POUM Nazi collaboration?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

What was this?

[bezdomni]

What the hell do you mean?

[Organic Revolution]

wanna elaborate?

[Xiao Banfa]

I know what it is. A load of Stalinist lies :lol:

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 30, 2006 09:59 pm
I know what it is. A load of Stalinist lies :lol:
well obviously, but i wanna see where his proof comes from and then say, "SEE! its from a stalinist site!"

[Vargha Poralli]

Either LeftyHenry should elaborate his point and give his source or this topic should be trashed.

I am much disappointed in you LeftyHenry.You have turned in to a yet another dogmatic Stalin worshiper attempting to justify his criminal deeds. :angry:

edit: spelling mistakes

[Labor Shall Rule]

Man Leftyhenry, you have really went down the hill since I last left this board.

[JazzRemington]

Hey man, the war's over. No need to spread party propaganda. :wacko:

[bolshevik butcher]

A load of stalinist nonscense I expect. Thousand POUM milita fighters were sent to the front in Catalonia and many of them died fighting against Franco. They were real rank and file reovlutionary fighters, unlike the leaders of hte Spannish 'communist' party that sided with the 'liberal' capitalists, rather than fight for soicalism and had the POUM destroyed and the POUM fighters inprisoned.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 12:59 pm
What was this?
Why would POUM collaborate with the people who were supplying arms to their enemies (the spanish fash) and bombing the shit out of em?

[Phalanx]

POUM is just a scapegoat for the Stalinists who lost the war for the Spanish Republic. POUM fighters gave their lives for the cause, and the Communists backed by the USSR betrayed them.

Read Homage to Catalonia, it goes more indepth into the subject.

[The Author]

There was an interesting article by Grover Furr on one of the "Annals of Communism" books titled Spain Betrayed (http://clogic.eserver.org/2003/furr.html). One of the documents, Document 43, had this to say:


The immediate political consequences of the putsch [the anarchist attempt to seize power -- this is the way this writer interprets the "May Days" in Barcelona] are very great. Above all, the following one: the Trotskyist-POUMists revealed themselves to the nation as people who belong totally to Franco's fifth column. The people are nourishing unbelievable animosity toward the Trotskyists. The masses are demanding energetic and merciless repression. This is what is demanded by the masses of people of all of Spain, Catalonia, and Barcelona. They demand complete disarmament, arrest of the leaders, the creation of a special military tribunal for the Trotskyists! This is what the masses demand. (196-197)

Here is Furr's complete analysis of said document:


Document 43

31. One of Radosh's statements about Document 43 has been cited in several favorable reviews of his book:

As the Comintern document cited earlier revealed, Stalin had in mind a Spanish version of the Moscow purge trials most likely to be held in Barcelona. (209)2

The document in question, No. 43, is a report from an anonymous source, presumably to the Comintern. In it the informant states:

The immediate political consequences of the putsch [the anarchist attempt to seize power -- this is the way this writer interprets the "May Days" in Barcelona] are very great. Above all, the following one: the Trotskyist-POUMists revealed themselves to the nation as people who belong totally to Franco's fifth column. The people are nourishing unbelievable animosity toward the Trotskyists. The masses are demanding energetic and merciless repression. This is what is demanded by the masses of people of all of Spain, Catalonia, and Barcelona. They demand complete disarmament, arrest of the leaders, the creation of a special military tribunal for the Trotskyists! This is what the masses demand. (196-197)

In his discussion of this document on p. 176, Radosh wrote:

In other words, the call was out for the creation in Spain of the equivalent of the Moscow purge trials. . . .

"In other words" (why not use the same words?) "the call was out for" can only mean one thing: Radosh assumes that our unnamed informant, writing to the Comintern in Moscow, is speaking for someone other than himself. But this assumption is invalid. This document does not mean that any "call is out." So far as we know, it's the opinion of the writer alone. After all, he's reporting to the Comintern. If the PCE, or Soviet advisers, had "put out the call" for a Moscow-style purge trial, he would have said so, for why hide it to the Comintern? And if Stalin had expressed interest in a Spanish "purge trial," surely this writer would have said so as well.

Interesting...

[bolshevik butcher]

My major criticism of the CNT is that they didn't take power! That was no acctempt at a putsh, it started when the spannish popular fornt government attacked the CNT held telephone exchange, and escelated from there. The CNT and POUM had every operunity to seize power and further the revolution but unforutnatley chose not to. The CNT even acknowledged this by writing a newspaper with the haeadline we could take power at any time.

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 01, 2006 05:52 pm
My major criticism of the CNT is that they didn't take power! That was no acctempt at a putsh, it started when the spannish popular fornt government attacked the CNT held telephone exchange, and escelated from there. The CNT and POUM had every operunity to seize power and further the revolution but unforutnatley chose not to. The CNT even acknowledged this by writing a newspaper with the haeadline we could take power at any time.
Their goal wasn't to take power, it was to abolish power and class society within Catalonia and Spain.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by BreadBros+December 02, 2006 12:11 am--> (BreadBros @ December 02, 2006 12:11 am)
bolshevik [email protected] 01, 2006 05:52 pm
My major criticism of the CNT is that they didn't take power! That was no acctempt at a putsh, it started when the spannish popular fornt government attacked the CNT held telephone exchange, and escelated from there. The CNT and POUM had every operunity to seize power and further the revolution but unforutnatley chose not to. The CNT even acknowledged this by writing a newspaper with the haeadline we could take power at any time.
Their goal wasn't to take power, it was to abolish power and class society within Catalonia and Spain. [/b]
Thats the real reason i am not attracted to Anarchism. Their inaction in during that time is most important reason for the defeat at the hand of fascists and everybody(Anarchists,Trotskyists,POUM,and Spanish communists) payed heavy price to Franco's goons in the aftermath.

Their goal wasn't to take power, it was to abolish power and class society within Catalonia and Spain.

And they hoped to do it with aligning with republican govts reformist and stalinist communist party of Spain ....

Edit: Not every individual anarchists but some leaders of CNT.

[Phalanx]

But they did want to control their revolution. The Battle of Barcelona is a good example of the POUM-CNT alliance fighting against the oppressive Stalinists. Although sectarianism divides, and ultimately defeats revolutionary activity, something had to be done about the unequal control of the Stalinists.

[JazzRemington]

But didn't the POUM and the anarchists generally get along? If I remember correctly, they helped each otehr out in strikes sometimes.

[Severian]

From Homage to Catalonia from George Orwell, who fought in the Spanish Civil War and the Barcelona uprising:

In the Communist and pro-Communist press the entire blame for the Barcelona
fighting was laid upon the P.O.U.M. The affair was represented not as a
spontaneous outbreak, but as a deliberate, planned insurrection against the
Government, engineered solely by the P.O.U.M. with the aid of a few misguided
'uncontrollables'. More than this, it was definitely a Fascist plot, carried out
under Fascist orders with the idea of starting civil war in the rear and thus
paralysing the Government. The P.O.U.M. was 'Franco's Fifth Column'--a
'Trotskyist' organization working in league with the Fascists. According to the
Daily Worker (11 May):

The German and Italian agents, who poured into Barcelona ostensibly to
'prepare' the notorious 'Congress of the Fourth International', had one big
task. It was this:

They were--in cooperation with the local Trotskyists--to prepare a
situation of disorder and bloodshed, in which it would be possible for the
Germans and Italians to declare that they were 'unable to exercise naval
control of the Catalan coasts effectively because of the disorder prevailing
in Barcelona' and were, therefore, 'unable to do otherwise than land forces in
Barcelona'.

In other words, what was being prepared was a situation in which the German
and Italian Governments could land troops or marines quite openly on the
Catalan coasts, declaring that they were doing so 'in order to preserve
order'. . . .

The instrument for all this lay ready to hand for the Germans and Italians
in the shape of the Trotskyist organization known as the P.O.U.M.

The P.O.U.M., acting in cooperation with well-known criminal elements, and
with certain other deluded persons in the Anarchist organizations planned,
organized, and led the attack in the rearguard, accurately timed to coincide
with the attack on the front at Bilbao, etc., etc.

Later in the article the Barcelona fighting becomes 'the P.O.U.M. attack',
and in another article in the same issue it is stated that there is 'no doubt
that it is at the door of the P.O.U.M. that the responsibility for the bloodshed
in Catalonia must be laid'. Inprecor (29 May) states that those who erected the
barricades in Barcelona were 'only members of the P.O.U.M. organized from that
party for this purpose'.

I could quote a great deal more, but this is clear enough. The P.O.U.M. was
wholly responsible and the P.O.U.M. was acting under Fascist orders. In a moment
I will give some more extracts from the accounts that appeared in the Communist
press; it will be seen that they are so self-contradictory as to be completely
worthless. But before doing so it is worth pointing to several a priori reasons
why this version of the May fighting as a Fascist rising engineered by the
P.O.U.M. is next door to incredible.

(i) The P.O.U.M. had not the numbers or influence to provoke disorders of
this magnitude. Still less had it the power to call a general strike. It was a
political organization with no very definite footing in the trade unions, and it
would have been hardly more capable of producing a strike throughout Barcelona
than (say) the English Communist Party would be of producing a general strike
throughout Glasgow. As I said earlier, the attitude of the P.O.U.M. leaders may
have helped to prolong the fighting to some extent; but they could not have
originated it even if they had wanted to.

(ii) The alleged Fascist plot rests on bare assertion and all the evidence
points in the other direction. We are told that the plan was for the German and
Italian Governments to land troops in Catalonia; but no German or Italian
troopships approached the coast. As to the 'Congress of the Fourth
International' and the' German and Italian agents', they are pure myth. So far
as I know there had not even been any talk of a Congress of the Fourth
International. There were vague plans for a Congress of the P.O.U.M. and its
brother-parties (English I.L.P., German S.A.P., etc., etc.); this had been
tentatively fixed for some time in July--two months later--and not a single
delegate had yet arrived. The 'German and Italian agents' have no existence
outside the pages of the Daily Worker. Anyone who crossed the frontier at that
time knows that it was not so easy to 'pour' into Spain, or out of it, for that
matter.

(iii) Nothing happened either at Lerida, the chief stronghold of the
P.O.U.M., or at the front. It is obvious that if the P.O.U.M. leaders had wanted
to aid the Fascists they would have ordered their militia to walk out of the
line and let the Fascists through. But nothing of the kind was done or
suggested. Nor were any extra men brought out of the line beforehand, though it
would have been easy enough to smuggle, say, a thousand or two thousand men back
to Barcelona on various pretexts. And there was no attempt even at indirect
sabotage of the front. The transport of food, munitions, and so forth continued
as usual; I verified this by inquiry afterwards. Above all, a planned rising of
the kind suggested would have needed months of preparation, subversive
propaganda among the militia, and so forth. But there was no sign or rumour of
any such thing. The fact that the militia at the front played no part in the
'rising' should be conclusive. If the P.O.U.M. were really planning a coup
d'etat it is inconceivable that they would not have used the ten thousand or so
armed men who were the only striking force they had.

It will be clear enough from this that the Communist thesis of a P.O.U.M.
'rising' under Fascist orders rests on less than no evidence. I will add a few
more extracts from the Communist press. The Communist accounts of the opening
incident, the raid on the Telephone Exchange, are illuminating; they agree in
nothing except in putting the blame on the other side. It is noticeable that in
the English Communist papers the blame is put first upon the Anarchists and only
later upon the P.O.U.M. There is a fairly obvious reason for this. Not everyone
in England has heard of'Trotskyism', whereas every English-speaking person
shudders at the name of 'Anarchist'. Let it once be known that 'Anarchists' are
implicated, and the right atmosphere of prejudice is established; after that the
blame can safely be transferred to the 'Trotskyists'. The Daily Worker begins
thus (6 May):

A minority gang of Anarchists on Monday and Tuesday seized and attempted to
hold the telephone and telegram buildings, and started firing into the
street.

There is nothing like starting off with a reversal of roles. The Civil Guards
attack a building held by the C.N.T.; so the C.N.T. are represented as attacking
their own building attacking themselves, in fact. On the other hand, the Daily
Worker of 11 May states:

The Left Catalan Minister of Public Security, Aiguade, and the United
Socialist General Commissar of Public Order, Rodrigue Salas, sent the armed
republican police into the Telefonica building to disarm the employees there,
most of them members of C.N.T. unions.

This does not seem to agree very well with the first statement; nevertheless
the Daily Worker contains no admission that the first statement was wrong. The
Daily Worker of 11 May states that the leaflets of the Friends of Durruti, which
were disowned by the C.N.T., appeared on 4 May and 5 May, during the fighting.
Inprecor (22 May) states that they appeared on 3 May, before the fighting, and
adds that 'in view of these facts' (the appearance of various leaflets):

The police, led by the Prefect of Police in person, occupied the central
telephone exchange in the afternoon of 3 May. The police were shot at while
discharging their duty. This was the signal for the provocateurs to begin
shooting affrays all over the city.

And here is Inprecor for 29 May:

At three o'clock in the afternoon the Commissar for Public Security,
Comrade Salas, went to the Telephone Exchange, which on the previous night had
been occupied by 50 members of the P.O.U.M. and various uncontrollable
elements.

This seems rather curious. The occupation of the Telephone Exchange by 50
P.O.U.M. members is what one might call a picturesque circumstance, and one
would have expected somebody to notice it at the time. Yet it appears that it
was discovered only three or four weeks later. In another issue of Inprecor the
50 P.O.U.M. members become 50 P.O.U.M. militiamen. It would be difficult to pack
together more contradictions than are contained in these few short passages. At
one moment the C.N.T. are attacking the Telephone Exchange, the next they are
being attacked there; a leaflet appears before the seizure of the Telephone
Exchange and is the cause of it, or, alternatively, appears afterwards and is
the result of it; the people in the Telephone Exchange are alternatively C.N.T.
members and P.O.U.M. members--and so on. And in a still later issue of the
Daily Worker (3 June) Mr J. R. Campbell informs us that the Government only
seized the Telephone Exchange because the barricades were already erected!

For reasons of space I have taken only the reports of one incident, but the
same discrepancies run all through the accounts in the Communist press. In
addition there are various statements which are obviously pure fabrication. Here
for instance is something quoted by the Daily Worker (7 May) and said to have
been issued by the Spanish Embassy in Paris:

A significant feature of the uprising has been that the old monarchist flag
was flown from the balcony of various houses in Barcelona, doubtless in the
belief that those who took part in the rising had become masters of the
situation.

The Daily Worker very probably reprinted this statement in good faith, but
those responsible for it at the Spanish Embassy must have been quite
deliberately lying. Any Spaniard would understand the internal situation better
than that. A monarchist flag in Barcelona! It was the one thing that could have
united the warring factions in a moment. Even the Communists on the spot were
obliged to smile when they read about it. It is the same with the reports in the
various Communist papers upon the arms supposed to have been used by the
P.O.U.M. during the 'rising'. They would be credible only if one knew nothing
whatever of the facts. In the Daily Worker of 17 May Mr Frank Pitcairn
states:

There were actually all sorts of arms used by them in the outrage. There
were the arms which they have been stealing for months past, and hidden, and
there were arms such as tanks, which they stole from the barracks just at the
beginning of the rising. It is clear that scores of machine-guns and several
thousand rifles are still in their possession.

Inprecor (29 May) also states:

On 3 May the P.O.U.M. had at its disposal some dozens of machine-guns and
several thousand rines. ... On the Plaza de Espana the Trotskyists brought
into action batteries of '75' guns which were destined for the front in Aragon
and which the militia had carefully concealed on their premises.

Mr Pitcairn does not tell us how and when it became dear that the P.O.U.M.
possessed scores of machine-guns and several thousand rifles. I have given an
estimate of the arms which were at three of the principal P.O.U.M. buildings--
about eighty rifles, a few bombs, and no machine-guns; i.e. about sufficient for
the armed guards which, at that time, all the political parties placed on their
buildings. It seems strange that afterwards, when the P.O.U.M. was suppressed
and all its buildings seized, these thousands of weapons never came to light;
especially the tanks and field-guns, which are not the kind of thing that can be
hidden up the chimney. But what is revealing in the two statements above is the
complete ignorance they display of the local circumstances. According to Mr
Pitcairn the P.O.U.M. stole tanks 'from the barracks'. He does not tell us which
barracks. The P.O.U.M. militiamen who were in Barcelona (now comparatively few,
as direct recruitment to the party militias had ceased) shared the Lenin
Barracks with a considerably larger number of Popular Army troops. Mr Pitcaim is
asking us to believe, therefore, that the P.O.U.M. stole tanks with the
connivance of the Popular Army. It is the same with the 'premises' on which the
75-mm. guns were concealed. There is no mention of where these 'premises' were.
Those batteries of guns, firing on the Plaza de Espana, appeared in many
newspaper reports, but I think we can say with certainty that they never
existed. As I mentioned earlier, I heard no artillery-fire during the fighting,
though the Plaza de Espana was only a mile or so away. A few days later I
examined the Plaza de Espana and could find no buildings that showed marks of
shell-fire. And an eye-witness who was in that neighbourhood throughout the
fighting declares that no guns ever appeared there. (Incidentally, the tale of
the stolen guns may have originated with Antonov-Ovseenko, the Russian
Consul-General. He, at any rate, communicated it to a well-known English
journalist, who afterwards repeated it in good faith in a weekly paper.
Antonov-Ovseenko has since been 'purged'. How this would affect his credibility
I do not know.) The truth is, of course, that these tales about tanks,
field-guns, and so forth have only been invented because otherwise it is
difficult to reconcile the scale of the Barcelona fighting with the P.O.U.M.'S
small numbers. It was necessary to claim that the P.O.U.M. was wholly
responsible for the fighting; it was also necessary to claim that it was an
insignificant party with no following and 'numbered only a few thousand
members', according to Inprecor. The only hope of making both statements
credible was to pretend that the P.O.U.M. had all the weapons of a modern
mechanized army.

It is impossible to read through the reports in the Communist Press without
realizing that they are consciously aimed at a public ignorant of the facts and
have no other purpose than to work up prejudice. Hence, for instance, such
statements as Mr Pitcairn's in the Daily Worker of 11 May that the 'rising' was
suppressed by the Popular Army. The idea here is to give outsiders the
impression that all Catalonia was solid against the 'Trotskyists'. But the
Popular Army remained neutral throughout the fighting; everyone in Barcelona
knew this, and it is difficult to believe that Mr Pitcairn did not know it too.
Or again, the juggling in the Communist Press with the figures for killed and
wounded, with the object of exaggerating the scale of the disorders. Diaz,
General Secretary of the Spanish Communist Party, widely quoted in the Communist
Press, gave the numbers as 900 dead and 2500 wounded. The Catalan Minister of
Propaganda, who was hardly likely to underestimate, gave the numbers as 400
killed and 1000 wounded. The Communist Party doubles the bid and adds a few more
hundreds for luck.

The foreign capitalist newspapers, in general, laid the blame for the
fighting upon the Anarchists, but there were a few that followed the Communist
line. One of these was the English News Chronicle, whose correspondent, Mr John
Langdon-Davies, was in Barcelona at the tune I quote portions of his article
here:

A TROTSKYIST REVOLT

. . . This has not been an Anarchist uprising. It is a frustrated putsch of
the 'Trotskyist' P.O.U.M., working through their controlled organizations,
'Friends of Durruti' and Libertarian Youth. . . . The tragedy began on Monday
afternoon when the Government sent armed police into the Telephone Building,
to disarm the workers there, mostly C.N.T. men. Grave irregularities in the
service had been a scandal for some time. A large crowd gathered in the Plaza
de Cataluna outside, while the C.N.T. men resisted, retreating floor by floor
to the top of the building. . . . The incident was very obscure, but word went
round that the Government was out against the Anarchists. The streets filled
with armed men. . . . By nightfall every workers' centre and Government
building was barricaded, and at ten o'clock the first volleys were fired and
the first ambulances began ringing their way through the streets. By dawn all
Barcelona was under fire. ... As the day wore on and the dead mounted to over
a hundred, one could make a guess at what was happening. The Anarchist C.N.T.
and Socialist U.G.T. were not technically 'out in the street'. So long as they
remained behind the barricades they were merely watchfully waiting, an
attitude which included the right to shoot at anything armed in the open
street. . . (the) general bursts were invariably aggravated by pacos--hidden
solitary men, usually Fascists, shooting from roof--tops at nothing in
particular, but doing all they could to add to the general panic.. . . By
Wednesday evening, however, it began to be clear who was behind the revolt.
All the walls had been plastered with an inflammatory poster calling for an
immediate revolution and for the shooting of Republican and Socialist leaders.
It was signed by the 'Friends of Durruti'. On Thursday morning the Anarchists
daily denied all knowledge or sympathy with it, but La Batalla, the P.O.U.M.
paper, reprinted the document with the highest praise. Barcelona, the first
city of Spain, was plunged into bloodshed by agents provocateurs using this
subversive organization.

This does not agree very completely with the Communist versions I have quoted
above, but it will be seen that even as it stands it is self--contradictory.
First the affair is described as 'a Trotskyist revolt', then it is shown to have
resulted from a raid on the Telephone building and the general belief that the
Government was 'out against' the Anarchists. The city is barricaded and both
C.N.T. and U.G.T. are behind the barricades; two days afterwards the
inflammatory poster (actually a leaflet) appears, and this is declared by
implication to have started the whole business--effect preceding cause. But
there is a piece of very serious misrepresentation here. Mr Langdon-Davies
describes the Friends of Durruti and Libertarian Youth as 'controlled
organizations' of the P.O.U.M. Both were Anarchist organizations and had no
connexion with the P.O.U.M. The Libertarian Youth was the youth league of the
Anarchists, corresponding to the J.S.U. of the P.S.U.C., etc. The Friends of
Durruti was a small organization within the F.A.I., and was in general bitterly
hostile to the P.O.U.M. So far as I can discover, there was no one who was a
member of both. It would be about equally true to say that the Socialist League
is a 'controlled organization' of the English Liberal Party. Was Mr
Langdon-Davies unaware of this? If he was, he should have written with more
caution about this very complex subject.

I am not attacking Mr Langdon-Davies's good faith; but admittedly he left
Barcelona as soon as the fighting was over, i.e. at the moment when he could
have begun serious inquiries, and throughout his report there are clear signs
that he has accepted the official version of a 'Trotskyist revolt' without
sufficient verification. This is obvious even in the extract I have quoted. 'By
nightfall' the barricades are built, and 'at ten o'clock' the first volleys are
fired. These are not the words of an eye-witness. From this you would gather
that it is usual to wait for your enemy to build a barricade before beginning to
shoot at him. The impression given is that some hours elapsed between the
building of the barricades and the firing of the first volleys; whereas--
naturally--it was the other way about. I and many others saw the first volleys
fired early in the afternoon. Again, there are the solitary men, 'usually
Fascists', who are shooting from the roof--tops. Mr Langdon-Davies does not
explain how he knew that these men were Fascists. Presumably he did not climb on
to the roofs and ask them. He is simply repeating what he has been told and, as
it fits in with the official version, is not questioning it. As a matter of
fact, he indicates one probable source of much of his information by an
incautious reference to the Minister of Propaganda at the beginning of his
article. Foreign journalists in Spain were hopelessly at the mercy of the
Ministry of Propaganda, though one would think that the very name of this
ministry would be a sufficient warning. The Minister of Propaganda was, of
course, about as likely to give an objective account of the Barcelona trouble as
(say) the late Lord Carson would have been to give an objective account of the
Dublin rising of 1916.

I have given reasons for thinking that the Communist version of the Barcelona
fighting cannot be taken seriously. In addition I must say something about the
general charge that the P.O.U.M. was a secret Fascist organization in the pay of
Franco and Hitler.

This charge was repeated over and over in the Communist Press, especially
from the beginning of 1937 onwards. It was part of the world-wide drive of the
official Communist Party against 'Trotskyism', of which the P.O.U.M. was
supposed to be representative in Spain. 'Trotskyism', according to Frente Rojo
(the Valencia Communist paper) 'is not a political doctrine. Trotskyism is an
official capitalist organization, a Fascist terrorist band occupied in crime and
sabotage against the people.' The P.O.U.M. was a 'Trotskyist' organization in
league with the Fascists and part of 'Franco's Fifth Column'. What was
noticeable from the start was that no evidence was produced in support of this
accusation; the thing was simply asserted with an air of authority. And the
attack was made with the maximum of personal libel and with complete
irresponsibility as to any effects it might have upon the war. Compared with the
job of libelling the P.O.U.M., many Communist writers appear to have considered
the betrayal of military secrets unimportant. In a February number of the Daily
Worker, for instance, a writer (Winifred Bates) is allowed to state that the
P.O.U.M. had only half as many troops on its section of the front as it
pretended. This was not true, but presumably the writer believed it to be true.
She and the Daily Worker were perfectly willing, therefore, to hand to the enemy
one of the most important pieces of information that can be handed through the
columns of a newspaper. In the New Republic Mr Ralph Bates stated that the
P.O.U.M. troops were 'playing football with the Fascists in no man's land' at a
time when, as a matter of fact, the P.O.U.M. troops were suffering heavy
casualties and a number of my personal friends were killed and wounded. Again,
there was the malignant cartoon which was widely circulated, first in Madrid and
later in Barcelona, representing the P.O.U.M. as slipping off a mask marked with
the hammer and sickle and revealing a face marked with the swastika. Had the
Government not been virtually under Communist control it would never have
permitted a thing of this kind to be circulated in wartime. It was a deliberate
blow at the morale not only of the P.O.U.M. militia, but of any others who
happened to be near them; for it is not encouraging to be told that the troops
next to you in the line are traitors. As a matter of fact, I doubt whether the
abuse that was heaped upon them from the rear actually had the effect of
demoralizing the P.O.U.M. militia. But certainly it was calculated to do so, and
those responsible for it must be held to have put political spite before
anti-Fascist unity.

The accusation against the P.O.U.M. amounted to this: that a body of some
scores of thousands of people, almost entirely working class, besides numerous
foreign helpers and sympathizers, mostly refugees from Fascist countries, and
thousands of militia, was simply a vast spying organization in Fascist pay. The
thing was opposed to common sense, and the past history of the P.O.U.M. was
enough to make it incredible. All the P.O.U.M. leaders had revolutionary
histories behind them. Some of them had been mixed up in the 1934 revolt, and
most of them had been imprisoned for Socialist activities under the Lerroux
Government or the monarchy. In 1936 its then leader, Joaquin Maurin, was one of
the deputies who gave warning in the Cortes of Franco's impending revolt. Some
time after the outbreak of war he was taken prisoner by the Fascists while
trying to organize resistance in Franco's rear. When the revolt broke out the
P.O.U.M. played a conspicuous part in resisting it, and in Madrid, in
particular, many of its members were killed in the street-fighting. It was one
of the first bodies to form columns of militia in Catalonia and Madrid. It seems
almost impossible to explain these as the actions of a party in Fascist pay. A
party in Fascist pay would simply have joined in on the other side.

Nor was there any sign of pro-Fascist activities during the war. It was
arguable--though finally I do not agree--that by pressing for a more
revolutionary policy the P.O.U.M. divided the Government forces and thus aided
the Fascists;

I think any Government of reformist type would be justified in regarding a
party like the P.O.U.M. as a nuisance. But this is a very different matter from
direct treachery. There is no way of explaining why, if the P.O.U.M. was really
a Fascist body, its militia remained loyal. Here were eight or ten thousand men
holding important parts of the line during the intolerable conditions of the
winter of 1936-7. Many of them were in the trenches four or five months at a
stretch. It is difficult to see why they did not simply walk out of the line or
go over to the enemy. It was always in their power to do so, and at times the
effect might have been decisive. Yet they continued to fight, and it was shortly
after the P.O.U.M. was suppressed as a political party, when the event was fresh
in everyone's mind, that the militia--not yet redistributed among the Popular
Army--took part in the murderous attack to the east of Huesca when several
thousand men were killed in one or two days. At the very least one would have
expected fraternization with the enemy and a constant trickle of deserters. But,
as I have pointed out earlier, the number of desertions was exceptionally small.
Again, one would have expected pro-Fascist propaganda, 'defeatism', and so
forth. Yet there was no sign of any such thing. Obviously there must have been
Fascist spies and agents provocateurs in the P.O.U.M.; they exist in all
Left-wing parties; but there is no evidence that there were more of them there
than elsewhere.

It is true that some of the attacks in the Communist Press said, rather
grudgingly, that only the P.O.U.M. leaders were in Fascist pay, and not the rank
and file. But this was merely an attempt to detach the rank and file from their
leaders. The nature of the accusation implied that ordinary members, militiamen,
and so forth, were all in the plot together; for it was obvious that if Nin,
Gorkin, and the others were really in Fascist pay, it was more likely to be
known to their followers, who were in contact with them, than to journalists in
London, Paris, and New York. And in any case, when the P.O.U.M. was suppressed
the Communist-controlled secret police acted on the assumption that all were
guilty alike, and arrested everyone connected with the P.O.U.M. whom they could
lay hands on, including even wounded men, hospital nurses, wives of P.O.U.M.
members, and in some cases, even children.

Finally, on 15-16 June, the P.O.U.M. was suppressed and declared an illegal
organization. This was one of the first acts of the Negrin Government which came
into office in May. When the Executive Committee of the P.O.U.M. had been thrown
into jail, the Communist Press produced what purported to be the discovery of an
enormous Fascist plot. For a while the Communist Press of the whole world was
flaming with this kind of thing (Daily Worker, 21 June, summarizing various
Spanish Communist papers):

SPANISH TROTSKYISTS PLOT WITH FRANCO

Following the arrest of a large number of leading Trotskyists in Barcelona
and elsewhere . . . there became known, over the weekend, details of one of
the most ghastly pieces of espionage ever known in wartime, and the ugliest
revelation of Trotskyist treachery to date. . . Documents in the possession of
the police, together with the full confession of no less than 200 persons
under arrest, prove, etc. etc.

What these revelations 'proved' was that the P.O.U.M. leaders were
transmitting military secrets to General Franco by radio, were in touch with
Berlin, and were acting in collaboration with the secret Fascist organization in
Madrid. In addition there were sensational details about secret messages in
invisible ink, a mysterious document signed with the letter N. (standing for
Nin), and so on and so forth.

But the final upshot was this: six months after the event, as I write, most
of the P.O.U.M. leaders are still in jail, but they have never been brought to
trial, and the charges of communicating with Franco by radio, etc., have never
even been formulated. Had they really been guilty of espionage they would have
been tried and shot in a week, as so many Fascist spies had been previously. But
not a scrap of evidence was ever produced except the unsupported statements in
the Communist Press. As for the two hundred 'full confessions', which, if they
had existed, would have been enough to convict anybody, they have never been
heard of again. They were, in fact, two hundred efforts of somebody's
imagination.

More than this, most of the members of the Spanish Government have disclaimed
all belief in the charges against the P.O.U.M. Recently the cabinet decided by
five to two in favour of releasing anti-Fascist political prisoners; the two
dissentients being the Communist ministers. In August an international
delegation headed by James Maxton M.P., went to Spain to inquire into the
charges against the P.O.U.M. and the disappearance of Andres Nin. Prieto, the
Minister of National Defence, Irujo, the Minister of Justice, Zugazagoitia,
Minister of the Interior, Ortega y Gasset, the Procureur-General, Prat Garcia,
and others all repudiated any belief in the P.O.U.M. leaders being guilty of
espionage. Irujo added that he had been through the dossier of the case, that
none of the so-called pieces of evidence would bear examination, and that the
document supposed to have been signed by Nin was 'valueless'--i.e. a forgery.
Prieto considered the P.O.U.M. leaders to be responsible for the May fighting in
Barcelona, but dismissed the idea of their being Fascist spies. 'What is most
grave', he added,' is that the arrest of the P.O.U.M. leaders was not decided
upon by the Government, and the police carried out these arrests on their own
authority. Those responsible are not the heads of the police, but their
entourage, which has been infiltrated by the Communists according to their usual
custom.' He cited other cases of illegal arrests by the police. Irujo likewise
declared that the police had become 'quasi-independent' and were in reality
under the control of foreign Communist elements. Prieto hinted fairly broadly to
the delegation that the Government could not afford to offend the Communist
Party while the Russians were supplying arms. When another delegation, headed by
John McGovern M.P., went to Spain in December, they got much the same answers as
before, and Zugazagoitia, the Minister of the Interior, repeated Prieto's hint
in even plainer terms. 'We have received aid from Russia and have had to permit
certain actions which we did not like.' As an illustration of the autonomy of
the police, it is interesting to learn that even with a signed order from the
Director of Prisons and the Minister of Justice, McGovern and the others could
not obtain admission to one of the 'secret prisons' maintained by the Communist
Party in Barcelona. [Note 12. For reports on the two delegations see Le
Populaire (7 September), Laleche (18 September), Report on the Maxton delegation
published by Independent News (219 Rue Saint-Denis, Paris), and McGovern's
pamphlet Terror in Spain.]

I think this should be enough to make the matter clear. The accusation of
espionage against the P.O.U.M. rested solely upon articles in the Communist
press and the activities of the Communist-controlled secret police. The P.O.U.M.
leaders, and hundreds or thousands of their followers, are still in prison, and
for six months past the Communist press has continued to clamour for the
execution of the 'traitors' But Negrin and the others have kept their heads and
refused to stage a wholesale massacre of'Trotskyists'. Considering the pressure
that has been put upon them, it is greatly to their credit that they have done
so. Meanwhile, in face of what I have quoted above, it becomes very difficult to
believe that the P.O.U.M. was really a Fascist spying organization, unless one
also believes that Maxton, Mc-Govern, Prieto, Irujo, Zugazagoitia, and the rest
are all in Fascist pay together.

Finally, as to the charge that the P.O.U.M. was 'Trotskyist'. This word is
now flung about with greater and greater freedom, and it is used in a way that
is extremely misleading and is often intended to mislead. It is worth stopping
to define it. The word Trotskyist is used to mean three distinct things:

(i) One who, like Trotsky, advocates 'world revolution' as against 'Socialism
in a single country'. More loosely, a revolutionary extremist.

(ii) A member of the actual organization of which Trotsky is head.

(iii) A disguised Fascist posing as a revolutionary who acts especially by
sabotage in the U.S.S.R., but, in general, by splitting and undermining the
Left-wing forces.

In sense (i) the P.O.U.M. could probably be described as Trotskyist. So can
the English I.L.P., the German S.A.P., the Left Socialists in France, and so on.
But the P.O.U.M. had no connexion with Trotsky or the Trotskyist
('Bolshevik-Lenninist') organization. When the war broke out the foreign
Trotskyists who came to Spain (fifteen or twenty in number) worked at first for
the P.O.U.M., as the party nearest to their own viewpoint, but without becoming
party-members; later Trotsky ordered his followers to attack the P.O.U.M.
policy, and the Trotskyists were purged from the party offices, though a few
remained in the militia. Nin, the P.O.U.M. leader after Maurin's capture by the
Fascists, was at one time Trotsky's secretary, but had left him some years
earlier and formed the P.O.U.M. by the amalgamation of various Opposition
Communists with an earlier party, the Workers' and Peasants' Bloc. Nin's
one-time association with Trotsky has been used in the Communist press to show
that the P.O.U.M. was really Trotskyist.

By the same line of argument it could be shown that the English Communist
Party is really a Fascist organization, because of Mr John Strachey's one-time
association with Sir Oswald Mosley.

In sense (ii), the only exactly defined sense of the word, the P.O.U.M. was
certainly not Trotskyist. It is important to make this distinction, because it
is taken for granted by the majority of Communists that a Trotskyist in sense
(ii) is invariably a Trotskyist in sense (iii)--i.e. that the whole Trotskyist
organization is simply a Fascist spying-machine. 'Trotskyism' only came into
public notice in the time of the Russian sabotage trials, and to call a man a
Trotskyist is practically equivalent to calling him a murderer, agent
provocateur, etc. But at the same time anyone who criticizes Communist policy
from a Left-wing standpoint is liable to be denounced as a Trotskyist. Is it
then asserted that everyone professing revolutionary extremism is in Fascist
pay?

In practice it is or is not, according to local convenience. When Maxton went
to Spain with the delegation I have mentioned above, Verdad, Frente Rojo, and
other Spanish Communist papers instantly denounced him as a 'Trotsky-Fascist',
spy of the Gestapo, and so forth. Yet the English Communists were careful not to
repeat this accusation. In the English Communist press Maxton becomes merely a
'reactionary enemy of the working class', which is conveniently vague. The
reason, of course, is simply that several sharp lessons have given the English
Communist press a wholesome dread of the law of libel. The fact that the
accusation was not repeated in a country where it might have to be proved is
sufficient confession that it is a lie.

It may seem that I have discussed the accusations against the P.O.U.M. at
greater length than was necessary. Compared with the huge miseries of a civil
war, this kind of internecine squabble between parties, with its inevitable
injustices and false accusations, may appear trivial. It is not really so. I
believe that libels and press--campaigns of this kind, and the habits of mind
they indicate, are capable of doing the most deadly damage to the anti-Fascist
cause.

Anyone who has given the subject a glance knows that the Communist tactic of
dealing with political opponents by means of trumped-up accusations is nothing
new. Today the key-word is 'Trotsky-Fascist'; yesterday it was 'Social-Fascist'.
It is only six or seven years since the Russian State trials 'proved' that the
leaders of the Second International, including, for instance, Leon Blum and
prominent members of the British Labour Party, were hatching a huge plot for the
military invasion of the U.S.S.R. Yet today the French Communists are glad
enough to accept Blum as a leader, and the English Communists are raising heaven
and earth to get inside the Labour Party. I doubt whether this kind of thing
pays, even from a sectarian point of view. And meanwhile there is no possible
doubt about the hatred and dissension that the 'Trotsky-Fascist' accusation is
causing. Rank-and--file Communists everywhere are led away on a senseless
witch-hunt after 'Trotskyists', and parties of the type of the P.O.U.M. are
driven back into the terribly sterile position of being mere anti-Communist
parties. There is already the beginning of a dangerous split in the world
working-class movement. A few more libels against life-long Socialists, a few
more frame-ups like the charges against the P.O.U.M., and the split may become
irreconcilable. The only hope is to keep political controversy on a plane where
exhaustive discussion is possible. Between the Communists and those who stand or
claim to stand to the Left of them there is a real difference. The Communists
hold that Fascism can be beaten by alliance with sections of the capitalist
class (the Popular Front); their opponents hold that this manoeuvre simply gives
Fascism new breeding-grounds. The question has got to be settled; to make the
wrong decision may be to land ourselves in for centuries of semi-slavery. But so
long as no argument is produced except a scream of 'Trotsky-Fascist!' the
discussion cannot even begin. It would be impossible for me, for instance, to
debate the rights and wrongs of the Barcelona fighting with a Communist Party
member, because no Communist--that is to say, no' good' Communist--could admit
that I have given a truthful account of the facts. If he followed his party
'line dutifully he would have to declare that I am lying or, at best, that I am
hopelessly misled and that anyone who glanced at the Daily Worker headlines a
thousand miles from the scene of events knows more of what was happening in
Barcelona than I do. In such circumstances there can be no argument; the
necessary minimum of agreement cannot be reached. What purpose is served by
saying that men like Maxton are in Fascist pay? Only the purpose of making
serious discussion impossible. It is as though in the middle of a chess
tournament one competitor should suddenly begin screaming that the other is
guilty of arson or bigamy. The point that is really at issue remains untouched.
Libel settles nothing.

The rest of the book, which is well worth reading for many reasons. (http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_Catalonia/10.html)

So yes, Tino, it's a load of Stalinist lies. Why the laughing emoticon?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by g.ram
Either LeftyHenry should elaborate his point and give his source or this topic should be trashed.

Sorry I can't elaborate on this. I don't know what it is. That's why I am asking people, and why this is in the learning forum not history or anything else. I don't think a learning forum thread should be trashed. It was just a question on the validity of something I had heard.



I am much disappointed in you LeftyHenry.You have turned in to a yet another dogmatic Stalin worshiper attempting to justify his criminal deeds. :angry:

No, I'm not a Stalin worshipper g.ram, in fact I believe Stalin was terrible, but I do think that views that challenge the bourgieous, trotskyist, and anarchist norm should not be thrown away as you'd like. Without those views, we basically consider propaganda valid.

How am I dogmatic?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 05:43 am
Man Leftyhenry, you have really went down the hill since I last left this board.
If that's what you want to consider moving away from trotskyism because workers consistantly choose Marxist-Leninism and Maoism and because trotskyism never has succeeded and just constantly whines, than yes I have gone downhill. Sure, there are some great things about trotskyism like the permanent revolution and their view on the importance of democratic centralism, but there are also too many bad things like the fact that there are like 56 trot parties in the US while in the 'third world', trotskyism is almost non-exsistant.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+December 02, 2006 06:04 am--> (LeftyHenry @ December 02, 2006 06:04 am)
g.ram
Either LeftyHenry should elaborate his point and give his source or this topic should be trashed.

Sorry I can't elaborate on this. I don't know what it is. That's why I am asking people, and why this is in the learning forum not history or anything else. I don't think a learning forum thread should be trashed. It was just a question on the validity of something I had heard.



I am much disappointed in you LeftyHenry.You have turned in to a yet another dogmatic Stalin worshiper attempting to justify his criminal deeds. :angry:

No, I'm not a Stalin worshipper g.ram, in fact I believe Stalin was terrible, but I do think that views that challenge the bourgieous, trotskyist, and anarchist norm should not be thrown away as you'd like. Without those views, we basically consider propaganda valid.

How am I dogmatic? [/b]
I misunderstood you LeftyHenry. I apologize for that. Since in much of your recent post you have been criticizing Trotyskyists i thought this one as yet another Trotskyist Bashing. any how i recommend reading homage to catalonia fully from the link Severian has posted.



If that's what you want to consider moving away from trotskyism because workers consistantly choose Marxist-Leninism and Maoism and because trotskyism never has succeeded and just constantly whines, than yes I have gone downhill. Sure, there are some great things about trotskyism like the permanent revolution and their view on the importance of democratic centralism, but there are also too many bad things like the fact that there are like 56 trot parties in the US while in the 'third world', trotskyism is almost non-exsistant.

Certainly you have misunderstood what Marxist-Leninism ,Maoism and Trotskyism is...

You seem like a person who wants to bet on a winning horse.Just answer one question for about 20+ years there were various M-L and Maoist groups in various countries fighting "Protracted People's War". What did they accomplish ? did they overthrew capitalism ? did they manage to win majority support of workers and peasants ?


the 'third world', trotskyism is almost non-exsistant

And again i have replied in an early post why there are no significant Trotskyist movements in the third world.I see this as major failure of Trotskyist movements.their primary failure is not spreading the message of Trotsky effectively.

and taking about in fighting about Trotskyists . In India Maoists are famous for infighting. Unlike Trotskyists in America Maoist here probably try to kill their opponents apart from forming parties with a new label. Naxalite movement is more affected and lost many cadres because this type of infighting than they lost men to police actions.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by BreadBros+December 01, 2006 06:41 pm--> (BreadBros @ December 01, 2006 06:41 pm)
bolshevik [email protected] 01, 2006 05:52 pm
My major criticism of the CNT is that they didn't take power! That was no acctempt at a putsh, it started when the spannish popular fornt government attacked the CNT held telephone exchange, and escelated from there. The CNT and POUM had every operunity to seize power and further the revolution but unforutnatley chose not to. The CNT even acknowledged this by writing a newspaper with the haeadline we could take power at any time.
Their goal wasn't to take power, it was to abolish power and class society within Catalonia and Spain. [/b]
And the failings of anarchism are displayed yet again. The CNT could have taken power, and helped to set up a workers' government. Instead it didn't, and allowed the stalinists/liberal bourgeoirse hold state power and smash the working class and the spanish revolution.

My major criticism of the POUM is how irrelevant it was, it was a tiny party really, a minnow compared to the UGT, CNT or the Communist Party, and instead of recognising this it just grabbed its own small piece of front in catalonia and tried to compete with the others. The POUM could have built an effective base among the working class if it had entered the CNT militias and spread it's ideas and won over the rank and file.

[Intelligitimate]

I have stated the references to the proof the POUM was collaborating with the Nazis before on this forum. Here are the direct references (credit goes to Grover Furr]


Originally posted by Grover Furr

German Intelligence, Communist Anti-Trotskyism, and the Barcelona “May Days” of 1937

I’m writing an article on the falsifications in Khrushchev’s infamous 1956 “Secret Speech.” A few weeks ago I ran across the following statement, in an article on the subject of this speech:

"...в угоду политической конъюнктуре деятельность Троцкого и его сторонников за границей в 1930-1940 годах сводят лишь к пропагандистской работе. Но это не так. Троцкисты действовали активно: организовали, используя поддержку лиц, связанных с абвером, мятеж против республиканского правительства в Барселоне в 1937 году. Из троцкистских кругов в спецслужбы Франции и Германии шли "наводящие" материалы о действиях компартий в поддержку Советского Союза. О связях с абвером лидеров троцкистского мятежа в Барселоне в 1937 году сообщил нам Шульце-Бойзен...Впоследствии, после ареста, гестапо обвинило его в передаче нам данной информации, и этот факт фигурировал в смертном приговоре гитлеровского суда по его делу." (| Судоплатов, П. "Разведка и Кремль." М., 1996, с. 88; | Haase, N. Das Reichskriegsgericht und der Widerstand gegen nationalsozialistische Herrschaft. Berlin, 1993, S. 105)1

English translation from Gen. Pavel Sudoplatov, _The Intelligence Service and the Kremlin, Moscow 1996, p. 58:

“In the interests of the political situation the activities of Trotsky and his supporters abroad in the 1930s are said to have been propaganda only. But this is not so. The Trotskyists were also involved in actions. Making us of the support of persons with ties to German military intelligence [the ‘Abwehr’] they organized a revolt against the Republican government in Barcelona in 1937. From Trotskyist circles in the French and German special intelligence services came “indicative” information concerning the actions of the Communist Parties in supporting the Soviet Union. Concerning the connections of the leaders of the Trotskyist revolt in Barcelona in 1937 we were informed by Schuze-Boysen… Afterward, after his arrest, the Gestapo accused him of transmitting this information to us, and this fact figured in his death sentence by the Hitlerite court in his case.”

This passage is indeed in Sudoplatov’s book. But the footnote to the Haase volume is not. I assume it was added either by Lifshits, author of the Russian-language article, or by Trosten, author of the German version.

So I obtained the Haase volume. The text on pp. 105 ff. is the actual text of the German Reichskriegsgericht (Military Court of the Reich) against Harro Schulze-Boysen, charged with espionage for the Soviet Union (Haase, Norbert. Das Reichskriegsgericht und der Widerstand gegen die nationalsozialistische Herrschaft. Berlin: Druckerei der Justizvollzugsanstalt Tegel, 1993).The relevant paragraph, also on p. 105, reads thus:

Anfang 1938, während des Spanienkrieges, erfuhr der Angeklagte dienstlich, daß unter Mitwirkung des deutschen Geheimdienstes im Gebiet von Barcelona ein Aufstand gegen die dortige rote Regierung vorbereitet werde. Diese Nachricht wurde von ihm gemeinsam mit der von Pöllnitz der sowjetrussischen Botschaft in Paris zugeleitet.

English translation:

“At the beginning of 1938, during the Spanish Civil War, the accused learned in his official capacity that a rebellion against the local red government in the territory of Barcelona was being prepared with the co-operation of the German Secret Service. This information, together with that of Pöllnitz, was transmitted by him to the Soviet Russian embassy in Paris.”

“Pöllnitz” was Gisella von Pöllnitz, a recent recruit to the “Red Orchestra” (Rote Kapelle) anti-Nazi Soviet spy ring who worked for United Press and who “shoved the report through the mailbox of the Soviet embassy” (Brysac, Resisting Hitler: Mildred Harnack and the Red Orchestra. Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 237).

* * * * *

By itself Sudoplatov’s statement only proves that Soviet intelligence sincerely believed that Trotskyists were involved with "persons with ties to German military intelligence" in preparing this revolt. By the time he wrote his memoirs, in the 1990s, Sudoplatov was very anti-Soviet, and showed much remorse for many of the things he had done in the Soviet secret service. The fact that he insisted that the Trotskyists were involved with the Nazis in the “May Days” revolt of 1937 in Barcelona surely means that he sincerely believed it was true.

The information from the German Military Court published by Haase provides independent confirmation of Sudoplatov’s statement and of Soviet contentions at the time. It fully confirms Communist suspicions that German intelligence was involved in planning the Barcelona revolt of May 1937. Communist hostility towards Trotskyists and Trotskyism becomes understandable in the light of this information.

There's good evidence that the real panic over clandestine Trotskyists did not take place, even in the USSR, until after the May Days in Barcelona, 1937. Stalin's speeches (two of them) to the February - March 1937 Central Committee Plenum, minimized the dangers of Trotskyists; declared them marginalized; and encouraged CC members not to discriminate against people who used to be Trotskyists but no longer were.2

By June or July this had all changed. At the enlarged session of the Military Soviet, held on June 1-4 to discuss the just-uncovered and very serious Tukhachevsky conspiracy, Stalin gave a speech in which he states that Tukhachevsky and the rest “tried to make out of the USSR another Spain.”3 The meant create a civil war, of course. But specifically it seems to have meant: Do what the Trotskyists and others had done in the May Days in Barcelona -- stab the USSR in the back in the course of a war with the fascists.

The Soviet NKVD had very credible evidence that Trotskyists were collaborating with the German military and Japanese. Soviet leaders certainly believed it. Pavel Sudoplatov believed it, in his memoirs, and he became very, very "anti-Stalin" and anti-Soviet in his old age.

The real panicked hunt for hidden oppositionists, Rights, Trotskyists, and others, began after that Plenum, in the atmosphere of the Tukhachevsky conspiracy. But the Tukhachevsky conspiracy was preceded by the Barcelona “May Days” revolt.

The German Military Court evidence cited above shows that the German Secret Service was involved in the planning of the “May Days” revolt. Later in May 1937 Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky wrote out by hand a lengthy statement in which he admitted to conspiring against the Soviet Union with the German General Staff.4 Tukhachevsky stated that the commanders discussed their planned revolt with Trotsky. These events provide the most likely explanation for the beginning of the fervent persecution by Communists of Trotskyists in Spain.5


[1] S Lifshits, “Preslovutyi Doklak Khrushcheva, ili CACATUM NON EST PICTUM”. In Moskva Sadovoe Kol’tso, http://m-s-k.newmail.ru , downloaded July 5 2004. The same article is published as a pamphlet in German: Gersch Troston, Chruschtschows berüchtigte Rede, oder CACATUM NON EST PICTUM (hingeschissen ist nicht gemalt). «Marxistisch-leninistische Schriftenreihe für Geschichte, Politik, Ökonomie und Philosophie» (ISSN 1861-2954), Heft 45. Berlin: Ernst-Thaelmann-Verlag, n.d. I have verified all the Russian and English quotations in this article with the originals.

[2] J.V. Stalin, Mastering Bolshevism. NY: Workers Library Publishers, 1937, pp. 26-7; 43-4. Cited from http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Stalin/MB37.html

[3] J.V. Stalin, “Speech by J.V. Stalin at the Ministry of Defense,” Secret Documents. Toronto, CA: Northstar Compass, n.d. [1996], p. 115: “These people tried to make out of the USSR another Spain…” Original in Lubianka. Stalin i Glavnoe Upravlenie Gosbezopasnosti NKVD 1937-1938. Eds. V.N. Khaustov et al. Moscow: “Materik”, 2004, p. 206; Stalin, Sochineniia [Collected Works], vol. 14, at http://grachev62.narod.ru/stalin/t14/t14_48.htm

[4] Partial English translation in Steven J. Main, “The Arrest and ‘Testimony’ of Marshal of the Soviet Union M.N. Tukhachevsky (May – June 1937),” Journal of Slavic Military Studies 10, No. 1 (1997), 151-195. Trotsky and his followers are mentioned throughout Tukhachevsky’s statement.

[5] It’s important to emphasize that there is no evidence that any Trotskyists were killed by Soviet or other communists in Spain, with the exception of Andres Nin, POUM leader and former secretary of Trotsky. See Grover Furr, “Fraudulent Anti-Communist Scholarship From A "Respectable" Conservative Source: Prof. Paul Johnson,” at http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol...hnsonfraud.html (http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/pauljohnsonfraud.html)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 08:12 am
And again i have replied in an early post why there are no significant Trotskyist movements in the third world.I see this as major failure of Trotskyist movements.their primary failure is not spreading the message of Trotsky effectively.


In the 21st century, which sect really does spread their message effectively??? Here in the first-world the trots do it the best, but that is because they are mostly social-democrats and democratic socialists <_<



and taking about in fighting about Trotskyists . In India Maoists are famous for infighting. Unlike Trotskyists in America Maoist here probably try to kill their opponents apart from forming parties with a new label. Naxalite movement is more affected and lost many cadres because this type of infighting than they lost men to police actions.

The trotskyists do the same to the Maoists what&#39;s your point? All sects have infought. It&#39;s easier for you to blame it on the trots as they are not actively revolutionary like the Maoists, but if there is ever a huge trot movement ready to overthrow the state (will never happen), I assure you, you&#39;ll see the same infighting.


I misunderstood you LeftyHenry. I apologize for that. Since in much of your recent post you have been criticizing Trotyskyists i thought this one as yet another Trotskyist Bashing. any how i recommend reading homage to catalonia fully from the link Severian has posted.

no prob. I&#39;ll check it out, but I have a long reading list and not much time on my hands.


Certainly you have misunderstood what Marxist-Leninism ,Maoism and Trotskyism is...


No I don&#39;t think so, but feel free to show me how I have.


You seem like a person who wants to bet on a winning horse.

I don&#39;t bet. If siding with what the workers overwhelmingly side with is "betting on the winning horse" than yes. Maybe I do.

Just because I have so suddenly switched ideologies, doesn&#39;t mean I&#39;m some front runner. I found myself majorly disagreeing with trotskyism and the movement, so I decided that I was not one.



Just answer one question for about 20+ years there were various M-L and Maoist groups in various countries fighting "Protracted People&#39;s War". What did they accomplish ? did they overthrew capitalism ? did they manage to win majority support of workers and peasants ?

In many cases, they have overthrown capitalism. In some cases they haven&#39;t but while they grow and fight capitalism, trots and anarchists sit and watch and criticize like sports announcers.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 12:22 pm


Just answer one question for about 20+ years there were various M-L and Maoist groups in various countries fighting "Protracted People&#39;s War". What did they accomplish ? did they overthrew capitalism ? did they manage to win majority support of workers and peasants ?

In many cases, they have overthrown capitalism.
Name one. And no, the Chinese Communist Party was not a "Maoist" organization. No more than the Bolshevik Party was a "Trotskyist" one.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 12:42 am
If that&#39;s what you want to consider moving away from trotskyism because workers consistantly choose Marxist-Leninism and Maoism and because trotskyism never has succeeded and just constantly whines, than yes I have gone downhill.
When or where has "Marxism-Leninism" (Stalinism) or Maoism succeeded?

[Intelligitimate]

And the Trots have no response, which is typical.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 12:34 am
And the Trots have no response, which is typical.
No response to what, exactly?

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Makaveli+December 03, 2006 06:34 am--> (Makaveli @ December 03, 2006 06:34 am)
[email protected] 03, 2006 12:34 am
And the Trots have no response, which is typical.
No response to what, exactly? [/b]
That "Evidence on POUM-Nazi Alliance" Post he made earlier.


actively revolutionary like the Maoists, but if there is ever a huge trot movement ready to overthrow the state (will never happen), I assure you, you&#39;ll see the same infighting.

1. Maoist movements here is not as huge as you think.
2. Initially they benifitted from pesant and landless peasant coolies disillusionment with the Nehruvian socialism.
3. They had failed terribly because they followed none of the Maoists teaching about the protracted people&#39;s war .
4. Because of them the places which were their strongholds were very much backward with no progression at all.



In many cases, they have overthrown capitalism. In some cases they haven&#39;t but while they grow and fight capitalism, trots and anarchists sit and watch and criticize like sports announcers.

Give one example. For my case take India. There is no Significant Mao groups here now. every former Maoists have turned to reformists or totally abandoned communism.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

1. Maoist movements here is not as huge as you think.

Well it&#39;s big enough to have gotten a two page article in the New York Times several months ago about the CPI-M and its threat to corporate globalization or some blah blah like that. Also, its bigger than any other socialist group in India.


3. They had failed terribly because they followed none of the Maoists teaching about the protracted people&#39;s war .

Then what are they doing? How are they not following People&#39;s war?


4. Because of them the places which were their strongholds were very much backward with no progression at all.

I&#39;d expect that from a capitalist, but not from you... :angry: socialism thrives in the places hardest hit by capitalism


Give one example. For my case take India. There is no Significant Mao groups here now. every former Maoists have turned to reformists or totally abandoned communism.

Eh? CPI-M reformist? There are not significant socialist groups in India but of them all the Maoists are by far the largest.

And look at every socialist revolution there has been if you want to see the marxist-leninist overthrowing of capitalism.


When or where has "Marxism-Leninism" (Stalinism) or Maoism succeeded?

succeded at what? Communism? No where. Socialism and the overthrowing of capitalism? China, the USSR, Nicargua, Cuba, Vietnam, and many other places.

[Vargha Poralli]

Well it&#39;s big enough to have gotten a two page article in the New York Times several months ago about the CPI-M and its threat to corporate globalization or some blah blah like that. Also, its bigger than any other socialist group in India
CPI-M ??? Probably CPI(M). You picked it wrongly, they are not Maoists. Can you provide a link or any other source of that article ?




Eh? CPI-M reformist? There are not significant socialist groups in India but of them all the Maoists are by far the largest.

CPI-M ? do you mean Communist Party of India (Marxist). They are not Maoists but yes they are reformists.They are more opportunists reformists to say correctly. In the states they rule(Kerala & West Bengal) they welcome FDI and heavy industrialization pushing back Labour rights but in the states they were not ruling they oppose it. No Maoists don&#39;t have significant presence in India. Their presence is significant in Most backward areas and their strength is not as it used to be once.


Then what are they doing? How are they not following People&#39;s war?

they are conducting what they call people&#39;s war by totally ignoring the main teachings of Mao. They do not follow his 8 principles which was followed by CPC which turned public favour to them as opposed to KMT . They think they were above People and others should obey their orders blindly.Calling them Maoists is realyy disrespecting Mao(@least for what he did during Long March).

[Redmau5]

succeded at what? Communism? No where. Socialism and the overthrowing of capitalism? China, the USSR, Nicargua, Cuba, Vietnam, and many other places.

Overthrowing capitalism is not an end in itself if you don&#39;t replace it with something better.

[Intelligitimate]

Still nothing from the Trots.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Mmm. I&#39;m nervously awaiting a decent reply to Intelligitimate. I frequently wear a P.O.U.M Tee shirt. :(

-Alex

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 01:33 pm
Mmm. I&#39;m nervously awaiting a decent reply to Intelligitimate. I frequently wear a P.O.U.M Tee shirt. :(

-Alex
Severian addressed these types of defamations, read over his post again. But why nervously? Think about it, the POUM and other anti-Stalinists attempt to undermine Stalinist control of the Republican government in order to advance the destruction of class society, and all of these Stalinists come out of the woodwork to first attempt to blame the POUM of undermining the revolution (when it was them and their decision to purge the POUM and other leftist elements that fucked up the war) and then when it becomes obvious what really happened they start making this minute pointless allegations about possible collaboration between a group of POUM people and some German spy, which is alleged in one historical book, verified nowhere else and based on old NKVD records? :rolleyes: This is so stupid, I can&#39;t believe this is still going on.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Overthrowing capitalism is not an end in itself if you don&#39;t replace it with something better.

I guess literacy, education, healthcare, food aquedate shelter, womyns liberation, life expectany, abolishment of private property, communal property, and all the like are bad things to you.

[bolshevik butcher]

Wait the Spanish CP never tried to overthrow capitalism anyway&#33; They engaged in a popular front with the liberal capitalists rather than furthering the socialsit revolution, claerly furthering the socialsit revolution was the way both to empower the spanish working class and win the war&#33;

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by BreadBros+December 03, 2006 04:07 pm--> (BreadBros @ December 03, 2006 04:07 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2006 01:33 pm
Mmm. I&#39;m nervously awaiting a decent reply to Intelligitimate. I frequently wear a P.O.U.M Tee shirt. :(

-Alex
Severian addressed these types of defamations, read over his post again. But why nervously? Think about it, the POUM and other anti-Stalinists attempt to undermine Stalinist control of the Republican government in order to advance the destruction of class society, and all of these Stalinists come out of the woodwork to first attempt to blame the POUM of undermining the revolution (when it was them and their decision to purge the POUM and other leftist elements that fucked up the war) and then when it becomes obvious what really happened they start making this minute pointless allegations about possible collaboration between a group of POUM people and some German spy, which is alleged in one historical book, verified nowhere else and based on old NKVD records? :rolleyes: This is so stupid, I can&#39;t believe this is still going on. [/b]
You obviously didn&#39;t bother to read the evidence. The evidence is not only "based on old NKVD records". The evidence is from the memoirs of Sudoplatov, head of Soviet Intelligence, and is corroborated by the Nazi trial transcripts of Schulze-Boysen. So you have both Soviet and Nazi sources independently confirming that the Red Orchestra discovered the Nazis were collaborating with the POUM.

Your attempt at evasion is pathetic. You have lost, end of story. The Soviet Union is yet again vindicated by the facts, and the Trots can&#39;t stand it. They can&#39;t even bring themselves to read the evidence, as this demonstrates.

The best you can do is cite the traitor Orwell. This &#39;socialist&#39; ratted out all his fellow travelers to the British IRD before his death, and made several anti-Semitic remarks about them. The man was a piece of shit anti-communist.

George Orwell and the British State (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv4n1/orwell.htm).

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 04:47 pm

Overthrowing capitalism is not an end in itself if you don&#39;t replace it with something better.

I guess literacy, education, healthcare, food aquedate shelter, womyns liberation, life expectany, abolishment of private property, communal property, and all the like are bad things to you.
Oh of course they are all benefits which should be defended. But I noticed you failed to mention secret police, four-hour long bread lines, massive bureacracy, continuous wage inequalities, suppression of free press etc.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Makaveli+December 03, 2006 08:32 pm--> (Makaveli @ December 03, 2006 08:32 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2006 04:47 pm

Overthrowing capitalism is not an end in itself if you don&#39;t replace it with something better.

I guess literacy, education, healthcare, food aquedate shelter, womyns liberation, life expectany, abolishment of private property, communal property, and all the like are bad things to you.
Oh of course they are all benefits which should be defended. But I noticed you failed to mention secret police, four-hour long bread lines, massive bureacracy, continuous wage inequalities, suppression of free press etc. [/b]
Better having to wait in like, than not getting anything at all. There will always be police while there is still a state, and the press is as free as it is in capitalism: In only the wealthy businessmen get their voice heard. In past socialist states, only the proletariat get their voice heard. Obviously they are problems but to claim that the capitalism and fuedalism which enslaved and starved the workers is better than socialism is just upsurd.

[Redmau5]

In past socialist states, only the proletariat get their voice heard.

For one, there has never been a socialist state; and two, only the bureaucratic caste got their voice heard.

[LSD]

It&#39;s so unfortunate that Spain had to get caught up in the war of personalities between Stalin and Trotsky.

I suppose there was no alternative though. When two egos that large collide, the gravitational pull must be astounding.

And apparently it&#39;s stil potent even a half-century after their deaths. After all, here are their ideological descendents inanely debating which one of them betrayed the Spanish proletariat more.

Forget about the actual Spanish workers who fought and died fighting fascism, all that matters is which "great leader" was "right"... <_<

[Intelligitimate]

Got anything to say about the POUM-Nazi collaboration, or just more anti-communist bile to spew?

I don&#39;t know why I keep checking this thread. The Trots obviously can&#39;t deal with the evidence. But just to recap:

The Schulze-Boysen faction of the Red Orchestra was an independent anti-Nazi alliance, lead by the intelligence officer Boysen. It was not lead by the Soviet Union, and was not pro-Stalin. The trial of Boysen specifically has the Nazis acknowledging their involvement with the Barcelona Uprising. This is corroborated by Sudoplatov, who specifically cites the source of Soviet intelligence as the Red Orchestra. Sudoplatov is certainly a hostile witness, becoming very anti-Stalin and anti-communist in his old age. There is no way to smear any of these actors as "Stalinist". And they all point to exactly one conclusion: the POUM were collaborating with the Nazis all along, just like the USSR said they were.

Game over Trots. You lose. But don&#39;t worry, Trotsky hated the POUM anyway. Trotsky hated anyone who deviated from his line. To quote his own son:

"I think that all Dad&#39;s deficiencies have not diminished as he has grown older, but under the influence of his isolation, very difficult, unprecedentedly difficult, got worse. His lack of tolerance, hot temper, inconsistency, even rudeness, his desire to humiliate, offend and even destroy have increased. It is not &#39;personal,&#39; it is a method and hardly good in organisation of work."

Whatever you decide to do with that T-shirt, Olive, the Trots here aren&#39;t gonna give you a reason to keep it.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 07:10 am
It&#39;s so unfortunate that Spain had to get caught up in the war of personalities between Stalin and Trotsky.

I suppose there was no alternative though. When two egos that large collide, the gravitational pull must be astounding.

And apparently it&#39;s stil potent even a half-century after their deaths. After all, here are their ideological descendents inanely debating which one of them betrayed the Spanish proletariat more.

Forget about the actual Spanish workers who fought and died fighting fascism, all that matters is which "great leader" was "right"... <_<
I don&#39;t know whether you know the historical fact or not LSD but POUM which is the central topic in this thread had broke up with Trotsky over the leadership issues. It had SPANISH WORKERS in it cadre and they as a group died defending the Spanish revolution from the fascists. We were DEFENDING THEM the WORKERS who did no wrong other than joing the POUM not Spanish Communists or Republicans or CNT. I don&#39;t know where we are defending the " EGO OF TROTSKY " as you complain. Unfortunately it is you who is obsessed with dead leaders who brought it up in this post just for the sake of argument .. <_<

[OneBrickOneVoice]

For one, there has never been a socialist state; and two, only the bureaucratic caste got their voice heard.

:rolleyes: and you have a Che quote in you sig.

Please,


"the bureacratic caste" were workers and revolutionaries who greatly increased the living standards of the working class.

Way to undermine every major effective worker movement to date.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by g.ram+December 01, 2006 07:08 pm--> (g.ram @ December 01, 2006 07:08 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 12:11 am

bolshevik [email protected] 01, 2006 05:52 pm
My major criticism of the CNT is that they didn&#39;t take power&#33; That was no acctempt at a putsh, it started when the spannish popular fornt government attacked the CNT held telephone exchange, and escelated from there. The CNT and POUM had every operunity to seize power and further the revolution but unforutnatley chose not to. The CNT even acknowledged this by writing a newspaper with the haeadline we could take power at any time.
Their goal wasn&#39;t to take power, it was to abolish power and class society within Catalonia and Spain.
Thats the real reason i am not attracted to Anarchism. Their inaction in during that time is most important reason for the defeat at the hand of fascists and everybody(Anarchists,Trotskyists,POUM,and Spanish communists) payed heavy price to Franco&#39;s goons in the aftermath.
[/b]
The Friends of Durrutti group, the closest thing to an anarchist revolutionary organisation advocated by most modern class struggle anarchist, was THE ONLY revolutionary organisation in Spain and was advocating a revolution during the May disturbance.

The CNT was a mass workers organisation, the largest in spain, although heavily influneced by anarchism due largely to the legacy of excellent miloitancy by spanish anarchists, it was not a proper revolutionary organisation.

People from the Platformist tradition of Anarchism (Europe, Africa & North America), and the Espesifismo tradition (Latin America) have within anarchism dealt with the failures of the past.

I wouldnt write off anarchism untill you check out this tradition.

[LSD]

I don&#39;t know whether you know the historical fact or not LSD but POUM which is the central topic in this thread had broke up with Trotsky over the leadership issues.

And the CPE was an independent member of the Third International.

Look, the intricacies of party relationships is irrelevent. The point is that a an anti-fascist revolutionary struggle which would have been difficult in and of itself was made that much harder thanks to an artificial split along personality lines of Russian bureaucratic politics.

Instead of being a unified progressive alternative to the reformist government, the Spanish anti-capitalist left was hopelessly divided into irrelevent Bolshevik battle lines.

The POUM may have officially split from Leon Trotksy, but they coudln&#39;t excize his influence that easily. Neither, obviously, could the CPE escape from their masters in Moscow.

So while the degree to which Stalin and Trotsky personally controlled the conflict may be debatable (especially among Trotskyists and Stalinists), what is not is that their petty bureaucratic squabble was the best ally the fascists could have ever hoped for.


It had SPANISH WORKERS in it cadre

Of course it did and, again, it&#39;s tragic that they got caught up in the Leninist vanity excersize of "Trotsky vs. Stalin".

It&#39;s amazing just how badly the Bolsheviks managed to screw up the October Revolution. Only 20 years later, it was already a liability to the international left.

It&#39;s sad, but in many ways the Spanish cause would have gone better had the Soviet Union never existed.


Unfortunately it is you who is obsessed with dead leaders who brought it up in this post just for the sake of argument ..

Right, because no one mentioned Trotsky or Stalin in this thread before me... :rolleyes:

[Redmau5]

Trotsky hated anyone who deviated from his line.

:lol: That&#39;s rich coming from a Stalinist.

And for all this evidence which "supports" Nazi-POUM collaboration, aren&#39;t the Stalinists forgetting a something? The pact which their Dear Leader signed with Hitler?


and you have a Che quote in you sig.

You&#39;re point being?


"the bureacratic caste" were workers and revolutionaries who greatly increased the living standards of the working class.

Yea, they were workers, but as soon as they started earning much more than the average working-person, they ceased to become workers. The became part of a new ruling-class.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 10:11 pm
Way to undermine every major effective worker movement to date.
You must have a bizarre definition of "effective."

[Vargha Poralli]

QUOTE
I don&#39;t know whether you know the historical fact or not LSD but POUM which is the central topic in this thread had broke up with Trotsky over the leadership issues.


And the CPE was an independent member of the Third International.

Look, the intricacies of party relationships is irrelevent. The point is that a an anti-fascist revolutionary struggle which would have been difficult in and of itself was made that much harder thanks to an artificial split along personality lines of Russian bureaucratic politics.

Instead of being a unified progressive alternative to the reformist government, the Spanish anti-capitalist left was hopelessly divided into irrelevent Bolshevik battle lines.

The POUM may have officially split from Leon Trotksy, but they coudln&#39;t excize his influence that easily. Neither, obviously, could the CPE escape from their masters in Moscow.

So while the degree to which Stalin and Trotsky personally controlled the conflict may be debatable (especially among Trotskyists and Stalinists), what is not is that their petty bureaucratic squabble was the best ally the fascists could have ever hoped for.

QUOTE
It had SPANISH WORKERS in it cadre


Of course it did and, again, it&#39;s tragic that they got caught up in the Leninist vanity excersize of "Trotsky vs. Stalin".

It&#39;s amazing just how badly the Bolsheviks managed to screw up the October Revolution. Only 20 years later, it was already a liability to the international left.

It&#39;s sad, but in many ways the Spanish cause would have gone better had the Soviet Union never existed.

QUOTE
Unfortunately it is you who is obsessed with dead leaders who brought it up in this post just for the sake of argument ..


Right, because no one mentioned Trotsky or Stalin in this thread before me... rolleyes.gif

Keep on Bashing Bolsheviks for what they did 90 years back and even though "Anti - Authoritarian" Anarchism did nothing before or after that event.

The whole point of History is to learn from it. Not just reject something since it ended up badly in the past.


And the Trots have no response, which is typical.
Its useless to respond anyway. Since any response will be just replied with more "Trot" slander

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 07:17 am
Still nothing from the Trots.
Still nothing from you responding to Orwell&#39;s book which I quoted. Which is a lot more serious than your "evidence."

Also, still nothing from any Maoist to my resquest they "name one".....

Sometimes if people don&#39;t respond to you, it means you don&#39;t deserve a response.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 07:40 pm
It&#39;s so unfortunate that Spain had to get caught up in the war of personalities between Stalin and Trotsky.

Jesus Christ, how superficial can you get? Read the Orwell stuff I posted.

The POUM was not "Trotskyist" except in in the sense that most parties to the left of the official "Communists" were labelled "Trotskyist". As Orwell puts it, "Trotskyist" was sometimes a pseudonym for "revolutionary extremist". There was only a tiny "Trotskyist" group in Spain, called the Bolshevik-Leninists.

And the POUM did "excorcise" Trotsky&#39;s influence very successfully, even to the point of supporting a bourgeois govenment. Maybe even joining the Catalan regional cabinet, I don&#39;t remember for sure.

And the fighting was first of all between the CNT (anarchists) and the government forces - was that the clash of Stalin&#39;s and Trotsky&#39;s personalities?

No, the real issue in Spain was different. Orwell points it out. Revolution vs maintaining capitalism.

"The war and the revolution are inseparable" versus "Postpone the revolution until after the war" - which really meant, forever. Especially since there was no way to beat Franco except to wage the civil war in a revolutionary way...Orwell points out some of the reasons for this.

The ranks of the anarchist groups, the POUM, and part of the Socialist Party were revolutionary-minded workers. Few of the leaders never broke completely from reformism, some even became ministers in the bourgeois governments. But the ranks were subjectively revolutionary.

They correctly realized that the war and the revolution were inseparable. And as they were the main force opposing Franco - when they were crushed, the Civil War was inevitably lost.

On the other side, there were the bourgeois liberals and the reformist misleaders of the workers. Which included the Stalinists - not because Stalin was out to get Trotsky personally - how superficial, and there was no significant Trotskyist group in Spain anyway.

But because Stalin was trying to form an alliance with Britain and France, and the Spanish revolution was an obstacle to that. Orwell explains this too. It was pretty obvious to any observer at the time, that the whole Popular Front Comintern policy was aimed at helping the USSR form that alliance. It&#39;s just that some people now are totally ignorant of history.


And the CPE was an independent member of the Third International.

What? There was no such thing as "an independent member of the Third International." And also no such thing as a CPE (you mean, what, Communist Party of Espana?) at the time. The Spanish Stalinists were a small faction within the Spanish Socialist Party....but they followed Soviet foreign policy very closely.

[A.J.]

I don&#39;t know if P.O.U.M. ever conscouisly collaborated with fascism as I haven&#39;t researched the matter thoroughly. However, it dosen&#39;t take a rocket scientist to work out, on the basis of concrete analysis of the balance of forces, how their "Left-Wing Childishness" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm) served fascism in it&#39;s attempts to undermine the anti-fascist front.


George Orwell

That would be the anti-communist agent of British imperialism (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv4n1/orwell.htm)

[Redmau5]

That article is pure Stalinist garbage.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 07:50 pm
That article is pure Stalinist garbage.
jesus fucking christ can you try reading it before you dismiss it?


You must have a bizarre definition of "effective."

I don&#39;t consider

--overthrowing the bourgieous
--overthrowing capitalism
--establishing socialism

a bizzare definition, do you?


You&#39;re point being?

You&#39;re a hypocrit lol because he is the perfect example of a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary who contributed to the establishment of Cuban socialism.


Yea, they were workers, but as soon as they started earning much more than the average working-person, they ceased to become workers. The became part of a new ruling-class.

that&#39;s why there were laws that made the pay of politicians and representitives no more than that of the average worker.

[FinnMacCool]

That would be the anti-communist agent of British imperialism
That article is wrong on many, many levels. And it was intentionally so.

[Redmau5]

jesus fucking christ can you try reading it before you dismiss it?

I did read it. It&#39;s 10 minutes of my life that I won&#39;t get back.


You&#39;re a hypocrit lol because he is the perfect example of a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary who contributed to the establishment of Cuban socialism.

Yes, Che was a great revolutionary fighter. He was instrumental in the overthrow of Batista and he worked enormously hard for the socialist cause. The point is Cuba isn&#39;t socialist. Of course, as one of the most prominent communists in the Cuban government, I&#39;m sure he was very influential when it came to setting up the world-class education and health care systems. Che helped better the lives of millions of Cubans, and never gave up in his struggle for socialism. That is why I admire him. But he, nor Fidel, nor Raul, nor anyone else for that matter, have ever established socialism in Cuba. Of course, people often have different definitions of socialism, but if you truly believe Cuba is socialist, then you must have pretty low expectations of socialism.


that&#39;s why there were laws that made the pay of politicians and representitives no more than that of the average worker.

Nope. Lenin argued the maximum differential in wages and salaries should be four to one. That is, skilled workers and government officials could only be paid four times as much as the average worker, no more. That&#39;s still pretty good by today&#39;s standards, but hardly "equal".

Link. (http://www.socialistworld.net/publications/che/seven.html)

[Intelligitimate]

Still nothing from you responding to Orwell&#39;s book which I quoted.

There is no point. Your evidence is just the conjecture of a traitor, which we know is false. Thoughout the article when Orwell is actually talking about the POUM-Nazi connection, he keeps saying it is only the assertions of the communist press and their agents. He says nothing more than "They presented no evidence." Well, we now know where their intelligence came from (the Red Orchestra). We know the Nazis acknowledged their role in the Barcelona uprising during the sentences of Boysen; I gave the references. You lose.


Which is a lot more serious than your "evidence."

This only shows you have absolutely no idea how to evaluate historical evidence, and no doubt didn&#39;t even read the evidence I posted. You can&#39;t deal with it. You are incapable of it, because that would require admitting you were wrong and the "Stalinists" were right.

My evidence is a smoking gun. Yours is the bad conjecture of a traitor.

[Intelligitimate]

LeftHenry, you will find most of the people here who call themselves socialists absolutely hate and despise socialism. The people here are extreme anti-communists, far worse than even your typical conservative. It really is hard to point to any group of people whose anti-communism even approaches what you find here.

Probably the only place where you could find equal levels of anti-communism are places like Storm Front or Free Republic.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 12:51 am
LeftHenry, you will find most of the people here who call themselves socialists absolutely hate and despise socialism. The people here are extreme anti-communists, far worse than even your typical conservative. It really is hard to point to any group of people whose anti-communism even approaches what you find here.

Probably the only place where you could find equal levels of anti-communism are places like Storm Front or Free Republic.
Well if it bothers you that much why don&#39;t you piss off?

[BreadBros]

LeftHenry, you will find most of the people here who call themselves socialists absolutely hate and despise socialism. The people here are extreme anti-communists, far worse than even your typical conservative. It really is hard to point to any group of people whose anti-communism even approaches what you find here.

Probably the only place where you could find equal levels of anti-communism are places like Storm Front or Free Republic.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Thats rich. You&#39;re like the PCE in the modern day. Anyone who is to the left of you, that is to say anyone who actually wants to overthrow capitalism and establish a classless society is obviously an evil anti-communist :P .

:star: :A:

[Louis Pio]

Intelligitimate it&#39;s all very nice and all, using time getting quotes and all, after reading them I just still fail to see how they are evidence, I can see why you use them. They fit into your line of trotskyists = nazis. They do however not represent any evidence and since there&#39;s quite alot of factual errors in them, they shouldn&#39;t be treated as " the glorious evidence who shines on us from the past" or something...

And what puzzels me even more is that the leader of Rote Kapelle, Leopold Trepper, never mentioned it in his book "Le grand Jeu" (the great game), rather it&#39;s a damaging critique against the catastrophical position stalinism took against nazism.

[A.J.]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 11:04 pm

That would be the anti-communist agent of British imperialism
That article is wrong on many, many levels. And it was intentionally so.
er, in 1996 the British state openly revealed Orwell had been an operative for the Information Research Department(IRD) - a secret Foreign Office unit who&#39;s task it was to invent and disseminate anti-communist propaganda around the world(who agents also included the most infamous anti-communist ideologue of them all, Robert Conquest).

Are you saying the British state were lying?

why would they do such a thing?

would it not be in their anti-communist interests to continue the pretence that Orwell was an honest leftist?

[Redmau5]

Are you saying the British state were lying?

why would they do such a thing?

would it not be in their anti-communist interests to continue the pretence that Orwell was an honest leftist?

Of course, a British imperialist state would have nothing to gain by smearing the name of a famous author who fought on the communist side during the Spanish Civil War. :rolleyes:

[A.J.]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 05:45 pm

Are you saying the British state were lying?

why would they do such a thing?

would it not be in their anti-communist interests to continue the pretence that Orwell was an honest leftist?

Of course, a British imperialist state would have nothing to gain by smearing the name of a famous author who fought on the communist side during the Spanish Civil War. :rolleyes:

Orwell was an anti-communist scumbag.


Why do you think his works are part of the curriculum of the bourgeois education system here in England?

Why do trotskyites/social democrats worship the guy?


http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s...l-informer.html (http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/orwell-informer.html)

[Redmau5]

Why do you think his works are part of the curriculum of the bourgeois education system here in England?

By this logic;

I study sociology at the University of Ulster,

The University of Ulster is a bourgeois institution.

Marx is a major part of my course.

Therefore Marx is an anti-communist scumbag.

[Intelligitimate]

Intelligitimate it&#39;s all very nice and all, using time getting quotes and all, after reading them I just still fail to see how they are evidence

This only shows you can&#39;t interpret evidence. The Nazis admitted to it in their indictment of Boysen.


They do however not represent any evidence and since there&#39;s quite alot of factual errors in them

Feel free to actually point out these "errors," if you dare. You and I both know you&#39;re just blowing smoke.


And what puzzels me even more is that the leader of Rote Kapelle, Leopold Trepper, never mentioned it in his book "Le grand Jeu" (the great game), rather it&#39;s a damaging critique against the catastrophical position stalinism took against nazism.

This is because there were two groups who compromised the Red Orchestra. One was Trepper&#39;s, which was actually run by the USSR, the other was Schulze-Boysen&#39;s group, which was not. The intelligence came from Boysen, as indicated by his trial transcripts and the memoirs of Sudoplatov.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 05:44 am
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Thats rich. You&#39;re like the PCE in the modern day. Anyone who is to the left of you, that is to say anyone who actually wants to overthrow capitalism and establish a classless society is obviously an evil anti-communist :P .

:star: :A:
You&#39;re not to the Left of me. People who hate socialism are not to the Left of me. You&#39;re just a muddle-headed liberal anti-communist.

[Louis Pio]

Feel free to actually point out these "errors," if you dare. You and I both know you&#39;re just blowing smoke.


Well let&#39;s then.

From your evidence:

Concerning the connections of the leaders of the Trotskyist revolt in Barcelona in 1937 we were informed by Schuze-Boysen…

This kinda takes every credibility out of his statements. The guy hasn&#39;t even got a clue on the oprising in Barcelona. "trotskyist" uprising... There were very few trotskyists in Spain and in the POUM. As we know the revolt started when the government tried to take the telephone station, I highly doubt that he means that the "trotskyists" were in the government and sparked the revolt of that way. Or does he mean the thousands of workers taking over the city were "trotskyists" kinda hard to tell. It&#39;s however certainly no "smoking gun".


“At the beginning of 1938, during the Spanish Civil War, the accused learned in his official capacity that a rebellion against the local red government in the territory of Barcelona was being prepared with the co-operation of the German Secret Service.

So we can see Scultze-Boysen "heard" something form who or what it&#39;s doesn&#39;t say. Without names, documents and so on it&#39;s hardly "evidence" but hearsay. Secondly who knows what Schulze-Boyzens motives was, he was an anti-nazist, but so were many conservatives, that hardly make them revolutionary or revolutionary for that matter.


By itself Sudoplatov’s statement only proves that Soviet intelligence sincerely believed that Trotskyists were involved with "persons with ties to German military intelligence" in preparing this revolt. By the time he wrote his memoirs, in the 1990s, Sudoplatov was very anti-Soviet, and showed much remorse for many of the things he had done in the Soviet secret service. The fact that he insisted that the Trotskyists were involved with the Nazis in the “May Days” revolt of 1937 in Barcelona surely means that he sincerely believed it was true.

We haven&#39;t have any "evidence" yet except from hearsay and Schultze-Boysen&#39;s testimony. Yet the author of the "evidence" suddenly talks about facts, I guess he needs a course in looking critically at sources.


The information from the German Military Court published by Haase provides independent confirmation of Sudoplatov’s statement and of Soviet contentions at the time. It fully confirms Communist suspicions that German intelligence was involved in planning the Barcelona revolt of May 1937.

Again suspecions... It goes well hand in hand with what Trepper tells about the soviet intelligence agencies at the time in his book The Great Game, that they only wanted "intelligence" fiting into their plan and didn&#39;t care about the rest. They even overheard the warnings of their man in Japan (forgot his name) that the germans were gonna attack. In that light the soviet "intelligence" (or lack theroff) is hardly the most credible sources.


The Soviet NKVD had very credible evidence that Trotskyists were collaborating with the German military and Japanese. Soviet leaders certainly believed it. Pavel Sudoplatov believed it, in his memoirs, and he became very, very "anti-Stalin" and anti-Soviet in his old age.

And again the same, no smoking gun. Kinda starts to get tirering from here.


The German Military Court evidence cited above shows that the German Secret Service was involved in the planning of the “May Days” revolt. Later in May 1937 Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky wrote out by hand a lengthy statement in which he admitted to conspiring against the Soviet Union with the German General Staff.4 Tukhachevsky stated that the commanders discussed their planned revolt with Trotsky. These events provide the most likely explanation for the beginning of the fervent persecution by Communists of Trotskyists in Spain

Again the same. No smoking gun and no evidence. And then he even starts pulling old Tukhachevsky who got killed when Stalin needed to cover his tracks in dealings with the nazis. Now his case would make a good topic on it&#39;s own.

That you actually try to pose this as evidence is an insult to your own intelligence and that of members of this board.

[The Grey Blur]

It&#39;s a shame that Teis actually had to go to the trouble of discrediting these Stalinist lies...

[Intelligitimate]

This kinda takes every credibility out of his statements. The guy hasn&#39;t even got a clue on the oprising in Barcelona. "trotskyist" uprising... There were very few trotskyists in Spain and in the POUM. As we know the revolt started when the government tried to take the telephone station, I highly doubt that he means that the "trotskyists" were in the government and sparked the revolt of that way. Or does he mean the thousands of workers taking over the city were "trotskyists" kinda hard to tell. It&#39;s however certainly no "smoking gun".

This is pure bullshit. You latch on to a single word and think it proves anything. That you don’t want to characterize the Barcelona revolt as “Trotskyist” while Sudoplatov does is meaningless. Your bullshit in no way discredits Sudoplatov. Unless you think this meaningless bullshit quibble over the word “Trotskyist” somehow proves Sudoplatov is lying about the nature of the NKVD’s source, which just goes shows you are incapable of evaluating evidence.


So we can see Scultze-Boysen "heard" something form who or what it&#39;s doesn&#39;t say. Without names, documents and so on it&#39;s hardly "evidence" but hearsay.

Apparently you also have a reading comprehension problem. What you quoted says:


“the accused learned in his official capacity that a rebellion against the local red government in the territory of Barcelona was being prepared with the co-operation of the German Secret Service.”

Trying to pretend it says he “heard” it from somewhere shows what a moron/liar you are. It is quite clear from the indictment that he learned from official sources that the German Secret Service was co-operating with the revolt.

Of course nevermind now that you actually accept that Boysen did indeed have this information, which contradicts your previous bullshit about Sudoplatov apparently lying about the nature of his sources. You can’t even keep your bullshit straight.


Secondly who knows what Schulze-Boyzens motives was, he was an anti-nazist, but so were many conservatives, that hardly make them revolutionary or revolutionary for that matter.

Now the anti-Stalinist Boysen is a liar&#33;

This is your defense: “It’s all lies&#33;”

Apparently the Nazis, Boysen, and the anti-Stalinist Sudoplatov have all conspired, across time and space, and the after-life, to all lie about exactly the same thing, just because they all secretly loved Stalin.


We haven&#39;t have any "evidence" yet except from hearsay and Schultze-Boysen&#39;s testimony. Yet the author of the "evidence" suddenly talks about facts, I guess he needs a course in looking critically at sources.

It’s a fact, admitted by the Nazi court, that the German Secret Service was involved in the Barcelona revolt. That you say otherwise shows you are in desperate need of remedial reading classes, or you have no problem lying through your teeth.


Again suspecions... It goes well hand in hand with what Trepper tells about the soviet intelligence agencies at the time in his book The Great Game, that they only wanted "intelligence" fiting into their plan and didn&#39;t care about the rest. They even overheard the warnings of their man in Japan (forgot his name) that the germans were gonna attack. In that light the soviet "intelligence" (or lack theroff) is hardly the most credible sources.

Boysen’s intelligence was spot on. We know this, because the Nazis admitted to it. Your attempts to paint the evidence as bad is absolutely pathetic. You are either profoundly stupid or a complete liar.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 06, 2006 09:09 pm
It&#39;s a shame that Teis actually had to go to the trouble of discrediting these Stalinist lies...
More retarded nonsense. Every single line of evidence comes from anti-Stalinists, and Teis has proved nothing but that he can&#39;t read and/or he is a liar.

[Louis Pio]

Hmm I always thought there were some center for stalinists were they worked 24/7 to provide "evidence" against how trotskyism is allegdedly facists, now I kinda think there is, probably why we never see you in the daily struggle.


Trying to pretend it says he “heard” it from somewhere shows what a moron/liar you are. It is quite clear from the indictment that he learned from official sources that the German Secret Service was co-operating with the revolt.

Of course nevermind now that you actually accept that Boysen did indeed have this information, which contradicts your previous bullshit about Sudoplatov apparently lying about the nature of his sources. You can’t even keep your bullshit straight.


Bla bla stop crying and let&#39;s debate. What I said was that both Boysen and Sudoplatov haven&#39;t shown any sources. If you could dig the real evidence out of the NKVD archives or the Abwehrs you could convince me. That hasn&#39;t been done, secondly it&#39;s quite strange the Soviet authorities never showed this evidence. One can only wonder why... And secondly I never said Sudopalov was lying, just showed that he obviously didn&#39;t even had a clue about the events he was talking about.


Now the anti-Stalinist Boysen is a liar&#33;

This is your defense: “It’s all lies&#33;”

Apparently the Nazis, Boysen, and the anti-Stalinist Sudoplatov have all conspired, across time and space, and the after-life, to all lie about exactly the same thing, just because they all secretly loved Stalin.


All I asked was to have a bit of critical sense towards sources, you know the kinda thing your supposed to learn in school. This was to much to ask of you I could see, still point is that we don&#39;t know anything about Boysens intentions and since neither he, you or the "glorious Stalin" has provided any documents confirming this we kinda need to take it with a grain of salt. Since you have so much time on your hand you could maybe dig into Abwehrs and NKVD&#39;s files, dig up rock hard evidence and give it to me in 10 years time when your done. The I would belive you.


It’s a fact, admitted by the Nazi court, that the German Secret Service was involved in the Barcelona revolt. That you say otherwise shows you are in desperate need of remedial reading classes, or you have no problem lying through your teeth.


No, what your evidence say on the matter is:
At the beginning of 1938, during the Spanish Civil War, the accused learned in his official capacity that a rebellion against the local red government in the territory of Barcelona was being prepared with the co-operation of the German Secret Service. This information, together with that of Pöllnitz, was transmitted by him to the Soviet Russian embassy in Paris.”

The abwehr haven&#39;t really been out saying it. Of course you read it like that, but that&#39;s your problem not mine.


Boysen’s intelligence was spot on. We know this, because the Nazis admitted to it. Your attempts to paint the evidence as bad is absolutely pathetic. You are either profoundly stupid or a complete liar.

As I said you read it like you want to. The court hasn&#39;t asked the Abwehr.

To paraphrase an old fairytale "you have nothing on"

Now I can see why the small remnants of Stalins appologists would use so much time on the subject, especially in regards to Spain were stalinists in reality became the arm of the bourgious state, scabs, strikebreakers and so on, crushing the workers movement. As they did in Britain and many other countries during WW2 and after. The workers movement could have crushed fascism by decisive action, giving Marroco it&#39;s independence so the spanish forign legion would have been tied up there. Instead what we saw was the communist party of spain deciding it&#39;s line on action by what their masters in kremlin would want.

[Intelligitimate]

Bla bla stop crying and let&#39;s debate. What I said was that both Boysen and Sudoplatov haven&#39;t shown any sources.

Sudoplatov is the source. He was the head of the NKVD’s Foreign Department. His memoirs are recounting his memories of things he actually experienced. And in any case, Sudoplatov’s account is independently confirmed by the Nazi’s trial of Boysen.


And secondly I never said Sudopalov was lying, just showed that he obviously didn&#39;t even had a clue about the events he was talking about.

Then this only further shows what a liar you are, because you bring up useless Red Herrings that you admit have absolutely nothing to do with the POUM-Nazi collaboration.


All I asked was to have a bit of critical sense towards sources, you know the kinda thing your supposed to learn in school.

Something you obviously never learned, because you have not shown even the slightest ability to evaluate a source critically.


This was to much to ask of you I could see, still point is that we don&#39;t know anything about Boysens intentions and since neither he, you or the "glorious Stalin" has provided any documents confirming this we kinda need to take it with a grain of salt.

We already know the intelligence was good, as the Nazis admitted to it in their indictment of Boysen. This is a non-issue.


Since you have so much time on your hand you could maybe dig into Abwehrs and NKVD&#39;s files, dig up rock hard evidence and give it to me in 10 years time when your done. The I would belive you.

In other words, no amount of proof will convince you. Nazis admissions won’t even convince you, so why would actually looking at Boysen’s report prove anything to you? I fail to see how more Nazi admissions will change your mind either.


The abwehr haven&#39;t really been out saying it. Of course you read it like that, but that&#39;s your problem not mine.

That is the plain reading of the text. You desperately want to read it as something else. Boysen was an intelligence officer, Teis. Learning “in his official capacity” means he learned it during his duties as an intelligence officer.

[Louis Pio]

Well your kinda like Bush "we know they have weapons of mass destruction"...
+ moscow trial language "admit your filthy dog"...


Sudoplatov is the source. He was the head of the NKVD’s Foreign Department. His memoirs are recounting his memories of things he actually experienced. And in any case, Sudoplatov’s account is independently confirmed by the Nazi’s trial of Boysen.


And as I said earlier, giving the total incompetence of NKVD at the time I hardly consider him credible (Leopold Trepper among others show that), one could even claim that his memoirs shouldn&#39;t either since they are memoirs, which are inteded at puting him in a good light, covering his mistakes and exaggerating his importance.


Then this only further shows what a liar you are, because you bring up useless Red Herrings that you admit have absolutely nothing to do with the POUM-Nazi collaboration.


Now you run in circles once more, actually it even further proves my point as to Sudolapov being quite a uncredible source since he as the head of NKVD&#39;s foreing section can&#39;t even get his facts about an event straight. As I said total incompetence...


Something you obviously never learned, because you have not shown even the slightest ability to evaluate a source critically.


You have given me nothing and actually you just start to sound plain stupid now, were where your critical stance towards the sources in the first place? Nowere to be found...


We already know the intelligence was good, as the Nazis admitted to it in their indictment of Boysen. This is a non-issue.


The nazi court said the following: "he accused learned in his official capacity that a rebellion against the local red government in the territory of Barcelona was being prepared with the co-operation of the German Secret Service."

The court hasn&#39;t had anything to do with the Abwehr and to further complicate the situation different sectors of the nazi wasn&#39;t at all in full cooperation. The Abwehr giving false information to Gestapo vice versa and so on. You keep flogging a death horse.


That is the plain reading of the text. You desperately want to read it as something else. Boysen was an intelligence officer, Teis. Learning “in his official capacity” means he learned it during his duties as an intelligence officer.


Yes I know, and I also know that intelligence officers get alot of information, not all good. If you remember "the great game" theirs alot in it about that. Actually at the time of the trial the official documents about the "pact" must have been quite easy to get hold of, they were not. Even intelligence officers have to prove their information, get it verified. So in the end nothing is "admitted" by the court, they simply put forward what he says.

Now if you want to keep using your useless time on the matter I refer you to my earlier posts.

[Intelligitimate]

And as I said earlier, giving the total incompetence of NKVD

They were competent enough to discover POUM-Nazi collaboration.


one could even claim that his memoirs shouldn&#39;t either since they are memoirs,

This is complete horseshit. There is nothing wrong with using memoirs as evidence, as long as you use them critically. So far, you have presented absolutely no reason to doubt Sudoplatov got intelligence from Boysen. You even admit it he isn&#39;t lying, yet continuously dance around this issue with endless idiotic Red Herrings.


Now you run in circles once more, actually it even further proves my point as to Sudolapov being quite a uncredible source since he as the head of NKVD&#39;s foreing section can&#39;t even get his facts about an event straight. As I said total incompetence...

It is you running in circles, because apparently you want to discredit Sudoplatov&#39;s statements about the source of NKVD intelligence again by bringing up completely irrelevant issues. Can or can not Sudoplatov be believed that the NKVD received intelligence from Boysen on POUM-Nazi collaboration? Apparently you are too fucking stupid to realize your idiotic shit about whether or not the Barcelona revolt was “Trotskyist” hasn&#39;t got a fucking thing to do with the NKVD receiving intelligence from Boysen regarding POUM-Nazi collaboration. You even admit Sudoplatov isn&#39;t lying, so why you keep bringing up these dumbass Red Herrings is beyond me.


The court hasn&#39;t had anything to do with the Abwehr and to further complicate the situation different sectors of the nazi wasn&#39;t at all in full cooperation. The Abwehr giving false information to Gestapo vice versa and so on. You keep flogging a death horse.

So you have switched from claiming the Nazis didn&#39;t admit to it to claiming the Nazi court somehow pulled these charges out of thin air. You have absolutely zero evidence of this completely moronic assertion, but you have no problem presenting it as if it was a fact. Just further shows what a liar you are.

Pray tell, who did, in your imagination, inform the court of these charges?


Yes I know, and I also know that intelligence officers get alot of information, not all good.

We already know the intelligence was good, because the Nazis admitted to it. The Nazi court did not pull the charges out of thin air.


Even intelligence officers have to prove their information, get it verified. So in the end nothing is "admitted" by the court, they simply put forward what he says.

So this he in your sentence refers to Boysen? So you imagine the Nazi court is sentencing him on nothing than his own word, regarding his own crimes? Your capacity for self-delusion is outstanding. Apparently you will tell yourself any fucking idiotic thing to avoid having to acknowledge the Nazis admitted to being involved in the Barcelona revolt.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 05:44 am

LeftHenry, you will find most of the people here who call themselves socialists absolutely hate and despise socialism. The people here are extreme anti-communists, far worse than even your typical conservative. It really is hard to point to any group of people whose anti-communism even approaches what you find here.

Probably the only place where you could find equal levels of anti-communism are places like Storm Front or Free Republic.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Thats rich. You&#39;re like the PCE in the modern day. Anyone who is to the left of you, that is to say anyone who actually wants to overthrow capitalism and establish a classless society is obviously an evil anti-communist :P .

:star: :A:
No actually anyone who never gives up criticizing worker states is a anti-communist which is what you and other anarchists do. Never has there ever been a successful anarchist revolution, and there will never be one. Who said you are too the left of Marxist-Leninists?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 12:51 am
LeftHenry, you will find most of the people here who call themselves socialists absolutely hate and despise socialism. The people here are extreme anti-communists, far worse than even your typical conservative. It really is hard to point to any group of people whose anti-communism even approaches what you find here.

Probably the only place where you could find equal levels of anti-communism are places like Storm Front or Free Republic.
True, but this is the biggest left forum I know.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 11:09 pm



Yes, Che was a great revolutionary fighter. He was instrumental in the overthrow of Batista and he worked enormously hard for the socialist cause. The point is Cuba isn&#39;t socialist. Of course, as one of the most prominent communists in the Cuban government, I&#39;m sure he was very influential when it came to setting up the world-class education and health care systems. Che helped better the lives of millions of Cubans, and never gave up in his struggle for socialism. That is why I admire him. But he, nor Fidel, nor Raul, nor anyone else for that matter, have ever established socialism in Cuba. Of course, people often have different definitions of socialism, but if you truly believe Cuba is socialist, then you must have pretty low expectations of socialism.


Cuba is socialist because the workers and farmers of Cuba are in control of the state and benefit the most from state policies.



Nope. Lenin argued the maximum differential in wages and salaries should be four to one. That is, skilled workers and government officials could only be paid four times as much as the average worker, no more. That&#39;s still pretty good by today&#39;s standards, but hardly "equal".

Really? Because the Consitution of the USSR, said otherwise.

[Redmau5]

No actually anyone who never gives up criticizing worker states is a anti-communist which is what you and other anarchists do. Never has there ever been a successful anarchist revolution

And there has never been a successful Marxist-Leninist revolution. Sure, Marxist-Leninist parties have taken power, but all of those states have deformed and eventually degenerated back to capitalism.


and there will never be one

Do you have a crystal ball?

[Louis Pio]

Just to round things off.
First off have your mother never learned you to use proper language or do you just like to play moscowtrialstyle acuser? Just a thought, never figured why so many stalinists like to throw insults in every sentence, one of the reasons why your so alienated.


They were competent enough to discover POUM-Nazi collaboration.


They were so incompetent that they despite of several warnings didn&#39;t think the germans would attack, and now we are suddenly to belive them on other subjects...


This is complete horseshit. There is nothing wrong with using memoirs as evidence, as long as you use them critically. So far, you have presented absolutely no reason to doubt Sudoplatov got intelligence from Boysen. You even admit it he isn&#39;t lying, yet continuously dance around this issue with endless idiotic Red Herrings.


Well you have to examine them critically, and considering Sudopalovs admitted involvement in Trotsky&#39;s assasination, smashing of any non-stalinits and so on, He is HARDLY the most credible.


It is you running in circles, because apparently you want to discredit Sudoplatov&#39;s statements about the source of NKVD intelligence again by bringing up completely irrelevant issues. Can or can not Sudoplatov be believed that the NKVD received intelligence from Boysen on POUM-Nazi collaboration? Apparently you are too fucking stupid to realize your idiotic shit about whether or not the Barcelona revolt was “Trotskyist” hasn&#39;t got a fucking thing to do with the NKVD receiving intelligence from Boysen regarding POUM-Nazi collaboration. You even admit Sudoplatov isn&#39;t lying, so why you keep bringing up these dumbass Red Herrings is beyond me.


So actually it now all boils down to Sculze-Boyzen, why the hell bring Sudopalov into everything? So what we still lack is Schulze-Boyzens source, which haven&#39;t been given. Schulze-Boyzen learned in his professional capacity it says, but from who and what we are never told, and let&#39;s remember he was NOT a member of the ABWEHR, so yet again NO first hand info.
Btw I love Red Herrings, it&#39;s a traditional food here in Denmark, especially around Yuletide.


So you have switched from claiming the Nazis didn&#39;t admit to it to claiming the Nazi court somehow pulled these charges out of thin air. You have absolutely zero evidence of this completely moronic assertion, but you have no problem presenting it as if it was a fact. Just further shows what a liar you are.


Actually I haven&#39;t changed anything, what I have been saying all along is the following: That the court says the accused "Sculze-Boyzen" has said in court that he learned in his professional capacity etc. Learn to read and keep your temper. Now I would love for you too show me how I changed anything.


We already know the intelligence was good, because the Nazis admitted to it. The Nazi court did not pull the charges out of thin air.


No, read the above.


So this he in your sentence refers to Boysen? So you imagine the Nazi court is sentencing him on nothing than his own word, regarding his own crimes? Your capacity for self-delusion is outstanding. Apparently you will tell yourself any fucking idiotic thing to avoid having to acknowledge the Nazis admitted to being involved in the Barcelona revolt.

Well in any country you would get sentenced if you commit spionage against it.
You are somehow implying that he was sentenced because of the Barcelona thing and nothing else. While his remarks on Barcelona was actually a dustparticle of the case.

[Intelligitimate]

Well you have to examine them critically, and considering Sudopalovs admitted involvement in Trotsky&#39;s assasination, smashing of any non-stalinits and so on, He is HARDLY the most credible.

Nice that you actually did a google search on him this time before bothering to respond to this thread. In any case, this is yet another Red Herring, as this has nothing to do with where the NKVD got the intelligence. (that google search should have also revealed Sudoplatov became very anti-Stalin and anti-communist in his old age, your attempts to smear him as a Stalinist won&#39;t work).


So actually it now all boils down to Sculze-Boyzen, why the hell bring Sudopalov into everything? So what we still lack is Schulze-Boyzens source, which haven&#39;t been given. Schulze-Boyzen learned in his professional capacity it says, but from who and what we are never told, and let&#39;s remember he was NOT a member of the ABWEHR, so yet again NO first hand info.

We already know his intelligence was good. We have the Nazi admission.


Actually I haven&#39;t changed anything, what I have been saying all along is the following

You&#39;re a liar.


That the court says the accused "Sculze-Boyzen" has said in court that he learned in his professional capacity etc

It doesn&#39;t say this at all. Nowhere does it say he said this. It is a list of crimes against him. This is just more of your desperate bullshit.


Well in any country you would get sentenced if you commit spionage against it.
You are somehow implying that he was sentenced because of the Barcelona thing and nothing else. While his remarks on Barcelona was actually a dustparticle of the case.

You have presented not a god damn thing to show this is based on only his remarks in court. You pulled this straight from your ass, in a desperate attempt to close your eyes and pretend this isn&#39;t an admission by the court.

[Louis Pio]

First off the nazis never admitted anything, you can keep saying it and believing it but that&#39;s your thang so to speak.

Even a small search shows quite well were the NKVD&#39;s allegded evidence came from. Jesus Hernandez even writes about it in his book "I Was A Minister of Stalin".
And in contrast to Schulze-Boysen he is actually a first hand witness.
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Pamph/NKVD.html

Now sorry for posting such a long abstract and im sure you don&#39;t care about it since you are to be fair, an honoary student of the stalinist school of falsification.

[quote][b]HOW THE NKVD FRAMED THE POUM


by Jesús Hernández





WHEN I ARRIVED at the ministry, Cimorra handed me a small closed envelope.1 Inside was a card. I read: ‘Dear friend: If you have nothing more important to do, I expect you for tea at six in the evening. I must speak to you urgently. Greetings, Rosenberg.’2 I had spoken with the Soviet ambassador only a few times. Almost always I had visited him about some celebration or official reception. Now his invitation was personal and urgent.

Punctually at six I was at the embassy. ‘Go in. He’s expecting you’, one of the secretaries told me. There in the comfortable office was his excellency, the ambassador of the Soviet Union. ‘Thanks for coming’, he said, shaking hands.

‘I don’t know the reason, comrade Rosenberg. But I am at your disposal.’

‘Thanks. Have a seat. The tea will be here right away. Or do you prefer coffee?’

‘If it’s all the same I’d prefer coffee.’

Rosenberg rang a bell and ordered: ‘Coffee for the gentleman.’ He took out an expensive Russian-lacquer cigarette case with miniature engravings, and offered me a Soviet cigarette with a long cardboard tip. ‘It’s better tobacco than yours’, he said, smiling.

‘Tobacco is a matter of habit. Besides, most of our tobacco isn’t from this country, it’s Cuban’, I explained.

‘I’m expecting a friend; I’d like to you to meet him. He is very much interested in getting personally acquainted with you’, said the ambassador. At that very moment one of the secretaries announced the ‘friend’. Rosenberg rose quickly with a haste that showed his respect. The new arrival stretched out his hand to the ambassador and, turning to me, said in Spanish with a French accent: ‘Comrade Hernández?’

‘Yes.’

‘I am ... Marcos. I like the name’, he said, smiling. I was already accustomed to the fact that the ‘tovarichi’ baptised themselves with Spanish names and I attached no significance to it. Afterwards I learned that his name was Slutsky3 and that he was the chief of the Foreign Division of the GPU4 in Western Europe.

‘I came only a little while ago, not more than a few days ago. I hope that you will excuse me for bothering you, but – it would not be prudent for me to be seen going into your ministry or into the party headquarters. This place is more discreet. And there are so many Russians in Valencia&#33;’5

‘Yes, another Russian more or less, nobody notices. And besides, I don’t believe that anyone has any interest in watching the Russians. Almost all the police are in our hands’, I said, laughing.

‘But there are agencies that the party does not control. And above all, there is the spy service, Comrade Hernández, the enemy’s spies’, he said with a certain vehemence.

Tea and coffee were served, and while the smart waiter filled the cups with delicate precision, I observed friend ‘Marcos’. He was getting close to fifty. Tall and ungainly. Drooping shoulders and a sunken chest gave him an ape-like look. His sharp-featured face was topped by a shaven head, looking from chin to crown like a vertical melon. Eyes a bit slitted and high cheek bones. ‘A true Russian’, I thought.

‘That’s what I wanted to talk to you about, precisely about that, espionage’, he went on.

‘Well, I’m listening’, I said, with some curiosity.

‘Our foreign service has become aware that some elements of the POUM are taking steps to bring Trotsky to Spain. Do you know anything about it?’

‘That’s the first I’ve heard of it.’

‘That shows that the Republic’s counter-intelligence services are very deficient.’

‘I don’t believe they’re deficient, except in having little interest in the escapades of the POUM.’

‘That’s what’s serious.’

‘I don’t see why.’

Our ape-like friend’s features contracted, denoting disgust. ‘If the responsible party men attach no importance to this band of counter-revolutionaries and agents of the enemy, that helps us understand many things that have happened in the war’, he said harshly.

‘In Spain Trotskyism has never awakened from sleep. And I don’t see what influence the POUM can have on the things that have been happening to us’, I replied with the intention of putting him down.

‘The POUM has units at the front’, explained Rosenberg.

‘Not all of them have to be Communist, do they?’

‘But if they aren’t Communist, we must make sure that they are not enemies’, Marcos persisted.

‘You can pose the question in that way in Russia, but in Spain nobody would take us seriously if we called the Trotskyists agents of Franco.’

‘But they are rabidly anti-Soviet&#33; Don’t you read La Batalla?’

‘Yes, I read it. And they say a lot more about us than about Stalin. They also say a lot about the Anarchists, but that doesn’t bring me to the conclusion that our principal aim is to wrangle with them when Franco is shooting impartially at everybody.’

‘That’s an error&#33; That’s it, that’s it&#33;’ – and the slanting eyes of the old Chekist cast withering looks at me.

Rosenberg smoked in silence, piling up mounds of cigarette ashes in the ashtray, as if he were not present at our conversation.

‘I’m talking to you with the authority my experience has given me’, said ‘Marcos’.

‘Tell me, Marcos, why did you call me in to tell me all this, instead of explaining it personally to the secretary of our party? After all is said and done, it’s he who ought to raise these questions in the Bureau.’

‘Because I was told at the "House"6 that you’re a man of action, and for our work we need men who are energetic and determined.’

‘I’m grateful for their confidence, but the "man of action" in me is a thing of the past. Everyone has his period, and mine has already been and gone.’

‘Where something has been, something always remains’, threw in Rosenberg, in suave tones.

‘It isn’t a matter now of your going to plant a bomb under Prieto’s printing press. You knew, Rosenberg?’ Marcos said, turning to him with a sly smile. ‘Hernández wanted to blow up Prieto’s print shop in Bilbao.’7

‘At that time I wanted to do it – and even more stupid things’, I replied in disgust.

‘No, now it’s entirely a different matter. We want you to understand that it is necessary to take practical measures against Trotskyism, and help us. Your ministerial post can make the job easier for us.’

‘My ministerial post has been given me by the party, and I can go ahead only when the party orders me to act along one line or another’, I declared with asperity.

‘Marcos’ caressed his sharp-pointed chin, thinking it over. ‘Our services are performed somewhat on the fringe of the party’, he said. Rosenberg smiled imperceptibly. ‘Marcos’ looked at him fixedly. I think’, continued Marcos, ‘that you realise how much trust in you such a proposition reflects. The ‘House" gives you a mark of distinction.’

‘I don’t think it’s worth while to insist’, I cut in, ‘we’ll be wasting time.’

Marcos’s look immediately became more intense. ‘You don’t even know what it’s about’, he said.

‘No.’

‘It’s a question of getting in our hands documents which show the POUM’s contacts with the Falange8 and we have to act fast.’

‘If such documents exist, the procedure is to draw up the report and hand over those responsible to the courts. Once the evidence is verified, we’ll have no reason to go about it crookedly.’

‘We still have to get some more facts to make sure they don’t get away.’

‘And how can I be useful to you?’

‘For the moment, in no way. That’s our agency’s affair. But when the time comes to make certain arrests, maybe we’ll run into some difficulties with some of the authorities, and at that time your collaboration can be decisive.’

‘See me then, when you have all the evidence, and I’m ready to bring the case all the way to the cabinet itself.’

‘I knew we’d get together in the end&#33;’ he said with visible satisfaction. And, after a pause: ‘Orlov and Bielov9 are working on this they’ll lay it all before you.’ And then addressing Rosenberg: ‘Have you talked to the president of the Council about this matter?’

‘About this …?’

‘I mean, the POUM in general.’

‘Yes. Many times. But Largo Caballero10 resists taking political measures against the Trotskyists.’

‘Did you tell him that this matter is of extraordinary interest to our government?’

‘I told him that Stalin himself is interested in it.’

‘And what did he answer?’

‘That as long as they act within the law, there is no reason to proceed against them, and still less to close down their premises and suspend their press; that his government is a government of the Popular Front.’

‘Popular Front, Popular Front&#33; We’ll have to take care of it another way’, said Marcos angrily.

The Chekist rose. He stuck his hand out to me and, while we took leave, said with an air of confidence: ‘Everything will turn out just as we want.’

When he had gone, it seemed to me I observed a change in Rosenberg, something like an inner satisfaction. ‘It’s a serious matter. All these things are disagreeable, even though they’re necessary’, he said sadly. I understood that Rosenberg could not put more than that into words, but behind the words was the expression on his face. ‘This man’s reaction is something like mine’, I thought. ‘No doubt he feels aversion towards the GPU, or fears it.’

‘Friend "Marcos" is a pure-blooded Chekist’, I said jokingly. ‘Hmm’, grunted Rosenberg. I said goodbye. When he put out his hand, nobody could have supposed that this man was already sentenced to die with a bullet in the back of the head fired by one of the ‘pure-blooded’ gunmen, in the cellars of the Lubianka in Moscow. [...]



*





In the government Dr Negrín had assigned me two cabinet portfolios, education and health.11 Prieto was minister of national defence; Zugazagoitia,12 a Socialist, was minister of the interior; Colonel Ortega,13 Communist, was in charge of the General Security Administration.

Two or three days after the formation of the new government,14 I was awakened at dawn by the insistent ringing of the phone.

‘Who’s that’?’

‘Hello&#33; It’s Ortega.’

Then: ‘No warrants. Let them come to see me at the ministry. I expect them at ten. Salud.’

The NKVD was in operation. The ape-like figure of ‘Marcos’ came back to my memory. I recalled that he had told me: ‘Orlov and Bielov will lay it all before you’. Ortega had just told me that Orlov had shown up at the General Security Administration asking for some arrest warrants against various leaders of the POUM, without telling the ministry anything about it.

Punctually, precise as a chronometer, Orlov came to my office at ten in the morning. He was almost two metres tall, with elegant and refined manners.15 He spoke Spanish with some facility. He was not more than forty-five years old. At first glance, no one would have suspected that behind that seeming air of distinction was one of the most intransigent and sectarian NKVD operatives. He held the rank of commandant and functioned as immediate aide of ‘Marcos’, whom I had not seen again after our interview with Rosenberg at the Soviet embassy in Valencia. With the breeziness of a man who was accustomed to fear and respect, he extended his hand to me by way of greeting and took a seat with easy familiarity.

‘Comrade Hernández, you’ve delayed our work this morning’, he began, in a tone of admonishment.

‘Pardon me, my friend Orlov, but I didn’t know what was up – and I still don’t know.’

‘But you knew it was our agency that had asked for the warrants of arrest’, he said in an inquiring tone.

‘I knew you were one of those who had asked for it, but what I didn’t know was why and against whom these warrants were asked, and also why you had to by-pass the ministry.’

‘A while ago "Marcos" informed me that you understood the nature of our job and were ready to remove official difficulties for us.’

‘Marcos told me a story about espionage and I offered, if necessary, to raise the case inside the Council of Ministers. That was all.’

Orlov looked at me somewhat ironically and, all the while lighting and extinguishing a handsome cigarette lighter, he exclaimed: ‘What’s that – the government? Exactly the contrary. The government must not know a word about it until it has been finished.’

‘But what’s it about?’ I asked.

Orlov was silent for a moment. I lit a cigarette and prepared to listen.

‘Are you with our agency?’ he asked.

‘No’. Orlov made a gesture of surprise. I insisted: ‘Not now or ever.’

Orlov lit and extinguished his lighter. ‘I thought you were one of us. But no matter’, he said between his teeth. Then he began to talk.

Since a while back (he told me) he had been following the trail of a Falangist spy ring. POUM elements were mixed up with it. Hundreds of arrests had been made. The most important figure caught, an engineer named GoIfín, confessed everything. Nin was seriously compromised, Gorkin, Andrade, Gironella, Arquer, the whole Trotskyist gang.16 One Roca acted a liaison man between the POUM and the Falangists in Perpignan. A suitcase full of documents was captured in Gerona from one Riera. Also a hotel proprietor named Dalmau was convicted and confessed.17 Everything was ready to strike. I had held it up. The interior ministry must know nothing. Not even the minister himself.

‘Tell me, Orlov, why are you afraid of the ministry’s intervention?’

‘The enemy is everywhere’, he replied coldly. And then he added in explanation: ‘From the beginning we have rejected intervention by the official police.’

‘But the interior ministry can’t be unaware of an affair of such importance’, I said.

‘Zugazagoitia is a personal friend of some of those who have to be arrested’, he replied.

‘When you present all that evidence …’

‘He will do nothing’, Orlov cut me short. ‘He’s sufficiently anti-Communist.’

‘In this case, it’s a question of fighting the enemy and not of pleasing the Communists.’

‘We’d run the risk of spoiling everything’, insisted Orlov.

‘In some way or other he’ll have to be drawn in and it will always be better to prepare him for it rather than surprise him.’

‘I know what I’m talking about, Hernández.’

‘And I know what I’m doing’, I answered.

‘Now is the ideal moment to deliver an annihilating blow against this gang of counter-*revolutionaries. We have them by the throat’, he said confidently.

‘I don’t doubt that you have them by the throat, but I think this whole story will end in a big political scandal.’

Orlov looked at me with no little surprise. His lighter sparked but did not light.

‘What are you saying? That you don’t believe the story?’

‘That’s not it exactly, but it’s close to what I’m thinking’, I declared.

‘We have a mountain of evidence, crushing evidence.’

‘May I speak honestly, Orlov?’

Orlov’s face had hardened. Looking at him straight in the eyes, I hazarded the idea that was stirring in my head. ‘My impression is that all these proofs are a cleverly prepared photomontage, but I doubt whether they will stand up in evidence before a legal tribunal.’

‘We have the scale-plan which shows the military emplacements of Madrid, identified by its maker, Golfín. On this plan there is a message written in invisible ink and addressed to Franco. Do you know who this message is signed by?’ he asked me in a triumphant tone. ‘By Andrés Nin&#33;’18

I broke into a spontaneous and natural burst of laughter. ‘What are you laughing about?’ he asked, annoyed.

‘Man, you can’t be serious&#33; Please don’t tell such a nonsensical story out there, because people are just going to have a good laugh. In the whole country you won’t find a single citizen capable of believing that Nin is such an idiot as to write messages to Franco in invisible ink – in the era of radio.’

‘You don’t believe it?’ he asked angrily.

‘No.’

‘The you suppose it’s all a lie?’

‘All – no’, I answered coldly. ‘I think the plan exists, Golfín exists, that you have statements. I believe in everything divine and human. What I can’t believe is the simplemindedness of the message.’

‘It’s Nin’s’, he roared in a rage.

‘I don’t believe it’, I insisted, serenely.

‘You don’t believe that he is a counter-revolutionary Trotskyist, a spy, an agent of Franco?’

‘Whatever he may be, the one thing he isn’t, because I know him, is an idiot. I’ve had dealings with more or less all of them, Nin, Andrade, Gorkin, Maurín19 and the rest, and I don’t believe that they’re capable of such stupidity.’

‘But if we have mountains of papers and documents signed and sealed by the POUM&#33;’, he shouted furiously.

‘Then I believe it even less.’

Orlov made an expression of impatience.

‘My friend Orlov’, I said, ‘let’s talk seriously. You people want to put on a big trial against the Trotskyists in Spain, as a demonstration of the reason you shot the opposition in the USSR. I know the Pravda article, of almost two months ago, in which it was announced that the "purge" begun in Spain will be carried through with the same vigour as in the Soviet Union.20 So I understand your interest, perfectly. But let’s not complicate life, which is already complicated enough. If you wish, we can devote a special page in our newspapers, every day, to denounce them as a gang of enemies of the people, but let’s not stage sensational spectacles, because nobody will believe them.’

‘But if we have the proofs&#33;’ exclaimed Orlov.

‘If I know your "apparatus", I’m aware they are able to manufacture dollars out of wrapping paper.’21

‘That’s an absurdity – and an impermissible opinion’, muttered Orlov, obviously angry and upset.

‘If it upsets you, then consider that I’ve said nothing’, I said ironically.

‘You have said, and you are saying, very serious things’, he said threateningly.

‘You are a specialist in matters of espionage and counter-espionage? What would you do with an agent who sent you documents of the greatest importance written on official stationery, signed with his name and, to cap it all, validated with a stamp of the GPU?’

He looked at me a bit perplexed. Rallying, he answered: ‘They don’t have our techniques or experience.’

‘Almost all of them are acquainted with illegal work and lived through the underground period of the Communist Party. If they had committed such a simple indiscretion as signing their name even on an unimportant communication we would have expelled them as provocateurs, or as imbeciles. How do you expect me to believe that in the midst of war they sign documents addressed to Franco?’

‘We have the testimony and statements of the arrested men themselves’, he replied.

‘If you managed to get these confessions, for me they have no more "legal" value, no matter how you got them, than the written, signed and sealed documents.’

‘All these documents and all these statements will go to the court trial, and there will be reason enough and evidence enough to hang all of them.’

‘In any case, I insist that the procedure be to get an order from the minister to finish this job. If I’m needed for that, I’m at your service.’

‘That way, we’ll lose everything’, he grunted in a bad temper.

‘By the way you want, there’ll only be a scandal, a scandal which will damage our party, which is already sufficiently abused.’

‘You promised to help us’, he said, indignantly.

‘I am ready’, I declared.

‘There’s no need to go on’, said Orlov. ‘I’ll talk to Jose Díaz.’22

‘It seems to me quite proper’, I said, to irritate him, ‘that the secretary of our party should know what’s going on in Spain.’

Rising, still holding the lighter, Orlov did not see, or pretended not to see, the hand I held out to him in farewell.

With a nod of his head as sole acknowledgement, he went out, a dark expression on his face.

‘All men are equal’, I told myself, seeing him go out stiffly and elegantly. ‘At bottom and openly they despise us and try to humiliate us. They act as if they were in a conquered country and behave like lords to serfs.’ [...]



*





I immediately went to the private home of our party’s general secretary. I found him in bed, surrounded by a litter of medicines. His duodenal ulcer had laid him down. In a few words I informed him of my interview with Orlov. With that strong Andalusian accent of his, Díaz confided his thoughts to me in more detail than ever before. ‘I feel disgusted, disgusted at myself and everything. My faith is failing.…’ I looked at his wasted, drawn face, where moral suffering and physical pain had sunk their claws. I felt sorry for this shattered man. It was a reflection of my own self-pity.

‘I would rather have died than have to survive this spiritual death. I’ve been a man who gave himself with fanatical enthusiasm to the USSR. You know that I was a bakery worker. My revolutionary restlessness pushed me towards anarcho-syndicalism. I joined the action groups because it seemed to me that in this way I was giving more and sacrificing more for my ideals. I was always ready to die for what I believed, for what I had faith in. Later the Soviet Union, Stalin, triumphant socialism, drew me to Communism. I devoted myself with passion, without reserve, convinced that the USSR was our ideal goal. I would have sacrificed my wife, my daughter, my parents. I would have killed, assassinated, to defend Russia, to defend Stalin. And today, what? Everything crumbles, everything is in ruins at my feet. What purpose does our life have? I’ve made efforts to convince myself that I’m mistaken, understand? Because I want to believe, because I can’t admit that everything is a lie. To come to that conclusion is the end, nothingness.’

He took two pills out of a bottle and swallowed them with a sip of water. ‘When I think of all that’, he said. ‘I feel worse.’

‘Pessimism and despair won’t help us, Pepe’, I said to encourage him.

‘I know. But the reality crushes my spirit. I can’t help it. These days while I suffer in bed’, Díaz continued, ‘I’ve permitted myself to think thoroughly about our situation. The conclusion I arrived at is demoralising. The "tovarichi" boss the Political Bureau around as they please. I have a feeling that they will try to get rid of us, you and me, using any of the thousand means at their disposal. It will not be immediately, because no one – not they in the first place – is interested in provoking a crisis of leadership through differences with the method and policies of the USSR. But they will finish with us. It’s a question of time, and tactics. As for me, using my illness as their excuse, they don’t even take the trouble to keep me informed about what is taking place in the leadership. To find out what’s happening I have to call in one comrade or another, and always it’s the same: "We are doing this because Codovilla directed it, because Stepanov ordered it, because Togliatti advised it".’23

‘It’s more than an invasion, it’s a colonisation’, I said, with an attempt at levity.

‘The Kremlin’s sepoys, that’s what we are, sepoys’, he said in anger.

‘With apologies to the sepoys&#33;’, I said in the same tone.

‘I have gone over the whole Central Committee in my mind, and I don’t find more than half a dozen men capable of taking a firm position at our side.’

‘Far fewer’, I observed.

‘A half dozen against 300,000 members&#33; And against the tradition. And against the prestige of the Soviet Union’, he added, disheartened.

We remained silent. The figures weighed on our hearts like lumps of lead. They crushed us. […]

‘Now let’s talk about the scheme of Orlov and Company’, Jose Díaz said with a bitter grimace. ‘What can we do about it?’

‘Little or nothing. I suppose they’ll come to see you. It’s strange they aren’t here already. What intrigues me is why they now want our collaboration when they’ve done and undone everything without taking us into account’, I pointed out.

‘Because they expect a scandal – no other reason. Phone Ortega and tell him that I am categorically opposed to any intervention in this affair without advance knowledge by the minister.’

I went to the telephone. Ortega was not in. His secretary informed me that he was with the minister. After leaving a message that Ortega was to get in touch with Díaz at his private residence. I asked the secretary if the ‘friends’ had been there. ‘About an hour ago Ortega was urgently called to the Central Committee by them’, he answered.

I hung up the receiver with the vague presentiment that we were faced with an accomplished fact. Orlov could more easily find support from the political delegation and some other members of the Political Bureau than from Jose Díaz. I communicated my fears to Díaz. He shared them.

The telephone rang a few minutes later. It was Ortega. I told him of Díaz’s order. Stammering, embarrassed, he told me he was immediately coming to see us.

‘What’s going on?’ asked Díaz.

‘What we were afraid of, I think. Ortega is coming now.’

Colonel Ortega appeared five minutes later – an honest man whom we had taken out of the front lines to take care of the General Security Administration, which was an extremely important and responsible post under war conditions. He was thin with an angular face, and kindness and openness were reflected on his thin face. This man, who had never trembled before the prospect of death when he fought in the trenches in our struggle, entered José Díaz’s house pale and uneasy. For those who did not know that we were puppets in a show, the authority of the Political Bureau was fearful. And now it was the head of the party who was questioning him with fire darting from his eyes. Ortega felt crushed.

‘A little while ago they called me to the Central Committee’, he explained. ‘Togliatti, Codovilla, Pasionaria and Checa24 were there with Orlov. They ordered me to teletype to Comrade Burillo (the Assault Guard commandant who for some weeks had been acting as the head of Public Order in Barcelona)25 an order for the arrest of Nin, Gorkin, Andrade, Gironella, Arquer and all other POUM elements indicated by Antonov-Ovsëenko or Stazhevsky (the first operated in Catalonia as consul and the second as commercial charge of the USSR).26 The police patrols they are to use are already in Barcelona.’

A curse rang out explosively. Díaz, furious, jumped out of bed and began to dress. There was a heavy silence. Ortega looked from one of us to the other without being able to understand what had happened. He tried to justify himself: ‘I, I couldn’t suppose ... Since they ordered me ... Besides, Togliatti, Pasionaria, Checa ... I thought you agreed.’ Neither Díaz nor I said a word. Any explanation would have revealed more than he guessed, disagreement among the members of the Political Bureau themselves and our disagreements with the Soviet delegation.

Minutes afterwards, we were on the street. We took leave of Ortega, jumped into my car and headed for the headquarters of the Central Committee. A huge rambling building which occupied one side of the Plaza de Ia Congregación was the headquarters of the Political Bureau. An armed guard gave us a military salute. He rang the bell to announce the presence of the general secretary of the party. We went up to the first floor. Díaz’s personal secretary opened the door of the office for us. There, sitting before an enormous pitcher of orange drink and in his shirtsleeves, was Vittorio Codovilla, an Italian by origin and Argentine by nationality, calmly smoking a small pipe. His enormous corpulence filled the large desk – of the general secretary of the Communist Party of Spain.

On the facing wall was a big photograph of Stalin and a nice war poster of Renau. On the desk there was a mass of papers in disorder. Codovilla threw us a glance over his small eyeglasses and told us, as if addressing subordinates: ‘One moment, comrades, just a moment only – I’m finishing.’ Ignoring him, Díaz went to the telephone and ordered the operator: ‘Tell comrades Pasionaria and Checa to come down to my office immediately.’

Codovilla looked up at Díaz for a moment. Perhaps he expected or sensed the storm. Our faces could scarcely be the faces of friends. He picked up his papers and, taking out an enormous handkerchief, he began to wipe off the stream of sweat that the day’s heat had brought out on his mammoth neck. ‘Phew, isn’t it hot&#33;’, he said. There was silence. Turning to Díaz, with the intention of justifying himself: ‘I asked for you a little while ago and they told me you were in bed. How hot it gets in my office – yours is much cooler, isn’t it?’

Pasionaria entered, followed by Pedro Checa, the party’s organisational secretary. Pasionaria theatrically went over to Diaz: ‘How good to see you here&#33; You’re better?’ I observed her. Her smile was forced and her question was officious. Pasionaria hated Díaz. She could not forget that he had made some severe comments on her secret amorous relationship with Francisco Antón, a lad twenty years younger than she and a prototype of the unscrupulous careerist. [...] Without taking notice of the fuss that Pasionaria was making over him, Díaz answered dryly: ‘I’m perfectly well.’

Codovilla filled his pipe, pressing down the tobacco with his finger. The situation was awkward, tense. Díaz, making an effort to keep calm, asked: ‘Would you like to tell me whether I have been disqualified from doing work just because I’m ill?’ Pasionaria, with a hypocritical expression on her face: ‘You’re joking, Pepe?’

‘I’m not in a joking mood. I ask and I want a plain answer.’

‘But what are you getting at?’ Pasionaria asked again, with feigned ignorance.

‘Who ordered Ortega to send orders for the arrest of the POUM men?’ asked Díaz, going white with anger on top of his sickbed pallor.

‘We did’, said Pasionaria. ‘There couldn’t be any question of bothering you about such an unimportant thing. What importance can there be in the arrest by the police of a handful of provocateurs and spies?’ she asked malevolently.

‘The POUM arrests are not a police matter, they’re a political matter’, replied Díaz.

Codovilla smiled with an air of almost sadistic evil. Squeezing the small pipe in both hands, without losing the arrogant expression on his face, he remarked: ‘Pepe ought to take a holiday. Overwork and illness have got him excited. Reactions like this show an oversensitive state of mind. It’s perfectly understandable that the comrades didn’t want to bother you with foolishness, seeing the state of your health. The exaggerated interpretation you give such a little business shows how touchy you’ve become because of your forced withdrawal from work. In any case I agree that it is necessary to organise the work so that each day you receive a summary of what has been done and what has been decided by the comrades. But I insist: you must take a holiday. The rest will do you good.’

My eyes did not leave the hands of the cynic who pressed the smoking pipe between them. While he was speaking I thought I could interpret the real meaning of his words. It was a warning to Díaz to remove himself for a period from the work of the leadership. The Soviet delegation had begun to take precautionary measures. ‘Then I should watch out for myself’, I thought.

Since I saw Pepe’s chin trembling in agitation and irritation, I intervened lest he explode in a fit of anger and collapse in a heap. ‘If the arrests of the POUM men are unimportant, it should have been done legally, that is, by the order of the proper authority – the government. If it can be proved that they are spies, then why be afraid that Zugazagoitia would make himself an accomplice of Franco’s agents? That’s much too serious a matter for a political person to risk his prestige on it. Zugazagoitia would have neither opposed nor refused to order the arrests if any of us had brought the evidence to him. The way you’ve gone about it, it will immediately create a scandal, and justifiably so. That’s what has made Díaz angry.’

Pasionaria, looking annoyed, glanced around. Checa had been very much affected, and was biting his fingernails, as he always did when he was nervous. Codovilla answered curtly: ‘Whatever reasons the comrades of the "special agency" may have had to act as they did, it isn’t our business. Their activity takes place on the margins of the party.’

‘Very well&#33;’ cried Díaz. ‘Let them take public responsibility for their actions and then they will have a right to do what they please. But the scandal falls on us. Their activity involves the party. And this POUM affair is very murky.’

Codovilla gave Díaz a vicious look. In a voice that sounded a bit strangled in his throat, he said: ‘The comrades of the "agency" are doing a big service for the Republic and for the party by unmasking this Counterrevolutionary rubbish. What are you complaining about?’

Defiantly and aggressively Díaz replied: ‘It seems they’re helping themselves more than us.’

‘That’s the same opinion that Hernández has and it reveals an intolerable hostility toward the comrades of the GPU’, Codovilla replied irritably.

‘It’s not true that he has any preconceived hostility towards any comrade from the "House"’, I explained. ‘Now then, if to express an opinion on this or any other matter is to be considered hostility, then what is the role of the Political Bureau? To say yes to everything? To keep quiet and obey?’

Checa, with a depressed expression, spoke hesitantly: ‘No ... I don’t believe that the situation should be confronted like this.... No, it’s not possible. We ought to unite the Political Bureau, discuss peacefully, clarify things.’

Codovilla went on spitefully: ‘We all maintain discipline and obedience. When you’re a genuine Communist, without any petty-bourgeois airs or vanity, there are certain things that are not discussed and not brought up. Hernández and Díaz’s tone and intentions are offensive. We are advisers – advisers and nothing more than advisers.’ And the cynic emphasised the word ‘advisers’ as if he were hitting us with it. He went on: ‘You are the leaders. We have never made a decision without first consulting with one of you. What decisions have we made on our own? What decisions have we imposed on you that were not discussed and decided on by a majority of you? Tell me – which, when?’

His little eyes flashed behind the lenses of his glasses while he continued with his peroration: ‘Why this insinuation that you only obey? The Political Bureau can’t be in permanent session, and when a problem comes up we decide it by consulting the opinion of the comrades who are most available at hand. And it is decided by common agreement with them. The POUM affair was decided together with Pasionaria and Checa. At other times we made decisions in consultation with Hernández or Díaz or some of the other comrades. So be careful about what you say, and about making reckless statements&#33;’ he wound up in a threatening tone.

‘In this case the comrades of the "special agency" knew I wasn’t in agreement. They promised to go see Comrade Díaz and didn’t do it. Why didn’t they inform the others of our opinion?’

‘Yes, they informed us’, Pasionaria declared cynically. ‘But since it was urgent and we couldn’t convene the full Bureau to take up a simple matter, it seemed to us correct to decide it without waiting any further.’

Codovilla sweated and smoked. He had calmed down and a sardonic smile played over his mouth. Pasionaria was acting very well. When Codovilla had talked a moment ago with such aplomb, he had made sure that the majority of the Political Bureau would support the delegation against any argument we could put up against the conduct of the ‘tovarichi’. They had us by the throat.

‘I think’, said Diaz, ‘that we ought to take up the question at the next meeting of the Bureau. This question is far too serious to be decided among us.’ Face livid as a corpse, Díaz rose and abruptly left the office. […]



*





Forty-eight hours later, an urgent call informed me that Negrín was expecting me in his office. On entering, I found the president dictating into a machine, and without preamble he asked me: ‘What have you people done with Nin?’

‘With Nin? I don’t know what’s happened to Nin’, I said, and it was the truth.

With evident anger, Negrín explained to me that the minister of the interior had informed him of a whole series of outrages committed in Barcelona by the Soviet police, who were acting as if they were on their own territory, without taking the trouble even out of courtesy to let the Spanish authorities know about the arrest of Spanish citizens; that they were transferring these prisoners from one place to another without any authorisation or court order and that they were locking them up in special prisons entirely outside the control of the legal authorities; that some of the prisoners had been brought to Valencia but that Andrés Nin had disappeared. The president of the Generalitat27 had phoned him, alarmed and indignant, considering that the activity of Orlov and the GPU in Catalan territory was a violation of the people’s rights.

I did not know what to answer him. I could have told him that I thought as he did, as Zugazagoitia, as Companys, that I also wondered where Nin was, and that I abhorred Orlov and his police gang. But I decided not to. I saw a storm breaking over our party and I was ready to defend it even in a case where the defence of the party implicitly involved the defence of a possible crime.

For some time now I had been trying to convince myself that it was possible to establish a dividing line which would differentiate our organisation as a party of Spaniards from the actions of the USSR as a state. My differences were with the procedures, not with the doctrines; my doubts rose around the men, not around the principles. The cracks in my faith were limited to the idols, not to the ideas. With all of my reservations about the policies of the Soviet leaders, I remained a convinced Communist, a ‘party man’, a fervent believer in the historic necessity of the Communist movement and, concretely in Spain, of our party’s mission. The ties which bound us to the USSR’s ‘reasons of state’ and which so heavily influenced our political actions – we would have to go about breaking them one after the other till we had completely liberated ourselves from their tutelage and could go ahead on a national basis, with our conduct inspired by the interests of the Spanish people and the political, economic, social and historical realities of Spain. Correct or not, my understanding of these things then went no further than these propositions.

Negrín persisted: ‘Nin is an ex-councillor of the Generalitat of Catalonia. If any crime can be proved against him, it must be brought before the Court of Constitutional Guarantees.’

‘I suppose’, I said, ‘that Nin’s disappearance is due to an excess of zeal on the part of the "tovarichi" and that they will hold him in one of their jails, but I don’t think that his life is in any danger. As for the rest, you are the appropriate person to tell the Soviet ambassador that they should restrain their proceedings.’

‘And you people too.’

‘We too’, I answered.

Negrín remained thoughtful for a moment. Then, as if talking to himself, he said: ‘In the Council this afternoon we’ll have a row. Prieto, Irujo28 and Zugazagoitia will create a scandal. What can I tell them? That I don’t know anything about it? And you – what will you say? That you don’t know anything either? The whole thing is stupid.’ Promising him to find out what I could about the kidnapping of Nin and inform him immediately, I said goodbye and at once went back to our party’s headquarters.

In Díaz’s office – which remained closed – I found Codovilla and Togliatti. Both of them looked astonished when I told them my conversation with Negrín. I did not know whether this reaction was genuine or whether they were acting out a comedy for my benefit. Codovilla opined that the comrades of the ‘special agency’ must have held on to Nin in order to question him, or for some other business, before turning him over to the authorities. Togliatti, tight-lipped, now recovered from his feigned or real amazement, said nothing. On my insistence that we ought to know something definite before 4 o’clock in the afternoon, when the meeting of the Council of Ministers was beginning, he opened his mouth to say that we should not take the matter so hard, since the comrades of the ‘special agency’ knew what they were doing, were not novices at the job and were political people before everything else. He promised to go to the embassy to find out what was going on, and went out to go there. The Soviet embassy was a few minutes away from the Plaza de la Congregación. I decided to wait. Neither Codovilla nor I said anything. Each of us had our own reason to be worried. I was a prey to presentiments of the worst.

Andrés Nin was a prize coveted by the GPU: an intimate and personal friend of the great leaders of the October Revolution in Russia, he had worked with them since the foundation of the Red International of Labour Unions, as one of the secretaries of that organisation. On the death of Lenin he did not hide his sympathies for Trotsky. The course of Stalinist politics did not convince him, and he expressed his disagreement publicly. Shortly after the defeat of the Opposition in the Bolshevik Party, Nin was labelled a renegade and expelled from the Soviet Union. When the Republic was declared in Spain, he returned to the country,29 and together with the ex-Communists who had organised the Workers and Peasants Bloc, he formed the Workers Party of Marxist Unification. The organ which spoke for this party, La Batalla, was an anti-Stalinist cry in the stirred-up and revolutionary conditions of Spain.

The POUM was not a big movement, but the voice of Nin and the majority of its leaders had undoubtable repercussions in some centres of the Catalan proletariat and, above all, outside our borders.30 In any case, they worried Moscow more than they worried us. The moment was propitious. The war permitted the GPU to operate freely in Republican Spain and Orlov’s men had set up a police apparatus as if they were ruling conquered territory.

The witchhunt against the POUMists was carried out in order to show that both inside and outside Russia the friends of Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, etc. were a gang of counterrevolutionaries, agents of fascism, enemies of the people, and traitors to the fatherland, who had to be shot in whatever country or region. And also in order that the suspicious should put aside their objections. It was not Stalin’s personal phobia that caused the extermination of the old guard – the case of Spain proved it. Here, in a democratic country, ruled by a Popular Front, here too they were being unmasked and executed as traitors. I grasped the political ‘motive’ easily. What I didn’t imagine – I was not long in finding out – was the criminal lengths to which the GPU’s henchmen were capable of going in the struggle against the men of the ideological opposition.

From the balcony I saw Togliatti’s car approaching. A moment later he told us he had been able to find nothing at the embassy, neither Nin’s whereabouts nor Orlov’s. All my nervousness and worries broke out in anger. I announced that I would not attend the Council of Ministers, that I did not want to be a punchbag for Orlov and Co. over an issue that had seemed improper and shady to me from the beginning.

‘Not to show up, to dodge the debate, that would be the greatest stupidity. Let’s evade the concrete case of Nin and base ourselves on the existence of the evidence which shows that the POUM leaders were in contact with the enemy. Let’s not make our stand on their ground; let’s set the debate around the existence or non-existence of a spy organisation. Once it is shown, as it is possible to show, that this exists, the scandal over the whereabouts of Nin will die down. And when Nin appears he will already be accused of treason.’ From Togliatti’s explanation I deduced that he already knew Orlov’s whole scheme and that his visit to the embassy had not been an idle one. Nin was being held, and they would turn him over when the ‘affair’ took on an official status. Some of my fears were dissipated. And although Togliatti’s plan did not please me very much, I was ready to follow it at the ministers’ meeting. ‘In the end’, I told myself, ‘the courts will be charged with establishing what is true or not in this whole GPU plot.’

At four o’clock the ministerial cars began to arrive at the grey building of the Presidency. The newspapermen accosted the ministers in the waiting room hung with musty, dull, peeling velvet. ‘What do you know about Andrés Nin?’, one of them asked me. With an evasive gesture, I avoided a reply and entered the council chamber.

On the oval table where ministerial meetings took place, there were walnut cigarette cases, chocolate boxes, jugs of water, wide pads of paper and bulky leather portfolios. The frowns of several ministers gave warning of a storm to come.

When the president opened the meeting, the minister of the interior, Zugazagoitia, asked for the floor. With unanswerable logic and firm arguments, correct in form, Zugazagoitia told what he knew about the ‘case of Nin’ and his comrades, ‘arrested not by the authorities of the Republic but by an "outside agency" which operates, as we have seen, in our territory in all kinds of ways, without any law other than its will, without any restraint other than its own whim. I would like to know’, he concluded, ‘if my jurisdiction as minister of the interior is determined by the responsibilities of my post or by the standards of certain Soviet "technicians". Our gratitude to this friendly country should not force us to leave our personal and national dignity in shreds at the crossroads of its policies’.

Prieto spoke. And Irujo. Their speeches were an angry protest against Soviet intervention and oppression in our land. Their dignity as men and Spaniards revolted against the outrages of the ‘tovarichi’ who, in exchange for providing arms, thought they had a right to humiliate us and even to rule over us. In their speeches they declared that they would resign before becoming ‘stooges’. Velao spoke and Giner de los Ríos.31 All of them spoke. They demanded Nin, and called for the dismissal of Colonel Ortega, who was a visible and direct accomplice, though an unconscious one, in Orlov’s abuses.

Then we, the two Communist ministers, spoke.32 Our arguments were poor and colourless. No one believed in our sincerity when we said we did not know Andrés Nin’s whereabouts. We defended the presence of the Soviet ‘technicians’ and ‘advisers’ as the expression of the ‘disinterested’ and ‘fraternal’ aid which the Russians gave us and which had been accepted by previous governments. We once again explained what the USSR’s provision of arms meant for our war and about the support on the international scene that the Soviet Union gave to us.

Since, in spite of everything, the atmosphere stayed hostile and brows remained frowning, I gave in on the dismissal of Colonel Ortega – the sacrificial goat – for exceeding his authority and failing to inform the ministry in due time, but I threatened that all the compromising documents of the POUM would be made public and also the names of those inside and outside the government who protected the spies of that party ‘over mere questions of procedure’. It was a demagogic and disloyal expedient, but I did not hesitate to use it.

Negrín, conciliatory, proposed to the council that it suspend the debate until all the facts were known and it had the evidence of which the Communist ministers spoke, waiting till the Ministry of the Interior could give us definite information on Andrés Nin’s whereabouts. We had weathered the first storm, the most dangerous one. Going out of the council chamber, Uribe told me: ‘You were very clever in that combination of concessions and threats.’ My Pyrrhic victory gave me such nausea that I wanted to vomit. [...]



*





It was another two or three days before we knew anything definite about Andrés Nin. Our Madrid organisation informed us that Nin was in Alcalá de Henares, in a private prison that Orlov and his gang used. When we raised the question with the Soviet delegation, they thereupon told us that indeed – what a coincidence&#33; – they had just received news that Nin had passed through Valencia, without stopping, in the direction of Madrid; that Orlov was thinking of taking him directly to the Prisión Celular in Madrid, but that he was afraid of an escape by the accused and chose to put him into jail at his headquarters in Alcalá pending the arrival of the other people arrested, who were to be moved from the Valencia jail to the one in Madrid.

As Díaz and I had foreseen, the political scandal around the arrest of the POUM leaders turned into a bitter political struggle against our party and against Negrín himself. Socialists, Caballerists, Anarchists, trade unionists and also, although more weakly, Republicans joined in denouncing before national and foreign public opinion the attack on the rights of the people and the democratic laws of the country, and the illegal arrest of Nin, Andrade, Gorkin, Arquer, Bonet33 and the other POUM leaders. All of them demanded the immediate freeing of the prisoners and, as a slogan, raised the question: ‘Where is Nin?’

Our press unleashed a furious attack against the POUM and all its political advocates. Nevertheless, It was necessary to give ‘evidence’ of the prisoners’ guilt in order to silence the outcry. Now it was the Political Bureau that demanded the documents showing the guilt of the POUMists, in order to make them public and calm the storm that had broken out over the head of our party.

One day during this time, on visiting Negrín, I could see on the president’s table a pile of telegrams from all parts of the world asking the government where Nin was and protesting against the arrest of the POUM leaders. Negrín asked us for a solution which could put an end to this discrediting of his government inside and outside the national frontiers. ‘There is no remedy other than for the government to take into its own hands responsibility for the trial against the POUM. By giving it official status, there will be an end to the attacks on the GPU as author of this "affair" behind the back of the Spanish authorities, which is the strong point of all the protests’, I advised Negrín.

‘Why should I compromise the whole government in this troublesome case?’ Negrín protested.

‘Because at times, against one’s wish, one is obliged to sweat through another man’s fever.’

I do not know what arguments Negrín used to convince Irujo, the minister of justice, a Basque Catholic, who had little fondness for the Communists and was frankly opposed to playing along with the GPU. But the day after this conversation an official communiqué of the Ministry of Justice appeared in the press, announcing the indictment of the POUM leaders, together with some Falangists headed by the engineer Golfín, maker of the scale-plan drawn up for Franco, a plan which showed the fixed military emplacements of the capital, all of which constituted a criminal act of espionage and high treason. While the printing presses of the daily papers were running off the official communiqué of the Ministry of Justice, the treacherous hand of Orlov consummated one of the vilest crimes in the annals of political criminality in our history: Nin was assassinated by the henchmen of Stalin’s GPU.

The crime against Andrés Nin was not only the responsibility of the material authors of the deed; it was also the responsibility of all of us who, though able to prevent it, by submission to or fear of Moscow facilitated it by our behaviour. Afterwards, consciousness of our complicity silenced our tongues or, as in our case, added infamy to crime. The walls of Spain were covered with questions painted by underground brushes at the risk of life: ‘Where is Nin?’ And, in order to cover up, our hordes of Agit-Props wrote, underneath, the bloody slander: ‘In Salamanca or Berlin.’34

Did the president know where Andrés Nin was confined? Did the minister of the interior know? Did the minister of justice know? If we take the testimony of one of the defendants, Julián Gorkin, in his book Canibales politicos,35 on page 159 we find the following conversation with Garmendia, the inspector general of the Madrid prisons, who belonged to the Basque Catholic party and was a personal friend of the minister of justice, Manuel Irujo, and had been assigned by the government to move the POUM prisoners from Madrid to Valencia. This is what he says:



I took (Garmendia) aside and we held an interesting conversation. ‘Have no fear’, he said. ‘You will get to Valencia alive. I’ve promised that to the government. An Assault Guard captain in whom I have the fullest confidence, in command of fifty men, will accompany you. They will be along not to watch you but to protect you.’ He showed great interest in getting acquainted with our political positions. Afterwards he told me in a sincere voice: ‘I am entirely acquainted with your case. I don’t think anything will happen to you people. The minister of justice is ready to resign before permitting a political crime against you.’ I asked him about Andrés Nin. He confided in me: ‘The government ordered me to discover his whereabouts. Right now I am getting in my car and will stop at the very gate of the building that holds him. But to rescue him I would need a military force such as the government refuses to put at my disposal.’ ‘Why?’ ‘It fears the consequences perhaps. I would have to engage in a real battle with other military forces. Perhaps you don’t suspect everything that lies behind the POUM affair.’



If this account is true, the government could have rescued Nin and did not want to, or did not dare to. I am inclined to believe that it did not dare to. The more weight Soviet ‘aid’ had in the wishes of the ministers, the more Stalin’s police agents in Spain acted with audacity and impudence.



*





Andrés Nin, the old friend of Lenin, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Trotsky, was assassinated in Spain by the same hand that, in Russia, had physically exterminated the Bolshevik old guard. Here is how the crime was perpetrated.

Orlov and his gang imprisoned Nin with the aim of wresting from him a ‘voluntary’ confession, admitting his role as a spy in the service of Franco. As executioners experienced In the art of ‘breaking’ political prisoners to get ‘spontaneous’ confessions, they thought that in Andrés Nin, given his ill-health, they had found the right material to provide Stalin with a gratifying success. The interrogation took place for days that went on without any night, without beginning or end, for ten and twenty and forty hours at a time uninterruptedly. The person from whom these facts came had abundant reason to be well informed about it. He was one of Orlov’s most trusted aides, the same one who later was able to tell me of the plan to assassinate lndalecio Prieto.36

In the case of Nin, Orlov began by using the ‘dry’ method: a relentless bombardment for hours and hours with ‘Confess’, ‘Make a statement’, ‘Admit’, ‘It’s in your interests’, ‘You can save yourself’, ‘It’s better for you’, alternating ‘advice’ with threats and abuse. It is a scientific method which tends to exhaust the prisoner’s mental energy and demoralise him. Physical fatigue will overcome him, lack of sleep dulls the senses and nervous tension destroys him. Thus his will is undermined and his integrity broken. They keep the prisoner on his feet for whole hours, without letting him sit down, till he collapses in a heap from unbearable pain in the kidneys. When it gets to this point, the body feels frightfully heavy and the cervical vertebrae refuse to support the head. The whole spinal column feels as if split into pieces. The feet swell up and a mortal weariness weighs upon the prisoner, who wants nothing except to get a moment’s rest, to close his eyes for an instant, to forget that he exists and that the world exists. When it is physically impossible to continue the ‘interrogation’, it is suspended. The prisoner is dragged to his cell. He is left alone for a few minutes, enough for him to recover his mental equilibrium a little and begin to become conscious of dreading the continuation of the monotonous ‘interrogation’, which is always the same in its questions and in its callous disregard of any replies that do not admit full guilt. Twenty or thirty minutes of rest are enough. No more than that is granted.

And once again the session resumes. Again the ‘advice’, again the hours without measure in which each minute is an eternity of suffering and fatigue, of moral and physical weariness. The prisoner ends by collapsing, body invertebrate. Finally he neither discusses nor defends himself, he ceases to think, all he wants is to be left alone to sleep, to rest, to sit. And the days and nights follow each other, with time implacably at a standstill. Discouragement overpowers the prisoner; his will fails him. He knows that it is impossible to escape with his life from the clutches of his torturers, and his yearning concentrates on an unrestrainable desire to be left to live his last hours in peace or be finished off immediately. ‘They want me to say yes? Maybe if I admit guilt they will kill me right away.’ And this idea begins to eat away at the man’s integrity.

Andrés Nin put up incredible resistance. In him there appeared no symptoms of the moral and physical collapse which brought some of the most outstanding collaborators of Lenin to an extraordinary abdication of their revolutionary will and firmness, to the absurd thought that ‘Stalin is a traitor, but Stalin is not the revolution, nor is he the party, and since my death is inevitable, I will make the ultimate sacrifice for my people and my ideals by declaring myself a counterrevolutionary and a criminal, so that the revolution might live’&#33; With what astonishment the whole world heard these great men of the Russian revolution abjectly defame themselves, without opening their mouth for a single word of condemnation for the strangler of that same revolution that their silence was intended to save&#33; There has been talk of special drugs of which the Russian police possess the secret. I do not believe in such a story. If I did not accept the crazy idea of ‘serving the revolution’ in articulo mortis, I would believe indeed in the workings of certain human considerations which bring a man who knows that he is definitely lost to try to save his children or his wife or his parents from the tyrant’s vengeance, in exchange for his ‘confession’.

Nin did not capitulate. He resisted, to their dismay. His torturers grew impatient. They decided to abandon the ‘dry’ method. Now came the living blood, the rended flesh, the twisted muscles, which would put to the test the man’s integrity and capacity for physical resistance. Nin bore up under the cruelty of the torment and the pain of refined torture. At the end of a few days his human shape had been turned into a formless mass of swollen flesh.

Orlov, in a frenzy, crazed by the fear of failure – a failure which could mean his own liquidation – slavered over with rage against this sick man who agonised without ‘confessing’, without implicating himself or seeking to implicate his party comrades who, at a single word from him, would have been stood up against the wall for execution, to the joy and heart-felt satisfaction of all the Russians.

Nin’s life was wiped out. In the streets of loyalist Spain and all over the world, the mounting campaign demanded to know where he was and called for his liberation. The situation could not go on much longer. To turn him over alive meant a double load of scandal. Everyone would be able to verify the dreadful physical tortures to which he had been subjected and, what was even more dangerous, Nin could denounce the whole infamous scheme prepared by Stalin’s henchmen in Spain. And the torturers decided to finish with him.

Professional criminals would think it through as follows: ‘Should we finish him off and throw him in a ditch? Assassinate and bury him? Burn the body and scatter the ashes to the winds?’ Any of these methods would have got rid of Nin, but the GPU would not have freed itself from responsibility for the crime, since it was notorious and public that it was the perpetrator of the kidnapping. It was therefore necessary to look for a method which, at one and the same time, would relieve the GPU of the responsibility for Nin’s ‘disappearance’ and also incriminate him, by showing his relation with the enemy.

The solution, it seems, came to the brutalised mentality of one of Orlov’s most inhuman collaborators, ‘Commandant Carlos’ (Vittorio Vidali, as he is called in Italy, or Arturo Sermenti and Carlos Contreras, as he was and is called in Mexico and Spain).37 His plan was the following: to fake an abduction by Gestapo agents disguised as International Brigaders, an attack on the Alcalá building, and a new ‘disappearance’ of Nin. It would then be said that the Nazis had ‘liberated’ him, which would show the contacts that Nin had with national and international fascism.38 Meanwhile Nin would be made to disappear permanently, and, in order to leave no trace, his body would be thrown into the sea.39 This infamous trick would be a crude one, but it offered a way out.

One day the two guards who watched the prison of Alcalá de Henares (two Communists who carried Socialist membership cards) were found tied up; they declared that a group of about ten soldiers of the International Brigade, speaking German, had attacked the house, disarmed and bound them, opened the prison cell and carried Nin away in a car. To give a greater appearance of realism to this sinister melodrama, thrown away on the floor where Nin had lived was found his wallet with a number of documents which showed his relations with the German spy service. So that nothing should be wanting, there were found also some German mark notes.

Three questions are enough to lay bare the infamous lie embodied in this tale invented by Orlov’s gang.

If the writing on the back of the engineer Golfín’s scale-plan matched Nin’s handwriting, why not turn it over to the authorities together with the evidence? 40 For what reason was it decided otherwise?

If Nin was brutally tortured in order to wrest from him a confession that would implicate him, how can it be explained that the GPU failed to spot a wallet full of espionage evidence, which later shows up on the floor of the cell, and why did it not occur to Nin to destroy this evidence?

If the prison-house at Alcalá des Henares was so well guarded that Garmendia, the inspector general of the Madrid prisons, declared that he dared not rescue Nin from jail because the government

[Louis Pio]

I can see it didn&#39;t quote it all, anyway posting it all is probably to big. Everything can be found in the link I posted.

[Intelligitimate]

More Red Herrings from Teis. Notice how also Teis is now all for using memoirs as evidence.

This document was interesting, and I read it in its entirety, something I doubt you did. Hernandez never actually says anywhere anything pertaining to what is being discussed in this thread. This thread isn’t about what happened to Nin, and no one denies he was killed by Soviet agents. The title of this piece is interesting, because it never actually talks about any framing of the POUM. Hernandez certainly shares his opinion of the evidence presented to him by Orlov, evidence which Orlov sincerely believes in. Nowhere does Orlov talk about the evidence presented in this thread either.

So you have, yet again, brought up irrelevant issues. You simply are incapable of dealing with the evidence.


First off the nazis never admitted anything, you can keep saying it and believing it but that&#39;s your thang so to speak.

The admission is right there, plain as day.

[Louis Pio]

Hernandez certainly shares his opinion of the evidence presented to him by Orlov, evidence which Orlov sincerely believes in. Nowhere does Orlov talk about the evidence presented in this thread either.


Nah Orlov doesn&#39;t, since you haven&#39;t presented evidence. You presented one SMALL excerpt from the court hearing and not the FULL were one must suppose that if your theory holds true then it would be stated that the Abwehr confirms his testimony. So since you made the accusation it&#39;s up to you to present the court hearing, which you would obtain the same way as the author of your "evidence". Actually it&#39;s quite striking that only a small excerpt is presented.
And what Hernandez says is that he belives some of the accusations but he finds it strange the NKVD has to forge photographs. Now if the NKVD had the rock hard evidence why did they feel the need to falsify pictures? Strange indeed, actually very strange. But then again the NKVD has a long history of falsification behind it. Point is if you wanna make accusations, do the groundwork and obtain the full courthearings instead of relying on second hand info.
Now with Hernandez memoirs of course they can be critized, especially how he tries to recollect talks from a long time ago. However since his memoirs on this point isn&#39;t the most flattering picture of himself, since it puts him in the role of a quite mindless henchman it can be argued he would have no reason to make it up.
So the discussion is quite over and out before you get the court hearing, I mean it&#39;s your thang, so do it in full instead of only halfway.

And as I said I love red herrings, traditional food of the yuletide.

[Louis Pio]

I was thinking, instead of us dingdonging arguments on the subject, let&#39;s for the sake of argument assume that some leaders of the uprising was in the pocket of the Abwehr. Who were these leaders then? Just a thought...

[BreadBros]

No actually anyone who never gives up criticizing worker states is a anti-communist which is what you and other anarchists do.

Communism entails a classless, stateless society. None of the "worker states" you defend ever accomplished that. They weren&#39;t even socialist in that the state apparatus that did exist was controlled by beauracrats, not the working class. In fact wage labor continued to exist however the surplus value was extrapolated by the state and beauracratic class as a whole, its called state capitalism. Criticizing your "worker states" isnt anti-communist, but defending them as any kind of model to follow is pro-capitalist.


Never has there ever been a successful anarchist revolution, and there will never be one.

We obviously define success differently. I have no idea what you define as a successful revolution but to me it entails overthrowing capitalism. In that sense no one has led a successful revolution, least of all Marxist-Leninists. We do know that anarchists have come the closest to building a communist society (Catalonia 1936). In fact the historical role of Leninists has been to jam up the revolutionary victories of the working class.


Who said you are too the left of Marxist-Leninists?

Have you ever heard of terms such as ultra-leftist, left-communist, etc to describe Anarchists, Trots, and whoever else may be the enemy-of-the-day for Stalinists?

Edit: Am I the only for whom the formatting of this thread is fucked up? It looks like my post is a part of Teis&#39; or something...

[Louis Pio]

Edit: Am I the only for whom the formatting of this thread is fucked up? It looks like my post is a part of Teis&#39; or something...


It fucked up after I posted the rather large quote it seems.


We do know that anarchists have come the closest to building a communist society (Catalonia 1936).

That&#39;s a bit of overexaggerating, When Company&#39;s the leader of the generalitet in Catalunya told them they had power after smashing the facist insurrection in Catalunya, the CNT leaders backed out. Saying something along the line of "We could have closed the generalitet, forced our will and put the people&#39;s real power instead. But we don&#39;t belive in dictatorship not when against us or when we excersise it" (own translation), which in fact meant they let the generalitet with Companys in charge continue, meaning not smashing the bourgious state.
I know the friends of Durruti had a different line, but they were unfortunately a very small minority, and by their line quite different from "orthodox anarchism" at the time, actually being more marxist than anarchist. The CNT leadership at such were nothing more than reformists, which in my oppinion again stresses the need for the correct leadership.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 12:40 am







And there has never been a successful Marxist-Leninist revolution. Sure, Marxist-Leninist parties have taken power, but all of those states have deformed and eventually degenerated back to capitalism.

Sure, some have been beauracratic but that boils down to material conditions. Workers had control of these states and continue to have in Cuba. They didn&#39;t degenerate because of marxism-leninism.


Do you have a crystal ball?

No just a Common sense ball.

[Redmau5]

Sure, some have been beauracratic but that boils down to material conditions

Material conditions which showed that the workers of those states were not ready for socialism.


Workers had control of these states and continue to have in Cuba.

No, the burueaucratic caste has control in Cuba. Just as it did in the other Leninist states.


They didn&#39;t degenerate because of marxism-leninism.

I never said that they degenerated because of Marxism-Leninism. I argued that they degenerated because they were not prepared for socialism.


No just a Common sense ball.

Well if you understood historical materialism you would understand that the revolution will not have an ideological basis.

[The Author]

Teis, why don&#39;t you edit your post? You already have the link, there&#39;s no need to quote the article in its entirety.



Let&#39;s see, we have Jesus Hernandez&#39;s account. We have a comment from Robert Pitt claiming Orlov forging documents on Nin. Then we have Schulze-Boysen&#39;s confession to the Nazi court which contributed to his death sentence. Interesting. I see contradictions between these pieces of evidence. It would be interesting if there was more information out there.

[syndicat]

This apparatchik with a long history in the Stalinist secret police writes a book. So you think his word should be taken? THis is your quote from him:


“In the interests of the political situation the activities of Trotsky and his supporters abroad in the 1930s are said to have been propaganda only. But this is not so. The Trotskyists were also involved in actions. Making us of the support of persons with ties to German military intelligence [the ‘Abwehr’] they organized a revolt against the Republican government in Barcelona in 1937. From Trotskyist circles in the French and German special intelligence services came “indicative” information concerning the actions of the Communist Parties in supporting the Soviet Union. Concerning the connections of the leaders of the Trotskyist revolt in Barcelona in 1937 we were informed by Schuze-Boysen… Afterward, after his arrest, the Gestapo accused him of transmitting this information to us, and this fact figured in his death sentence by the Hitlerite court in his case.”

Here he&#39;s saying the Trotskyists organized a revolt in Barcelona in May 1937. Anyone with even the least familiarity with events would know this is ridiculous. First of all the Trotskyist group had all of 150 members. The POUM were not "Trotskyists" tho they were dissident Leninists...and that is why they were considered such a threat. But if you look at the documents from the Soviet archives in "Spain Betrayed", what you&#39;ll see there is that the Communist International intended to crush the anarcho-syndicalists and others to their left (POUM, Left Socialists) just as they had done in Russia. that is what they say their intention was.

The revolution in Barcelona was organized mainly through the CNT -- the anarcho-syndicalist union -- which had the support of the masses. In the documents translated in "Spain Betrayed" there is a letter to the mother ship from one of Stalin&#39;s key agents in Spain in Mar 1937 who says there are three main roadblocks to the Communists gaining power in Catalonia: (1) "anarchism has immense historic weight in Spain", (2) the working class supports the anarchists, (3) the anarchists and their allies (POUM) have twice as many people under arms as the Communists (PSUC) and its allies (petit bourgeois Republicans), (4) "the cohesion and discipline of the anarchist cadres".

Those documents from the soviet archives show that the game plan of the Communists was to first get the old Republican state rebuilt (under the slogan of "defending the democratic Republic") and then use their control over the arms flow to gain control of the officer corps in the new hierarchical army and police.

by May 1937 the Communists had succeeded in gaining control of the police and that is when they decided to make their move. they selected as their target the telephone system that was controlled by the CNT (anarcho-syndicalist union).

the Communist-controlled police launched a coordinated assault on the telephone exhcnages throughout Catalonia, not just in Barcelona. the workers fought back. this led to the CNT unions declaring a general strike and mobilizing their armed worker defense organization, to attack the police. after three days of fighting the working class forces had gained control of all of Barcelona and its suburbs -- they had the support of the working class -- except for a few buildings downtown held by the Communist police.

that is your so-called "Trotskyist uprising." the POUM were allies of the CNT and came to their aid. the fighting was orchestrated by the CNT neighborhood defense committees. They were the organizations that had the people behind them and had the arms for self-defense.

the business about some fascist inspired plot is complete bullshit.

the May Days in Barcelona was a particularly explosive moment in the ongoing power struggle between the working class organizations and the organizations of the middle strata of society (small business people, landowners, managers, shop keepers), organized by the Communists, who feared their own loss of power in a proletarian revolution. The Communists aimed to use this to build a nationalized, state-controlled economy where these middle elements would be in charge, and the worker self-management built by the workers at the beginning of the revolutin would be destroyed.

[syndicat]

i&#39;ve reviewed this guy&#39;s "evidence" further at:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69028&st=25

basically a soviet double-agent in the Hitler secret service is caught giving to the communists some report from a German agent in Spain claiming to have been involved in fomenting the May Days events, and this is supposed to "prove" the May Days events were all a Nazi plot. in reality it "proves" no such thing. agents have an incentive to lie to their bosses, to claim more than they really can do. where is the concrete evidence? "conspiracy theories" of this sort often end up not being the best explanations.

it&#39;s possible moreover that the report from the German agent in Spain was fake, as part of a scheme to catch out the double-agent, because if they had suspicions, they could catch him out if he forwarded it to the Soviets.