Days? There is absolutely zero proof, none, nunca, niet, that the POUM or anarchist organizations were co-operating with Francoist or Nazi intelligence. That doesn't prevent our esteemed colleague mr. Furr from bringing it up, though.

[MarxSchmarx]

OK everyone

I just moved a ton of pointless posts to the trash from this thread. Please answer the OP's question and try act srsly. If you have nothing constructive to say, go do it in chitchat or OI. Any further one liner idiocies in this thread will result in a warning.

[Grenzer]

Grover Furr is unreliable. It's pretty obvious that he's just a shill for Stalin. From what I've read of his works, he seems to have no inclination to take a critical and objective view of Stalin, or Trotsky for that matter.

Not only is there no evidence of this claim whatsoever, there is no compelling reason to believe it's true. Whether you love or hate Trotsky, it seems like a ridiculous claim to make.

[Crux]

From the book "Evidence of Leon Trotsky’s Collaboration with Germany and Japan "

The reason why i asked this question in the first place is because i wanted to see what other,more knowledgeable members think of this.I also wanted to see if other people have some better sources for whichever claim regarding this issue.
I'm not really convinced that Trotsky really was a fascist spy,i don't think he was,however i'm interested in sources.Those who don't want discuss this issue in a reasonable and polite way can take their chit-chat and jokes to Chit-chat,IMO.
So you have a book that already in the title is an abject lie? Or if it really is "evidence" I am sure you can put something forward other than some memo by Stalin. It's more than a little ridicolous.

[Kadir Ateş]

The USSR also had pacts with Lithuania, Finland, Latvia, Poland, France, Afghanistan, etc. Some before Stalin was in power.

What is your point?

Yes, and once the Bolsheviks became commissars for Russian foreign policy, they opportunistically added Nazi Germany. Are you really that thick?

[mrmikhail]

Also, there is the accusation that was a Menshevik?


Trotsky was in fact a Menshevik from ~August 1903-~September 1904 then until 1914 he was a Bolshevik, but one who was trying to mediate an agreement between the two sides, after this he apologised to Lenin and acknowledged he had been wrong to oppose him, from there on he was one of the top Bolshevik's and supporters of Lenin (becoming #2 once the revolution hit)

[Hit The North]

This thread really doesn't belong in History.

Moved to Learning.

Actually, it belongs in the trash and I hope a global moderator will oblige.

[promethean]

Well that sucks, I was hoping Furr was a respected scholar to cite against over the top Conquest like anti-communist junk.
Grover Furr seems to be a co-thinker of the type of people who associate Trotsky's intellectual relationship with the Jewish millionaire, Parvus, to be proof of "Jews funded the Russian revolution!!!!??!!".

[MarxSchmarx]

Actually, it belongs in the trash and I hope a global moderator will oblige.

It's a juvenile accusation at best. However this board holds the position that stalinists are tolerated and if there are serious stalinists out thee that want to argue Trotsky did as a matter of fact collude with Nazi Germany/Japan/Ataturk whatever, then let the historical record and evidence resolve this particular debate, not the decree of board functionaries.

[Hit The North]

It's a juvenile accusation at best. However this board holds the position that stalinists are tolerated and if there are serious stalinists out thee that want to argue Trotsky did as a matter of fact collude with Nazi Germany/Japan/Ataturk whatever, then let the historical record and evidence resolve this particular debate, not the decree of board functionaries.

You could at least stick it in a more appropriate forum (I've already suggested the trash, but you seem resistant), rather than having it hanging around the Learning forum like a bad smell.

[MarxSchmarx]

Originally Posted by MarxSchmarx http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2293537#post2293537)
It's a juvenile accusation at best. However this board holds the position that stalinists are tolerated and if there are serious stalinists out thee that want to argue Trotsky did as a matter of fact collude with Nazi Germany/Japan/Ataturk whatever, then let the historical record and evidence resolve this particular debate, not the decree of board functionaries. You could at least stick it in a more appropriate forum (I've already suggested the trash, but you seem resistant), rather than having it hanging around the Learning forum like a bad smell.

What forum woud you suggest, other than history, trash or chit-chat, and why?

[Hit The North]

What forum woud you suggest, other than history, trash or chit-chat, and why?

Well, I'd suggest History where it originally came from. Elevating it from being a mildly amusing historical curio to being a question worthy of discussion in the Learning forum strikes me as possessing an obvious political intent and endorsement of the OP's hollow accusation by comrade Ismail.

Just sayin'.

[Ismail]

It's a question, not a historical discussion. I responded to him.

[Hit The North]

It's a question, not a historical discussion. I responded to him.

We don't put all questions in the Learning forum.

Are questions about history not allowed in the History forum?

[Ismail]

We don't put all questions in the Learning forum.

Are questions about history not allowed in the History forum?I was under the impression that threads which have no content other than "hey guys I know zero about the subject please enlighten me" don't belong in History. It's either Learning or the trash, your choice.

[S.Artesian]

I was under the impression that threads which have no content other than "hey guys I know zero about the subject please enlighten me" don't belong in History. It's either Learning or the trash, your choice.

Trash, most definitely

[Triple A]

In fact the rise of nazi Germany was Trotsky's work.

[thesadmafioso]

I was under the impression that threads which have no content other than "hey guys I know zero about the subject please enlighten me" don't belong in History. It's either Learning or the trash, your choice.

I can't avoid the impression that if any other mod (i.e. someone not a Stalinist) came across this thread initially, that it would of been rightfully trashed.

This is a topic rather clearly designed with an intent to lower the quality of discourse across the board and one with an aim to simply annoy those who would like to see otherwise; it is one without any value in the history or learning forum and one which really should not of been allowed to reach its fourth page.

[Ismail]

I can't avoid the impression that if any other mod (i.e. someone not a Stalinist) came across this thread initially, that it would of been rightfully trashed.

This is a topic rather clearly designed with an intent to lower the quality of discourse across the board and one with an aim to simply annoy those who would like to see otherwise; it is one without any value in the history or learning forum and one which really should not of been allowed to reach its fourth page.Can you prove Tir made the thread with malicious intent? The Moscow Trials are an important part of history, they're a valid subject which has been discussed plenty of times before on this forum.

[S.Artesian]

Can you prove Tir made the thread with malicious intent? The Moscow Trials are an important part of history, they're a valid subject which has been discussed plenty of times before on this forum.

That's like saying the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are an important part of history, neglecting however what that history is-- which is a falsification in order to demonize one group without factual basis in order to preserve the ruling order.

Malicious intent? Right. Sure. Just like the Protocols and the Trials were of malicious intent. That's the point.

Tir is nothing but a troll, pretending to ask for "objective" information due to his own lack of knowledge, when in fact he has an ideological purpose.

Now maybe you think people are stupid enough to not see the forest because of the trees, but we've all sawed and carried enough wood around here to know what's what; and what's up with the lumber.

Tell you what, if I were the moderator of the learning forum, I'd be pissed that the moderator of the history forum dumped this reeking, stinking piece of shit thread in my forum.

This thread has absolutely nothing to do with learning; no more than Tir's previous troll line on "rootless cosmopolitans" had anything to do with globalization.

You're a disgrace Ismail.

[Ismail]

That's like saying the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are an important part of history, neglecting however what that history is-- which is a falsification in order to demonize one group without factual basis in order to preserve the ruling order.Here we see your Trotskyism in action, comparing the Moscow Trials to an anti-semitic tract forged to "show" that Jews rule the world. This is irrelevant to the question of the thread being malicious or not. It has been confirmed by Trotskyist historians (such as Pierre Broué (http://marxists.org/archive/broue/1980/01/bloc.html)) that the Moscow Trials had a basis in fact insofar as there was a conspiracy to overthrow the government. Obviously the extended charges such as claims of Nazi collaboration, etc. are another matter. That alone distinguishes it from the Protocols.


Tir is nothing but a troll, pretending to ask for "objective" information due to his own lack of knowledge, when in fact he has an ideological purpose.If he has a "lack of knowledge" on the subject then he obviously wants to learn about it. Trolling would entail knowing full well about the subject but making a thread to stir things up.

[S.Artesian]

Here we see your Trotskyism in action, comparing the Moscow Trials to an anti-semitic tract forged to "show" that Jews rule the world. This is irrelevant to the question of the thread being malicious or not. It has been confirmed by Trotskyist historians (such as Pierre Broué (http://marxists.org/archive/broue/1980/01/bloc.html)) that the Moscow Trials had a basis in fact insofar as there was a conspiracy to overthrow the government. Obviously the extended charges such as claims of Nazi collaboration, etc. are another matter. That alone distinguishes it from the Protocols.

If he has a "lack of knowledge" on the subject then he obviously wants to learn about it. Trolling would entail knowing full well about the subject but making a thread to stir things up.


I am not a Trotskyist. I do believe in historical accuracy. The issue raised at the Moscow Trials was not opposition to the government, but rather that such opposition, all such opposition was the produce of a vast conspiracy of leftist-rightist-centrist-fascist agents of Germany, Japan etc .

There was no conspiracy to overthrow the government-- Trotsky's Bolshevik leninists dealings with other groups in opposition had absolutely no terrorist component which was the charge of the Moscow trials.

In this regard, the similarity to the Protocols far outweighs the superficial differences. The "documents" used in the Moscow trials to support the "charges" are as false as the document of the Protocol used in its charges.

Separating the Moscow trials from the specific charges made in those trials is, besides an impossibility, nonsensical-- which of course is why you attempt it -- "
Obviously the extended charges such as claims of Nazi collaboration, etc. are another matter.

No.. it isn't another matter. The trials don't exist without those charges. What would the trial have been without the charges? That long-time Bolsheviks disagreed with government's policies and thought those policies would destroy the revolution? That those Bolsheviks had exchanged communication with the former leader of the revolution, the soviets, their party, and the Red Army?

WTF? Next thing you'll be telling us is that the McCarthy hearings weren't a witch hunt because there really were communists, and communist sympathizers in the government. Or that the former House Un-American Activities Committee had a legitimate basis for its investigations and sanctions since obviously those involved in civil rights and labor struggles really were unAmerican.

[Ismail]

There was no conspiracy to overthrow the government-- Trotsky's Bolshevik leninists dealings with other groups in opposition had absolutely no terrorist component which was the charge of the Moscow trials.It's been established that there really was a left-right bloc. Trotsky evidently sought to overthrow the government, which he regarded as a "bureaucratic caste" which was betraying the revolution and eating away at its gains.


No.. it isn't another matter. The trials don't exist without those charges. What would the trial have been without the charges?I was saying that there's obvious dispute over the charges of Nazi collaboration, etc. whereas the fact that Trotsky did want to overthrow the Soviet government and did organize opposition to it was not disputed. Of course you could argue that Trotsky wanted a "second revolution" rather than a putsch.

[S.Artesian]

And I'm saying there are no trials that could be held without the specious assertions; the falsification. That's the issue with which you cannot engage.

The charge of the trials is not that Trotsky wants to overthrow the government, but that he wants to wreck the Soviet Union, destroy the revolution. The charge isn't that Trotsky and the oppositionists of left and right want proletarian democracy, the ability to debate issues openly, etc. etc. The trials are not separate from the charges.

You could say "Oh well, obviously the government felt threatened. Things weren't that stable. The economy was in precarious state." So fucking what. That's the material, "passive" basis; that's not internal organization of the trials.

You might as well claim that the trial against the Scottsboro boys was because the white Southerners felt threatened. The economy was in a precarious state. So fucking what?

The issue is the actual content of what is being done, and why it's being done-- not that "Oh well, they're just exaggerating to make a point." No, they're not exaggerating to make a point. They're falsifying in order to kill people. See the difference?

I know you don't

[Ismail]

The issue is the actual content of what is being done, and why it's being done-- not that "Oh well, they're just exaggerating to make a point." No, they're not exaggerating to make a point. They're falsifying in order to kill people. See the difference?Furr notes that just about everyone who was later put on public trial gave very similar stories under interrogation. Stalin and other Soviet leaders evidently believed in most of the allegations. There's no evidence (to my knowledge) that there was much falsification.

What falsification did exist was for propaganda purposes and had more of a dishonest character, e.g. Vyshinsky accusing Bukharin of wanting to kill Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov in 1918 in a left-communist coup, which Bukharin denied over and over but which obviously carried the day after the trials were over. In that case it was more like Bukharin admitting that he was willing to get rid of Lenin as a leader (not to kill him) and Vyshinsky arguing that "logically" this would have entailed Lenin's death.

[S.Artesian]

Furr notes that just about everyone who was later put on public trial gave very similar stories under interrogation. Stalin and other Soviet leaders evidently believed in most of the allegations. There's no evidence (to my knowledge) that there was much falsification.

What falsification did exist was for propaganda purposes and had more of a dishonest character, e.g. Vyshinsky accusing Bukharin of wanting to kill Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov in 1918 in a left-communist coup, which Bukharin denied over and over but which obviously carried the day after the trials were over. In that case it was more like Bukharin admitting that he was willing to get rid of Lenin as a leader (not to kill him) and Vyshinsky arguing that "logically" this would have entailed Lenin's death.


You've just proven 1) that Tir is a troll 2) that you are incapable of dealing with the issues 3) you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a history or a learning forum as you are inept at one and an obstacle to the other.

1) Notice how Tir thanks every post you make that confirms what he has admitted to already knowing. He's not interested in the "history" or "learning" about these matters. He's trying to marshal ideological support for a position he feels it best to camouflage through use of euphemism.

2) Grover-Furr? You cite Grover-Furr, and more than once, and more than just here as a source? Grover-Furr who's "arguments" essentially boil down to: "Stalin said this. We have no reason to think Stalin didn't believe in when he said it. Therefore, Stalin sincerely believed it. Because Stalin believed it, it must have some element of truth." Seriously, that is how Grover-Furr "argues."

His argument is loaded, of course, but as with everything else in his "arsenal" it's loaded with blanks.

The first principle of historical materialism is that history is in fact material, has an objective basis outside what any "interested party" sincerely believes. We measure the accuracy of one's thoughts in their correspondence to that external, objective, material history.

So we analyze class, relations of production, economies, conditions of social reproduction not whether any individual sincerely believed X, Y, Z. I'm sure racists really believed that the Scottsboro boys raped a white woman. So fucking what? What racists truly believe has no bearing on the reality of the initial event. Get it?

3) What's the third one?.... Uh... EPA, is that it? Nope... sorry, oops. Hope everyone gets the joke. Actually the third one is self-evident from your achievements in 1) and 2).

[tir1944]

You've just proven 1) that Tir is a troll
No he isn't.
I never got a single infraction,FYI.


Notice how Tir thanks every post you make that confirms what he has admitted to already knowing. He's not interested in the "history" or "learning" about these matters. He's trying to marshal ideological support for a position he feels it best to camouflage through use of euphemism.
No,you don't get it.There are different way of "testing what one knows".
I said that i don't think Trotsky was really a fascist spy,but i wanted to know what other people think of this/wanted to see if anyone has some new evidence to share.

[Ismail]

Grover-Furr who's "arguments" essentially boil down to: "Stalin said this. We have no reason to think Stalin didn't believe in when he said it. Therefore, Stalin sincerely believed it. Because Stalin believed it, it must have some element of truth." Seriously, that is how Grover-Furr "argues."Only in the minds of Maoists and "anti-dogmatists" like Mike Ely. Furr mentioned it for like two pages of his 100-something page article in the context of noting how Stalin believed the accusations to be true, and Ely suddenly went on about it and basically ignored the rest of the article which sought to demonstrate how true they could possibly be.

[S.Artesian]

Tir--

If you're addressing me.... you're wasting your time. I put you on my "ignore list" along with the other trolls I've encountered around here. Wish I could put Ismail there too, but because for some bizarre reason he's been allowed to stay as a moderator, I can't do that.

Save your breath.

[Искра]

In my country we have a saying: You give a Stalin little finger - he takes the whole country :D

I believe that this thread should be trashed long time ago and as many users demanded that (or liked posts in which other people deamnd it) it would be nice to do so. There is nothing what can someone learn from this thread. If this thread was something usefull people wouldn't spam it in the first place.

Also, I believe that admin/mods would trash every other similar thread, for example: "was a Karl Marx fascist", "was a Stalin fascist" etc. So, even I'm not from Trotsky fan club (I even had a nosie punk band called Bullet for Trotsky), I don't see what's so diferent in this case.

To learn and to promote Stalinist schizophrenia are two different things.

[Art Vandelay]

No he isn't.
I never got a single infraction,FYI.

No,you don't get it.There are different way of "testing what one knows".
I said that i don't think Trotsky was really a fascist spy,but i wanted to know what other people think of this/wanted to see if anyone has some new evidence to share.

Maybe you should spend more time on this board telling us what you do think, if you do indeed actually partake in that activity which sadly is still up for debate, because all I have seen posted from you is one liners or articles which promote blatant lies. So why don't you enlighten us on what you've learned by posting this thread, if you can't, then this thread needs to be trashed seeing as how its purpose, being in the learning section and all :rolleyes:, has not been achieved or even actively pursued.

[Ismail]

It's obviously up to the Learning section mod to trash the thread if he feels that is where it belongs.

[MarxSchmarx]

In fact the rise of nazi Germany was Trotsky's work.

Please try to be a bit more respectful.

This is a verbal warning.

[Искра]

I think that I found out what confused Tir1944 - we still reads Stalin's Pravda!

http://espressostalinist.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/soviet2dd9.jpg

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTjs6onhRZCYBXY3GXVH2K3VdeVkq9vO 4UKqx4v95dHfypVtsSNOva18_cU
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3980/dsc00018qi.jpg
(Last one is my photo/upload from Cohen's book on Bukharin. This is taken from Pravda and shows Trotskyite-Bukharinist beast on Gestapo leash!)


Now, he also reads Krokodil (Crocodile) Soviet humor(?) magazine:
http://www.georgetownbookshop.com/posterimages/cavortv.jpg


So, yeah when you look at these evidences you can conclude that Trotsky and Bukharin were fascist spies. :rolleyes:

[Hit The North]

It's obviously up to the Learning section mod to trash the thread if he feels that is where it belongs.

There is no mod for Learning. It will have to be the action of a global mod like MarxShmarx.

[S.Artesian]

Please try to be a bit more respectful.

This is a verbal warning.


So how about trashing this thread, comrade global moderator?

[ColonelCossack]

oioioi

You people sometimes. :/

[A Marxist Historian]

It's been established that there really was a left-right bloc. Trotsky evidently sought to overthrow the government, which he regarded as a "bureaucratic caste" which was betraying the revolution and eating away at its gains.

I was saying that there's obvious dispute over the charges of Nazi collaboration, etc. whereas the fact that Trotsky did want to overthrow the Soviet government and did organize opposition to it was not disputed. Of course you could argue that Trotsky wanted a "second revolution" rather than a putsch.

Of course he wanted to overthrow the Stalinist regime. He announced that very publicly, no secret conspiracies were involved. He said that a political revolution was needed to restore workers' democracy and Leninism. A revolution of the masses, not a military coup. Indeed, as the commander of the Red Army, had he militarily resisted removal as commander in 1925 he might have succeeded. He refused to take such a step because that was against his principles.

That well known fact is the real basis for all the ridiculous Stalinist paranoia about a Trotskyist military coup. Because there were plenty of generals who had been glad to serve under Trotsky and grew increasingly contemptuous of that worthless failure Voroshilov, Stalin;'s lackey, as time went by. But Trotsky was never interested in any such thing, he wanted to organize *the workers* to overthrow Stalin.

Khrushchev later gained great popularity with the Soviet people when he claimed--untruthfully--that he had banished Stalinism and re-established workers democracy and Leninism. But not even Kaganovich or Molotov dared to call him a fascist spy.

-M.H.-