Cassius Clay
27th July 2003, 12:08
One of the charges bought against Stalin and 'Stalinism' among many things is the claim of 'Show Trials' of 'Forced confessions' through 'Torture'. Primarily these refers to the trials of around a few dozen people through the years 1936 to 1938. The main defendants or most famous ones were Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev and Mikhail Bakhurin. Leon Trotsky was also charged with crimesm although being in exile he was not present at the trial.
In this thread I aim to present the evidence needed that these trials were real, that they were NOT pre-planned and the men charged were guilty of the crimes they were accussed of.
First a few points need to be made. It should be pointed out that these people who were charged were not as the west teaches 'Old Bolsheviks' who faced 'Stalin's oppression'. This is ludicrous, for one the so called 'Left Opposition' of Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev had put there point of view and criticism of Stalin across for three years after the death of Lenin. According to western observers 'The Trotskyite opposition routinly and freely criticised the government'.
In December 1927 there was a election, out of over 725,000 votes the 'Left opposition' got less than 6000 votes. This was in a fair election and the people of the party completly rejected them and chose Stalin and the Bolsheviks.
It must be asked also why if Stalin was a evil dictator who was determined to get rid of all the opposition then why did he wait a dozen years? Surely he could of just killed those he didn't like in 1925, afterall he had the same power then that he did in 1937. But he didn't, and what power did he have? Stalin was General Secretary of the Communist Party, not a lawyer or policeman. He did NOT have the power to arrest anyone, and certainly not condemm them to death. All cases were decided and had to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. This was the case in 1941 when the NKVD in the chaos of the Nazi invasion demanded that political prisoners being held in the Ukraine be executed. It took the Supreme Court three days and nights to review the cases of each individual.
Now Stalin worked in a system with checks and balances. When he nominated Malenkov to be head of the NKVD, the politburo and central commitee voted for Beria. Who was made head of the NKVD? Against Stalin's vote it was Beria. Another example which is far better is the case of the so called 'Doctors Plot', according to Stalin's daughter who is often used by anti-Stalin historians as 'prove' of how 'evil' Stalin was Stalin thought the doctors were innocent. Now if Stalin had the power of life or death over anyone surely he would of realeased them, especially when according to his daughter 'He was very distressed' over them.
This cannot be streesed enough, Stalin did NOT have this sought of power. And if he did why did he give his oppenents so much power and so many chances. According to many sympathectic Trotskyite accounts (like 'The Assaniaition of Trotsky' sitting right behind me) Trotsky himself admits that Stalin was the only one who treated him with any respect at Politburo meetings. Zinoviev was calling for Trotsky's explusion at this time according to many western sources (try Richard Pipes 'The Russian Revolution a People's Tragedy. 1891-1924') and Kirov once called for him 'to be shot'. Why did Stalin not just get rid of him then? Why also was Bakhurin made editor of Ivesta where he criticsed everything Stalin was doing like Industrialisation and collectivisation? Why was Rkykov head of the Soviet Trade Unions from 1932 onwards? Why were Zinoviev and Kamenev routinly let back into the party time and time again? One party member actually shouted down Kamenev, 'If it wasn't for Comrade Stalin then we would of crushed you years ago'. Why with all this did Stalin wait twelve years? The answer is that he did not plan these trials in advance, and when they did come along he infact had little to do with it.
And who were these 'Old Bolsheviks'? Trotsky whom Lenin had called 'Judas', 'scroundrel', a 'Bonapartist', and 'Beuracratic'. A man who had only joined the Bolshevik party in August 1917. Then there is Zinoviev and Kamenev whom Lenin had wanted expelled from the party in October 1917 for linking plans to the provisional government for the uprising. And Bakhurin who was prepared to go along with the SR's in arresting Lenin in a coup. Then there's Stalin whom Lenin had called 'Rude'.
Infact Stalin, Kaganovich, Molotov, Voroshillov and countless others had all been members of the Bolshevik Party since 1903. They were all very much 'Old Bolsheviks'. Now the below is just some of the evidence there is, there is plenty more. It just so happens that this is both the easiest to retrieve right now and also most important and reliable sources/accounts.
Anyway first of all here is the testimony of the American Ambassador to the USSR who was present at all three trials, he wrote about these events in his book 'Mission to Moscow' in 1940.
QUOTE
"…after daily observation of the witnesses, their manner of testifying, the unconscious corroborations which developed, and other facts in the course of the trial, together with others of which judicial notice could be taken, it is my opinion so far as the political defendants are concerned sufficient crimes under Soviet law, among those charged in the indictment, were established by the proof and beyond a reasonable doubt to justify the verdict of guilty of treason and the adjudication of the punishment provided by Soviet criminal statutes."
The British Lawyer Pitt wrote.
QUOTE
And the charge against the men was not merely made. It was admitted, admitted by men the majority of whom were shown by their records to be possessed of physical and moral courage well adapted to protect them from confessing under pressure. And at no stage was any suggestion made by any of them that any sort of improper treatment had been used to persuade them to confess.
The first thing that struck me, as an English lawyer, was the almost free-and-easy dameanour of the prisoners. They all looked well; they all got up and spoke, even at length, whenever they wanted to do so (for the matter of that, they strolled out, with a guard, when they wanted to).
The one or two witnesses who were called by the prosecution were cross-examined by the prisoners who were affected by their evidence, with the same freedom as would have been the case in England.
The prisoners voluntarily renounced counsel; they could have had counsel without fee had they wished, but they preferred to dispense with them. And having regard to their pleas of guilty and to their own ability to speak, amounting in most cases to real eloquence, they probably did not suffer by their decision, able as some of my Moscow colleagues are.
The most striking novelty, perhaps, to an English lawyer, was the easy way in which first one and then another prisoner would intervene in the course of the examination of one of their co-defendants, without any objection from the Court or from the prosecutor, so that one got the impression of a quick and vivid debate between four people, the prosecutor and three prisoners, all talking together, if not actually at the same moment -- a method which, whilst impossible with a jury, is certainly conducive to clearing up disputes of fact with some rapidity
Far more important, however, if less striking, were the final speeches.
In accordance with Soviet law, the prisoners had the last word -- 15 speeches after the last chance of the prosecution to say anything.
The Public prosecutor, Vishinsky, spoke first. He spoke for four or five hours. He looked like a very intelligent and rather mild-mannered English business man.
He spoke with vigour and clarity. He seldom raised his voice. He never ranted, or shouted, or thumped the table. He rarely looked at the public or played for effect.
He said strong things; he called the defendants bandits, and mad dogs, and suggested that they ought to be exterminated. Even in as grave a case as this, some English Attorney-Generals might not have spoken so strongly; but in many cases less grave many English prosecuting counsel have used much harsher words.
He was not interrupted by the Court or by any of the accused. His speech was clapped by the public, and no attempt was made to prevent the applause.
That seems odd to the English mind, but where there is no jury it cannot do much harm, and it was noticeable throughout that the Court’s efforts, by the use of a little bell, to repress the laughter that was caused either by the prisoners’ sallies or by any other incident were not immediately successful.
But now came the final test. The 15 guilty men, who had sought to overthrow the whole Soviet State, now had their rights to speak; and they spoke.
Some at great length, some shortly, some argumentatively, others with some measures of pleading; most with eloquence, some with emotion; some consciously addressing the public in the crowded hall, some turning to the court.
But they all said what they had to say.
They met with no interruption from the prosecutor, with no more than a rare short word or two from the court; and the public itself sat quiet, manifesting none of the hatred it must have felt.
They spoke without any embarrassment or hindrance.
The executive authorities of U.S.S.R. may have taken, by the successful prosecution of this case, a very big step towards eradicating counter-revolutionary activities.
But it is equally clear that the judicature and the prosecuting attorney of U.S.S.R. have taken at least as great a step towards establishing their reputation among the legal systems of the modern world.
Then there is the testimony of John Littlepage a American worker who worked in the USSR for 10 years, note also that he was not a Communist. From his book, 'In Search of Soviet Gold'.
QUOTE
''I never took any interest in the subtleties of political manoeuvring in Russia so long as I could avoid them; but I had to study what was happening in Soviet industry in order to do my work. And I am firmly convinced that Stalin and his collaborators took a long time to discover that discontented revolutionary communists were his worst enemies."
He also testifies to sabotage.
QUOTE
On September 23, 1936 a wave of explosions hit the Siberian mines, the second in nine months. There were 12 dead. Three days later, Yagoda became Commissar of Communications and Yezhov chief of the NKVD. At least until that time, Stalin had sustained the more or less liberal policies of Yagoda.
Investigations in Siberia led to the arrest of Pyatakov, an old Trotskyist, assistant to Ordzhonikidze, Commissar of Heavy Industry since 1932. Close to Stalin, Ordzhonikidze had followed a policy of using and re-educating bourgeois specialists. Hence, in February 1936, he had amnestied nine `bourgeois engineers', condemned in 1930 during an major trial on sabotage.
On the question of industry, there had been for several years debates and divisions within the Party. Radicals, led by Molotov, opposed most of the bourgeois specialists, in whom they had little political trust. They had long called for a purge. Ordzhonikidze, on the other hand, said that they were needed and that their specialties had to be used.
This recurring debate about old specialists with a suspect past resurfaced with the sabotage in the Siberian mines. Inquiries revealed that Pyatakov, Ordzhonikidze's assistant, had widely used bourgeois specialists to sabotage the mines.
In January 1937, the trial of Pyatakov, Radek and other old Trotskyists was held; they admitted their clandestine activities. For Ordzhonikidze, the blow was so hard that he committed suicide.
Of course, several bourgeois authors have claimed that the accusations of systematic sabotage were completely invented, that these were frameups whose sole rôle was to eliminate political opponents. But there was a U.S. engineer who worked between 1928 and 1937 as a leading cadre in the mines of Ural and Siberia, many of which had been sabotaged. The testimony of this apolitical technician John Littlepage is interesting on many counts.
Littlepage described how, as soon as he arrived in the Soviet mines in 1928, he became aware of the scope of industrial sabotage, the method of struggle preferred by enemies of the Soviet régime. There was therefore a large base fighting against the Bolshevik leadership, and if some well-placed Party cadres were encouraging or simply protecting the saboteurs, they could seriously weaken the régime. Here is Littlepage's description.
`One day in 1928 I went into a power-station at the Kochbar gold-mines. I just happened to drop my hand on one of the main bearings of a large Diesel engine as I walked by, and felt something gritty in the oil. I had the engine stopped immediately, and we removed from the oil reservoir about two pints of quartz sand, which could have been placed there only by design. On several other occasions in the new milling plants at Kochkar we found sand inside such equipment as speed-reducers, which are entirely enclosed, and can be reached only by removing the hand-hold covers.
`Such petty industrial sabotage was --- and still is --- so common in all branches of Soviet industry that Russian engineers can do little about it, and were surprised at my own concern when I first encountered it ....
`Why, I have been asked, is sabotage of this description so common in Soviet Russia, and so rare in most other countries? Do Russians have a peculiar bent for industrial wrecking?
`People who ask such questions apparently haven't realized that the authorities in Russia have been --- and still are --- fighting a whole series of open or disguised civil wars. In the beginning they fought and dispossessed the aristocracy, the bankers and landowners and merchants of the Tsarist régime .... they later fought and dispossessed the little independent farmers and the little retail merchants and the nomad herders in Asia.
`Of course it's all for their own good, say the Communists. But many of these people can't see things that way, and remain bitter enemies of the Communists and their ideas, even after they have been put back to work in State industries. From these groups have come a considerable number of disgruntled workers who dislike Communists so much that they would gladly damage any of their enterprises if they could.'
And how Trotsky was the one who ordered all this.
QUOTE
During the January 1937 Trial, Pyatakov, the old Trotskyist, was convicted as the most highly placed person responsible of industrial sabotage. In fact, Littlepage actually had the opportunity to see Pyatakov implicated in clandestine activity. Here is what he wrote:
`In the spring of 1931 ..., Serebrovsky ... told me a large purchasing commission was headed for Berlin, under the direction of Yuri Piatakoff, who ... was then the Vice-Commissar of Heavy Industry ....
`I ... arrived in Berlin at about the same time as the commission ....
`Among other things, the commission had put out bids for several dozen mine-hoists, ranging from one hundred to one thousand horse-power. Ordinarily these hoists consist of drums, shafting, beams, gears, etc., placed on a foundation of I- or H-beams.
`The commission had asked for quotations on the basis of pfennigs per kilogramme. Several concerns put in bids, but there was a considerable difference --- about five or six pfennigs per kilogramme --- between most of the bids and those made by two concerns which bid lowest. The difference made me examine the specifications closely, and I discovered that the firms which had made the lowest bids had substituted cast-iron bases for the light steel required in the original specifications, so that if their bids had been accepted the Russians would have actually paid more, because the cast-iron base would be so much heavier than the lighter steel one, but on the basis of pfennigs per kilogramme they would appear to pay less.
`This seemed to be nothing other than a trick, and I was naturally pleased to make such a discovery. I reported my findings to the Russian members of the commission with considerable self-satisfaction. To my astonishment the Russians were not at all pleased. They even brought considerable pressure upon me to approve the deal, telling me I had misunderstood what was wanted ....
`I ... wasn't able to understand their attitude ....
`It might very well be graft, I thought.'
.
Ibid. , pp. 95--96.
During his trial, Pyatakov made the following declarations to the tribunal:
`In 1931 I was in Berlin of official business .... In the middle of the summer of 1931 Ivan Nikitich Smirnov told me in Berlin that the Trotskyite fight against the Soviet government and the Party leadership was being renewed with new vigour, that he --- Smirnov --- had had an interview in Berlin with Trotsky's son, Sedov, who on Trotsky's instruction gave him a new line ....
`Smirnov ... conveyed to me that Sedov wanted very much to see me ....
`I agreed to this meeting ....
`Sedov said ... that there was being formed, or already been formed ... a Trotskyite centre .... The possibility was being sounded of restoring the united organization with the Zinovievites.
`Sedov also said that he knew for a fact the Rights also, in the persons of Tomsky, Bukharin and Rykov, had not laid down their arms, that they had only quietened down temporarily, and that the necessary connections should be established with them too ....
`Sedov said that only one thing was required of me, namely that I should place as many orders as possible with two German firms, Borsig and Demag, and that he, Sedov, would arrange to receive the necessary sums from them, bearing in mind that I would not be particularly exacting as to prices. If this were deciphered it was clear that the additions to prices that would be made on the Soviet orders would pass wholly or in part into Trotsky's hands for his counter-revolutionary purposes.'
.
People's Commissariat of Justice of the U.S.S.R. Report of Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre (Moscow, 1937), pp. 21--27.
Littlepage made the following comment:
`This passage in Piatakoff's confession is a plausible explanation, in my opinion, of what was going on in Berlin in 1931, when my suspicions were roused because the Russians working with Piatakoff tried to induce me to approve the purchase of mine-hoists which were not only too expensive, but would have been useless in the mines for which they were intended. I had found it hard to believe that these men were ordinary grafters .... But they had been seasoned political conspirators before the Revolution, and had taken risks of the same degree for the sake of their so-called cause.'
Then there's Trotsky's colloboration with world wide Fascism.
In 1937 Trotskyites colloborated with the Imperial Japanese Fascists in slaughtering Chinese Peasants.
QUOTE
Mao Zedong, the Secretary of the Communist Party of China, states about the cooperation of the Japanese with the Trotskyists: 'only a short while ago in one of the divisions of the Eighth Revolutionary Peoples' Army, a man by the name of Yu Shih was exposed as a member of the Shanghai Trotskyist organisation. The Japanese had sent him there from Shanghai so that he could do espionage work in the Eighth Army and carry out sabotage work.
'In the central districts of Hebei the Trotskyists organised a 'Partisan-Company' on the direct instructions of the Japanese headquarters and called it a 'Second Section of the Eighth Army'. In March the two battalions of this company organised a mutiny but these bandits were surrounded by the Eighth Army and disarmed. In the Border Region such people are arrested by the peasant self-defence units which carry out a bitter struggle against traitors and spies.
'Trotskyist agents are being sent to the Border Regions where they systematically apply all methods in their sabotage work against the cooperation of the Kuomintang and the Communist Party. They try to destroy the morale of the soldiers of the Eighth Army, the students and the people of the Border Regions. They try to incite people against the United Front, against the Central Government, against the war of independence, against Marshal Chiang Kaishek.'QUOTE
And not only did Trotsky not condone this, the Japanese intelliegent services sent him telegrams to discuss how best to do it.
QUOTE
In his "The Tanaka Memorial" article in a section titled
"Last Articles and Letters," Trotsky has sections called
"Early Soviet Advantages in Intelligence Work" and
"Why I can Verify It's Authenticity." The "it" being
referred to is a Japanese government memo on its upcoming
war plans. Then Trotsky reveals "How the Document Was
Secured." He goes right into the details of
photography and agent work. That's what he considered
defending the Soviet Union, revealing Soviet intelligence
methods to the imperialists.
But it doesn't stop there. He admits that Stalin doesn't
reveal the Tanaka Memorial document, because Stalin does
not want "to provoke Tokio." (Ibid., p. 113)
Next he admits he can't be sure that he isn't revealing
certain agents to the Japanese, because he's not sure
if they are in Japan still. (Ibid.)
There's also the events in the Spanish Civil War when the leaders of POUM, the Trotskyite orginisation were when they rose up against those 'Stalinists' according to the German Ambassador to Spain at the time in Franco's pay.
QUOTE
''The POUM leaders were accused by the PCE of being in the pay of Franco, and some of the incidents reported above indicate why this was plausible and widely believed in Republican Spain.(85) Plainly, the POUM earned their money, even if they didn't collect it.
On May 11, 5 days after the fighting began, Faupel, Hitler's ambassador to Franco, wrote:
"Concerning the disorders in Barcelona, Franco has told me that the street fighting was provoked by his agents. Nicholas Franco has confirmed this report, informing me that they have a total of 13 agents in Barcelona. Some time ago one of them had reported that the tension between Anarchists and Communists in Barcelona was so great that it could well end in street fighting. The Generalissimo told me that at first he doubted this agent's reports, but later they were confirmed by other agents. Ordinarily he didn't intend to take advantage of the possibility until military operations had been established in Catalonia. But since the Reds had recently attacked Teruel to aid the Government of Euzcadi (the Basque provinces), he thought the time was right for the outbreak of disorders in Barcelona. In fact, a few days after he had received the order, the agent in question with three or four of this men, succeeded in provoking shooting in the streets which later led to the desired results."(86)
Then there is Bakhurin on trying to kill Stalin.
What is remarkable about Jules Humbert-Droz’s last conversation with Bukharin held in early 1929, in which Bukharin indicates that his opposition group had taken the decision to utilize individual terror against Stalin, is that it emanates from a source which is sympathetic to Bukharin. We are informed by Stephen Cohen in his favourable biography of Bukharin that Jules Humbert-Droz was one of the few Comintern leaders who remained loyal to Bukharin after the Sixth Congress of Comintern in 1928.2 Another striking feature about the conversation given below is that despite the widespread availability of Humbert-Droz’s memoirs it finds no mention in the voluminous literature on Bukharin which has burgeoned in the west in recent decades. It is a glaring omission in Stephen F. Cohen’s highly acclaimed biography of Bukharin which on other points does refer to the writings of Jules Humbert-Droz.
The significance of the conversation with Bukharin was not lost on the reviewer of the memoirs of Humbert-Droz in the pages of the ‘Times Literary Supplement’ more than thirty years ago:
‘But the report of the conversation in the memoirs contains one passage which... brings up the reader with a start:
Bukharin also told me that they had decided to use individual terror to get rid of Stalin.
Humbert-Droz replied that he was opposed to individual terror (i.e. assassination), of which the Bolsheviks had never approved. He makes no further comment on the point. It has been generally supposed that, when the authorities hurled changes of conspiracy and terror at the opposition, they were victims of an overheated imagination or were inventing excuses to justify their own reprisals. Perhaps the assumption has been unduly naive. Perhaps, if Bukharin did say this, words had not yet been translated into plans. Do serious conspirators talk like this to outsiders? For the present a disconcerting question-mark must be appended to this strange, almost casual revelation.’3
The anonymous reviewer of the ‘Times Literary Supplement’ deserves kudos for alerting observers of Soviet history to Bukharin’s conversation on the question of assassinating Stalin. But it is not necessary to put a ‘disconcerting question-mark’ on this revelation. Jules Humbert-Droz was not an ‘outsider’ but a Bukharin loyalist at the time of this conversation (he later joined the ranks of Swiss Social-Democracy). Moreover, Bukharin’s words do appear to have been ‘translated into plans’. We may refer to one of the conversations of L.M. Kaganovich with the Soviet poet and chronicler Feliks Chuyev which recalls the cross-examination of Bukharin in a Politbureau meeting:
‘Yes, there was his confrontation with Kulikov. He was a Muscovite. At the meeting of the Politbureau members, Kulikov addressed Bukharin: ‘You remember Nikolai Ivanovich, how you took me by the arm and we walked along the Vozdvizhenka, and I said to you: ‘Why are you wasting your time there, when it is time to act...’ Bukharin inquires ‘but where are your people?’ ‘Who would act?’ ‘Well people could be found’. ‘And why don’t you act yourself? Participate in terrorist acts?’
"I never said that’ shouted Bukharin. How do you deny this when you wanted the surnames [familia – ed.] of the persons I had listed – said Kulikov who was a member of the Moscow Committee, Secretary of the Regional Committee, a tanner by trade and very politically aware.
‘Sergo [Ordzhonikidze ed.] asks Bukharin whether he had said this or not.
‘Yes’, answered Bukharin.
‘How could you?!
‘I thought that Sergo was about to hit him.’
Augmenting the statement of Kulikov was that of Slepkov, another Bukharin loyalist who was also cross-examined in the confrontation at the Politbureau meeting :
"Did Bukharin send you to the Northern Caucasus?’ – ‘Yes’. ‘What tasks did he give you?’ – ‘The task was to find out the mood of the Kazakhs, and the residents of the Kuban and the Don whether they were prepared for something or not?’ Once again they asked Bukharin: ‘Did you say this to him?’ He hesitated and said ‘Yes’.
‘Once again Sergo sprang up. ‘Is it really possible that you might have said this?’ – ‘Then I was opposed to all the politicians of the CC, but today – no.’4
It is evident that both those near to Bukharin and those inimical to him – Jules Humbert-Droz and Lazar Kaganovich respectively – concur that he raised the question of the use of individual terror against Stalin.QUOTE
In a interview of Kaganovich in 1992 with Chuyev Kaganovich gives further testimony.
And what did Molotov tell you about Bukharin?
His opinion was that in the year 1918 Bukharin supported the arrest of Lenin.
I shall tell you, said L.M. Kaganovich, that the Left SRs, who were against the Brest Peace treaty were together with the 'Left' Communists. The leader of the latter was Bukharin. The Socialist Revolutionaries told Bukharin that Lenin's arrest would solve the purpose of breaking up the Brest peace treaty. The idea was that Lenin might later on be resurrected but the treaty would have fallen apart. Thereafter they wanted to assign the work to Pyatakov.
There are documents which were published in the newspapers which prove all of this. In one of the Regional Conferences Bukharin himself narrated this story when he was in the Central Committee and fighting the Trotskyites. When confronted with accusations later on and to justify himself he said: "Well, I only told you this!"
Bukharin was then supporting the Left SRs?
Of course, they proposed Lenin's arrest. The 'Left' Communists published Bukharin's explanation in 'Pravda'. Bukharin not only did not refute the statement, but did not even inform the CC.
Till the year 1924, not a word passed Bukharin's lips about this story, that the 'Left' SRs proposed Lenin's arrest to the Communists. See what blasphemy! I don't know whether Molotov told you or not that amongst ourselves we called Bukharin a cunning fox. Bukharin in my opinion was a double-faced man. He was unreliable. A lot can be said about him and then there were contradictions too. Stalin affectionately called him 'Bukharchik'. We also related well to him. But when he once again went to the right and started lashing out at the Party, and organised his own rightist followers, we all opposed him. This should be underlined. Today people would like to juxtapose Stalin the cruel man, with Bukharin the kind, affectionate person, in order to rake up unpleasantness.
Further along in the interview.
QUOTE
Since the days of his youth at the gymnasium, Stalin asks him: 'What was your underground name?' He answers: 'Blokha' [flea]. Stalin looks at the court and says 'Blokha!' Bukharin's character has been developed at the cost of servile caricaturisation of another part, this is a kind of theft.
Why, was he untrustworthy?
Of course not. But he did everything to destroy Stalin, this is for sure.
Is this true?
Yes, there was his confrontation with Kulikov. He was a Moscovite. At the meeting of the Politbureau members, Kulikov addressed Bukharin: 'You remember, Nikolai Ivanovich, how you took me by the arm and we walked along the Vozdvizhenka, and I said to you: 'Why are you wasting your time there, when it is time to act and simply talk.' Bukharin inquires 'but where are your people? Who would act?' 'Well, people could be found.' 'And why don't you act yourself? Participate in terrorist acts?'
'I never said that' shouted Bukharin. How do you deny this when you wanted the surnames [familia] of the persons I had listed - said Kulikov who was a member of the Moscow Committee, Secretary of the Regional Committee, a tanner by trade and very politically aware.
Sergo [Ordzhonikidze] asks Bukharin whether he had said this or not.
Yes, answered Bukharin.
How could you?!
I thought that Sergo was about to hit him.
I asked Kaganovich whether he was present during all of this.
Yes, of course.
Which year was it?
Perhaps 1933 or 1934 or 1935. Sergo was still alive. Bukharin was arrested in 1938.
The Trial was already in 1938.
He only sat for awhile... Slepkov was cross-examined during the trial: 'Did Bukharin send you to the Northern Caucasus?' - 'Yes'. 'What tasks did he give you? - 'The task was to find out the mood of the Kazakhs, and the residents of the Kuban and the Don whether they were prepared for something or not?' Once again they asked Bukharin: 'Did you say this to him?' He hesitated and said 'Yes'.
Once again Sergo sprang up: 'Is it really possible that you might have said this?' - 'Then I was opposed to all the politicians of the CC, but today - no.
I asked Kaganovich whether Stalin was present in these proceedings.
Of course, he, as well as all members of the Politbureau were present. Voroshilov was there. Molotov chaired the meeting.
Rykov's proceedings were arranged with Chernov.
And was not this Kulikov already arrested? Yagoda might have cooked up something.
Look, a cross-examination was arranged to see the truth in Kulikov's utterances. We were convinced about his statement.
Kulikov perished after that?
Yes, perished.
I wonder whether it was worth executing them. They should have been removed front all posts, and sentenced to an unknown life in some provincial town.
See, my dear, the situation of capitalist encirclement was very complicated. There were the supporters of Trotsky, Zinoviev and Rykov. Each one of these could have headed separate governments. Out of the opponents of Stalin three states could have emerged.
Trotsky was sent away. Bukharin could also have been.
Those were difficult and complicated times. This only shows Stalin's patience, that he carried along with Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev uptil 1927. Kamenev in those days had organised a parallel rally: 'Down with the Government, Down with Stalin!' Then he was dropped from the Politbureau, he was a member of the P.B. until 1927. How forbearing Stalin was! There were times when Kirov and Kamenev wanted to drop Trotsky from the Politbureau and Stalin was defending him.
It is said that you shot people even for ideas.
Not for ideas. Why for ideas at all? But who would believe that these old, experienced conspirators, using the experience of Bolshevik conspiracy and cooperation, underground organisation would not get together to form an organisation.
They did form an organisation. Tomsky and Zinoviev did get together. They met at their dacha. And what about the Ryutin Platform - these were not ideas. These people organised an uprising against the Soviet state and they could have headed a revolt.
The entire method of Lenin's struggle against the bourgeoisie could have been used against us. They had their people everywhere, in the army and elsewhere. They had formed organisations spread out in chains. Bukharin used to meet Kamenev and others and talk over the matters of the CC. How could one let this happen freely? People ask how could they possibly get in touch with foreign governments? Well, they saw themselves an independent underground government. Trotsky being a good organiser could have led the revolt.
They were all in contact with each other. One would show restraint and the other would say everything. We already knew that this was a strong, organised group, such opponents who could organise terrorist activities and even kill.
It is also said that Stalin held discussions with Bukharin, Zinoviev and Kamenev: 'If they confess they would be pardonned, or their children and their wives would be shot.' They were told all this?
They themselves asked for a meeting. I know that Zinoviev and Kamenev met Stalin, Voroshilov was also present. Kamenev and Zinoviev had requested mercy. They were already arrested, still Stalin met them. Stalin asked them to admit their guilt. They said that they were guilty. It was clear that they would never forgive Stalin for cornering them like this.
There were rumours that he promised them their lives.
This I do not know. I doubt that there was such a conversation. Stalin immediately understood that Kamenev and Zinoviev were against the October Revolution. Trotsky was a Menshevik and he did not believe in socialist revolution. Rykov also was against the revolution and refused to be part of Lenin's government. Bukharin knew that the SRs wanted to have Lenin arrested and still chose to keep silent.
With such people around him Stalin could not have possibly waited for such a time when these people would have caught him by the neck and like they did to Robespierre annihilated him. Robespierre was eliminated because he awaited a reconciliation with his opponents. Those who had applauded him were today shouting: 'To the Guillotine!' If Robespierre had not been there, with all his ferocity, feudalism would not have been uprooted. He was a despot, as they say, the Trotsky of the French revolution.
On the Kirov murder, the fact that Nikolaev shared the exact same ideology of Zinoviev and Kamenev and admited that he had been in contact with 'Trotskyites and Zinovivites' should show you what really happened. Zinoviev and Kamenev were both let back into the party (gey that Stalin what a evil guy) after 1 year in prison. A Party member actually declared to Kamenev 'If it weren't for Comrade Stalin we would of buried you poltically years ago.'. A KGB investigation during the late 1980's chaired by the same people (Yakoleov) that accussed Stalin of 'murdering 40 million' revealed that there was no evidence to support the claim Stalin was involved in Kirov's murder or that the originall investiagtion back in the 1930's was in any way flawed. Fact is at the time in 1934 there was not enough evidence to link Zinoviev and Kamenev to Kirov's murder and Nikolaev, Pravda said 'There is insufficient evidence' and Nikoleav had admitted only to links with 'Trotskyites' in terms of 'persons' and not 'groups'. Once the evidence was revealed to Kirov and other things they were bought to trial.
Note also that Stalin said he was against Bakhurin's execution. And the theory that they were 'tortured' or 'forced to confess' is ludicrous. In front of the worlds press, diplomats and lawyers they don't show any signs of being abused or make any such claim, when according to a witness they are 'Given free will' to speak.
So there you have it. If any comrades would like to contribute more sources which help prove that the so called 'Show Trials' were infact trials which bought to justice people whom were guilty then please do. To the anti-Stalin members of this board please refrain from bringing up whatever other criticisms you have of Stalin in this thread and just address the above.
See yeah!
In this thread I aim to present the evidence needed that these trials were real, that they were NOT pre-planned and the men charged were guilty of the crimes they were accussed of.
First a few points need to be made. It should be pointed out that these people who were charged were not as the west teaches 'Old Bolsheviks' who faced 'Stalin's oppression'. This is ludicrous, for one the so called 'Left Opposition' of Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev had put there point of view and criticism of Stalin across for three years after the death of Lenin. According to western observers 'The Trotskyite opposition routinly and freely criticised the government'.
In December 1927 there was a election, out of over 725,000 votes the 'Left opposition' got less than 6000 votes. This was in a fair election and the people of the party completly rejected them and chose Stalin and the Bolsheviks.
It must be asked also why if Stalin was a evil dictator who was determined to get rid of all the opposition then why did he wait a dozen years? Surely he could of just killed those he didn't like in 1925, afterall he had the same power then that he did in 1937. But he didn't, and what power did he have? Stalin was General Secretary of the Communist Party, not a lawyer or policeman. He did NOT have the power to arrest anyone, and certainly not condemm them to death. All cases were decided and had to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. This was the case in 1941 when the NKVD in the chaos of the Nazi invasion demanded that political prisoners being held in the Ukraine be executed. It took the Supreme Court three days and nights to review the cases of each individual.
Now Stalin worked in a system with checks and balances. When he nominated Malenkov to be head of the NKVD, the politburo and central commitee voted for Beria. Who was made head of the NKVD? Against Stalin's vote it was Beria. Another example which is far better is the case of the so called 'Doctors Plot', according to Stalin's daughter who is often used by anti-Stalin historians as 'prove' of how 'evil' Stalin was Stalin thought the doctors were innocent. Now if Stalin had the power of life or death over anyone surely he would of realeased them, especially when according to his daughter 'He was very distressed' over them.
This cannot be streesed enough, Stalin did NOT have this sought of power. And if he did why did he give his oppenents so much power and so many chances. According to many sympathectic Trotskyite accounts (like 'The Assaniaition of Trotsky' sitting right behind me) Trotsky himself admits that Stalin was the only one who treated him with any respect at Politburo meetings. Zinoviev was calling for Trotsky's explusion at this time according to many western sources (try Richard Pipes 'The Russian Revolution a People's Tragedy. 1891-1924') and Kirov once called for him 'to be shot'. Why did Stalin not just get rid of him then? Why also was Bakhurin made editor of Ivesta where he criticsed everything Stalin was doing like Industrialisation and collectivisation? Why was Rkykov head of the Soviet Trade Unions from 1932 onwards? Why were Zinoviev and Kamenev routinly let back into the party time and time again? One party member actually shouted down Kamenev, 'If it wasn't for Comrade Stalin then we would of crushed you years ago'. Why with all this did Stalin wait twelve years? The answer is that he did not plan these trials in advance, and when they did come along he infact had little to do with it.
And who were these 'Old Bolsheviks'? Trotsky whom Lenin had called 'Judas', 'scroundrel', a 'Bonapartist', and 'Beuracratic'. A man who had only joined the Bolshevik party in August 1917. Then there is Zinoviev and Kamenev whom Lenin had wanted expelled from the party in October 1917 for linking plans to the provisional government for the uprising. And Bakhurin who was prepared to go along with the SR's in arresting Lenin in a coup. Then there's Stalin whom Lenin had called 'Rude'.
Infact Stalin, Kaganovich, Molotov, Voroshillov and countless others had all been members of the Bolshevik Party since 1903. They were all very much 'Old Bolsheviks'. Now the below is just some of the evidence there is, there is plenty more. It just so happens that this is both the easiest to retrieve right now and also most important and reliable sources/accounts.
Anyway first of all here is the testimony of the American Ambassador to the USSR who was present at all three trials, he wrote about these events in his book 'Mission to Moscow' in 1940.
QUOTE
"…after daily observation of the witnesses, their manner of testifying, the unconscious corroborations which developed, and other facts in the course of the trial, together with others of which judicial notice could be taken, it is my opinion so far as the political defendants are concerned sufficient crimes under Soviet law, among those charged in the indictment, were established by the proof and beyond a reasonable doubt to justify the verdict of guilty of treason and the adjudication of the punishment provided by Soviet criminal statutes."
The British Lawyer Pitt wrote.
QUOTE
And the charge against the men was not merely made. It was admitted, admitted by men the majority of whom were shown by their records to be possessed of physical and moral courage well adapted to protect them from confessing under pressure. And at no stage was any suggestion made by any of them that any sort of improper treatment had been used to persuade them to confess.
The first thing that struck me, as an English lawyer, was the almost free-and-easy dameanour of the prisoners. They all looked well; they all got up and spoke, even at length, whenever they wanted to do so (for the matter of that, they strolled out, with a guard, when they wanted to).
The one or two witnesses who were called by the prosecution were cross-examined by the prisoners who were affected by their evidence, with the same freedom as would have been the case in England.
The prisoners voluntarily renounced counsel; they could have had counsel without fee had they wished, but they preferred to dispense with them. And having regard to their pleas of guilty and to their own ability to speak, amounting in most cases to real eloquence, they probably did not suffer by their decision, able as some of my Moscow colleagues are.
The most striking novelty, perhaps, to an English lawyer, was the easy way in which first one and then another prisoner would intervene in the course of the examination of one of their co-defendants, without any objection from the Court or from the prosecutor, so that one got the impression of a quick and vivid debate between four people, the prosecutor and three prisoners, all talking together, if not actually at the same moment -- a method which, whilst impossible with a jury, is certainly conducive to clearing up disputes of fact with some rapidity
Far more important, however, if less striking, were the final speeches.
In accordance with Soviet law, the prisoners had the last word -- 15 speeches after the last chance of the prosecution to say anything.
The Public prosecutor, Vishinsky, spoke first. He spoke for four or five hours. He looked like a very intelligent and rather mild-mannered English business man.
He spoke with vigour and clarity. He seldom raised his voice. He never ranted, or shouted, or thumped the table. He rarely looked at the public or played for effect.
He said strong things; he called the defendants bandits, and mad dogs, and suggested that they ought to be exterminated. Even in as grave a case as this, some English Attorney-Generals might not have spoken so strongly; but in many cases less grave many English prosecuting counsel have used much harsher words.
He was not interrupted by the Court or by any of the accused. His speech was clapped by the public, and no attempt was made to prevent the applause.
That seems odd to the English mind, but where there is no jury it cannot do much harm, and it was noticeable throughout that the Court’s efforts, by the use of a little bell, to repress the laughter that was caused either by the prisoners’ sallies or by any other incident were not immediately successful.
But now came the final test. The 15 guilty men, who had sought to overthrow the whole Soviet State, now had their rights to speak; and they spoke.
Some at great length, some shortly, some argumentatively, others with some measures of pleading; most with eloquence, some with emotion; some consciously addressing the public in the crowded hall, some turning to the court.
But they all said what they had to say.
They met with no interruption from the prosecutor, with no more than a rare short word or two from the court; and the public itself sat quiet, manifesting none of the hatred it must have felt.
They spoke without any embarrassment or hindrance.
The executive authorities of U.S.S.R. may have taken, by the successful prosecution of this case, a very big step towards eradicating counter-revolutionary activities.
But it is equally clear that the judicature and the prosecuting attorney of U.S.S.R. have taken at least as great a step towards establishing their reputation among the legal systems of the modern world.
Then there is the testimony of John Littlepage a American worker who worked in the USSR for 10 years, note also that he was not a Communist. From his book, 'In Search of Soviet Gold'.
QUOTE
''I never took any interest in the subtleties of political manoeuvring in Russia so long as I could avoid them; but I had to study what was happening in Soviet industry in order to do my work. And I am firmly convinced that Stalin and his collaborators took a long time to discover that discontented revolutionary communists were his worst enemies."
He also testifies to sabotage.
QUOTE
On September 23, 1936 a wave of explosions hit the Siberian mines, the second in nine months. There were 12 dead. Three days later, Yagoda became Commissar of Communications and Yezhov chief of the NKVD. At least until that time, Stalin had sustained the more or less liberal policies of Yagoda.
Investigations in Siberia led to the arrest of Pyatakov, an old Trotskyist, assistant to Ordzhonikidze, Commissar of Heavy Industry since 1932. Close to Stalin, Ordzhonikidze had followed a policy of using and re-educating bourgeois specialists. Hence, in February 1936, he had amnestied nine `bourgeois engineers', condemned in 1930 during an major trial on sabotage.
On the question of industry, there had been for several years debates and divisions within the Party. Radicals, led by Molotov, opposed most of the bourgeois specialists, in whom they had little political trust. They had long called for a purge. Ordzhonikidze, on the other hand, said that they were needed and that their specialties had to be used.
This recurring debate about old specialists with a suspect past resurfaced with the sabotage in the Siberian mines. Inquiries revealed that Pyatakov, Ordzhonikidze's assistant, had widely used bourgeois specialists to sabotage the mines.
In January 1937, the trial of Pyatakov, Radek and other old Trotskyists was held; they admitted their clandestine activities. For Ordzhonikidze, the blow was so hard that he committed suicide.
Of course, several bourgeois authors have claimed that the accusations of systematic sabotage were completely invented, that these were frameups whose sole rôle was to eliminate political opponents. But there was a U.S. engineer who worked between 1928 and 1937 as a leading cadre in the mines of Ural and Siberia, many of which had been sabotaged. The testimony of this apolitical technician John Littlepage is interesting on many counts.
Littlepage described how, as soon as he arrived in the Soviet mines in 1928, he became aware of the scope of industrial sabotage, the method of struggle preferred by enemies of the Soviet régime. There was therefore a large base fighting against the Bolshevik leadership, and if some well-placed Party cadres were encouraging or simply protecting the saboteurs, they could seriously weaken the régime. Here is Littlepage's description.
`One day in 1928 I went into a power-station at the Kochbar gold-mines. I just happened to drop my hand on one of the main bearings of a large Diesel engine as I walked by, and felt something gritty in the oil. I had the engine stopped immediately, and we removed from the oil reservoir about two pints of quartz sand, which could have been placed there only by design. On several other occasions in the new milling plants at Kochkar we found sand inside such equipment as speed-reducers, which are entirely enclosed, and can be reached only by removing the hand-hold covers.
`Such petty industrial sabotage was --- and still is --- so common in all branches of Soviet industry that Russian engineers can do little about it, and were surprised at my own concern when I first encountered it ....
`Why, I have been asked, is sabotage of this description so common in Soviet Russia, and so rare in most other countries? Do Russians have a peculiar bent for industrial wrecking?
`People who ask such questions apparently haven't realized that the authorities in Russia have been --- and still are --- fighting a whole series of open or disguised civil wars. In the beginning they fought and dispossessed the aristocracy, the bankers and landowners and merchants of the Tsarist régime .... they later fought and dispossessed the little independent farmers and the little retail merchants and the nomad herders in Asia.
`Of course it's all for their own good, say the Communists. But many of these people can't see things that way, and remain bitter enemies of the Communists and their ideas, even after they have been put back to work in State industries. From these groups have come a considerable number of disgruntled workers who dislike Communists so much that they would gladly damage any of their enterprises if they could.'
And how Trotsky was the one who ordered all this.
QUOTE
During the January 1937 Trial, Pyatakov, the old Trotskyist, was convicted as the most highly placed person responsible of industrial sabotage. In fact, Littlepage actually had the opportunity to see Pyatakov implicated in clandestine activity. Here is what he wrote:
`In the spring of 1931 ..., Serebrovsky ... told me a large purchasing commission was headed for Berlin, under the direction of Yuri Piatakoff, who ... was then the Vice-Commissar of Heavy Industry ....
`I ... arrived in Berlin at about the same time as the commission ....
`Among other things, the commission had put out bids for several dozen mine-hoists, ranging from one hundred to one thousand horse-power. Ordinarily these hoists consist of drums, shafting, beams, gears, etc., placed on a foundation of I- or H-beams.
`The commission had asked for quotations on the basis of pfennigs per kilogramme. Several concerns put in bids, but there was a considerable difference --- about five or six pfennigs per kilogramme --- between most of the bids and those made by two concerns which bid lowest. The difference made me examine the specifications closely, and I discovered that the firms which had made the lowest bids had substituted cast-iron bases for the light steel required in the original specifications, so that if their bids had been accepted the Russians would have actually paid more, because the cast-iron base would be so much heavier than the lighter steel one, but on the basis of pfennigs per kilogramme they would appear to pay less.
`This seemed to be nothing other than a trick, and I was naturally pleased to make such a discovery. I reported my findings to the Russian members of the commission with considerable self-satisfaction. To my astonishment the Russians were not at all pleased. They even brought considerable pressure upon me to approve the deal, telling me I had misunderstood what was wanted ....
`I ... wasn't able to understand their attitude ....
`It might very well be graft, I thought.'
.
Ibid. , pp. 95--96.
During his trial, Pyatakov made the following declarations to the tribunal:
`In 1931 I was in Berlin of official business .... In the middle of the summer of 1931 Ivan Nikitich Smirnov told me in Berlin that the Trotskyite fight against the Soviet government and the Party leadership was being renewed with new vigour, that he --- Smirnov --- had had an interview in Berlin with Trotsky's son, Sedov, who on Trotsky's instruction gave him a new line ....
`Smirnov ... conveyed to me that Sedov wanted very much to see me ....
`I agreed to this meeting ....
`Sedov said ... that there was being formed, or already been formed ... a Trotskyite centre .... The possibility was being sounded of restoring the united organization with the Zinovievites.
`Sedov also said that he knew for a fact the Rights also, in the persons of Tomsky, Bukharin and Rykov, had not laid down their arms, that they had only quietened down temporarily, and that the necessary connections should be established with them too ....
`Sedov said that only one thing was required of me, namely that I should place as many orders as possible with two German firms, Borsig and Demag, and that he, Sedov, would arrange to receive the necessary sums from them, bearing in mind that I would not be particularly exacting as to prices. If this were deciphered it was clear that the additions to prices that would be made on the Soviet orders would pass wholly or in part into Trotsky's hands for his counter-revolutionary purposes.'
.
People's Commissariat of Justice of the U.S.S.R. Report of Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre (Moscow, 1937), pp. 21--27.
Littlepage made the following comment:
`This passage in Piatakoff's confession is a plausible explanation, in my opinion, of what was going on in Berlin in 1931, when my suspicions were roused because the Russians working with Piatakoff tried to induce me to approve the purchase of mine-hoists which were not only too expensive, but would have been useless in the mines for which they were intended. I had found it hard to believe that these men were ordinary grafters .... But they had been seasoned political conspirators before the Revolution, and had taken risks of the same degree for the sake of their so-called cause.'
Then there's Trotsky's colloboration with world wide Fascism.
In 1937 Trotskyites colloborated with the Imperial Japanese Fascists in slaughtering Chinese Peasants.
QUOTE
Mao Zedong, the Secretary of the Communist Party of China, states about the cooperation of the Japanese with the Trotskyists: 'only a short while ago in one of the divisions of the Eighth Revolutionary Peoples' Army, a man by the name of Yu Shih was exposed as a member of the Shanghai Trotskyist organisation. The Japanese had sent him there from Shanghai so that he could do espionage work in the Eighth Army and carry out sabotage work.
'In the central districts of Hebei the Trotskyists organised a 'Partisan-Company' on the direct instructions of the Japanese headquarters and called it a 'Second Section of the Eighth Army'. In March the two battalions of this company organised a mutiny but these bandits were surrounded by the Eighth Army and disarmed. In the Border Region such people are arrested by the peasant self-defence units which carry out a bitter struggle against traitors and spies.
'Trotskyist agents are being sent to the Border Regions where they systematically apply all methods in their sabotage work against the cooperation of the Kuomintang and the Communist Party. They try to destroy the morale of the soldiers of the Eighth Army, the students and the people of the Border Regions. They try to incite people against the United Front, against the Central Government, against the war of independence, against Marshal Chiang Kaishek.'QUOTE
And not only did Trotsky not condone this, the Japanese intelliegent services sent him telegrams to discuss how best to do it.
QUOTE
In his "The Tanaka Memorial" article in a section titled
"Last Articles and Letters," Trotsky has sections called
"Early Soviet Advantages in Intelligence Work" and
"Why I can Verify It's Authenticity." The "it" being
referred to is a Japanese government memo on its upcoming
war plans. Then Trotsky reveals "How the Document Was
Secured." He goes right into the details of
photography and agent work. That's what he considered
defending the Soviet Union, revealing Soviet intelligence
methods to the imperialists.
But it doesn't stop there. He admits that Stalin doesn't
reveal the Tanaka Memorial document, because Stalin does
not want "to provoke Tokio." (Ibid., p. 113)
Next he admits he can't be sure that he isn't revealing
certain agents to the Japanese, because he's not sure
if they are in Japan still. (Ibid.)
There's also the events in the Spanish Civil War when the leaders of POUM, the Trotskyite orginisation were when they rose up against those 'Stalinists' according to the German Ambassador to Spain at the time in Franco's pay.
QUOTE
''The POUM leaders were accused by the PCE of being in the pay of Franco, and some of the incidents reported above indicate why this was plausible and widely believed in Republican Spain.(85) Plainly, the POUM earned their money, even if they didn't collect it.
On May 11, 5 days after the fighting began, Faupel, Hitler's ambassador to Franco, wrote:
"Concerning the disorders in Barcelona, Franco has told me that the street fighting was provoked by his agents. Nicholas Franco has confirmed this report, informing me that they have a total of 13 agents in Barcelona. Some time ago one of them had reported that the tension between Anarchists and Communists in Barcelona was so great that it could well end in street fighting. The Generalissimo told me that at first he doubted this agent's reports, but later they were confirmed by other agents. Ordinarily he didn't intend to take advantage of the possibility until military operations had been established in Catalonia. But since the Reds had recently attacked Teruel to aid the Government of Euzcadi (the Basque provinces), he thought the time was right for the outbreak of disorders in Barcelona. In fact, a few days after he had received the order, the agent in question with three or four of this men, succeeded in provoking shooting in the streets which later led to the desired results."(86)
Then there is Bakhurin on trying to kill Stalin.
What is remarkable about Jules Humbert-Droz’s last conversation with Bukharin held in early 1929, in which Bukharin indicates that his opposition group had taken the decision to utilize individual terror against Stalin, is that it emanates from a source which is sympathetic to Bukharin. We are informed by Stephen Cohen in his favourable biography of Bukharin that Jules Humbert-Droz was one of the few Comintern leaders who remained loyal to Bukharin after the Sixth Congress of Comintern in 1928.2 Another striking feature about the conversation given below is that despite the widespread availability of Humbert-Droz’s memoirs it finds no mention in the voluminous literature on Bukharin which has burgeoned in the west in recent decades. It is a glaring omission in Stephen F. Cohen’s highly acclaimed biography of Bukharin which on other points does refer to the writings of Jules Humbert-Droz.
The significance of the conversation with Bukharin was not lost on the reviewer of the memoirs of Humbert-Droz in the pages of the ‘Times Literary Supplement’ more than thirty years ago:
‘But the report of the conversation in the memoirs contains one passage which... brings up the reader with a start:
Bukharin also told me that they had decided to use individual terror to get rid of Stalin.
Humbert-Droz replied that he was opposed to individual terror (i.e. assassination), of which the Bolsheviks had never approved. He makes no further comment on the point. It has been generally supposed that, when the authorities hurled changes of conspiracy and terror at the opposition, they were victims of an overheated imagination or were inventing excuses to justify their own reprisals. Perhaps the assumption has been unduly naive. Perhaps, if Bukharin did say this, words had not yet been translated into plans. Do serious conspirators talk like this to outsiders? For the present a disconcerting question-mark must be appended to this strange, almost casual revelation.’3
The anonymous reviewer of the ‘Times Literary Supplement’ deserves kudos for alerting observers of Soviet history to Bukharin’s conversation on the question of assassinating Stalin. But it is not necessary to put a ‘disconcerting question-mark’ on this revelation. Jules Humbert-Droz was not an ‘outsider’ but a Bukharin loyalist at the time of this conversation (he later joined the ranks of Swiss Social-Democracy). Moreover, Bukharin’s words do appear to have been ‘translated into plans’. We may refer to one of the conversations of L.M. Kaganovich with the Soviet poet and chronicler Feliks Chuyev which recalls the cross-examination of Bukharin in a Politbureau meeting:
‘Yes, there was his confrontation with Kulikov. He was a Muscovite. At the meeting of the Politbureau members, Kulikov addressed Bukharin: ‘You remember Nikolai Ivanovich, how you took me by the arm and we walked along the Vozdvizhenka, and I said to you: ‘Why are you wasting your time there, when it is time to act...’ Bukharin inquires ‘but where are your people?’ ‘Who would act?’ ‘Well people could be found’. ‘And why don’t you act yourself? Participate in terrorist acts?’
"I never said that’ shouted Bukharin. How do you deny this when you wanted the surnames [familia – ed.] of the persons I had listed – said Kulikov who was a member of the Moscow Committee, Secretary of the Regional Committee, a tanner by trade and very politically aware.
‘Sergo [Ordzhonikidze ed.] asks Bukharin whether he had said this or not.
‘Yes’, answered Bukharin.
‘How could you?!
‘I thought that Sergo was about to hit him.’
Augmenting the statement of Kulikov was that of Slepkov, another Bukharin loyalist who was also cross-examined in the confrontation at the Politbureau meeting :
"Did Bukharin send you to the Northern Caucasus?’ – ‘Yes’. ‘What tasks did he give you?’ – ‘The task was to find out the mood of the Kazakhs, and the residents of the Kuban and the Don whether they were prepared for something or not?’ Once again they asked Bukharin: ‘Did you say this to him?’ He hesitated and said ‘Yes’.
‘Once again Sergo sprang up. ‘Is it really possible that you might have said this?’ – ‘Then I was opposed to all the politicians of the CC, but today – no.’4
It is evident that both those near to Bukharin and those inimical to him – Jules Humbert-Droz and Lazar Kaganovich respectively – concur that he raised the question of the use of individual terror against Stalin.QUOTE
In a interview of Kaganovich in 1992 with Chuyev Kaganovich gives further testimony.
And what did Molotov tell you about Bukharin?
His opinion was that in the year 1918 Bukharin supported the arrest of Lenin.
I shall tell you, said L.M. Kaganovich, that the Left SRs, who were against the Brest Peace treaty were together with the 'Left' Communists. The leader of the latter was Bukharin. The Socialist Revolutionaries told Bukharin that Lenin's arrest would solve the purpose of breaking up the Brest peace treaty. The idea was that Lenin might later on be resurrected but the treaty would have fallen apart. Thereafter they wanted to assign the work to Pyatakov.
There are documents which were published in the newspapers which prove all of this. In one of the Regional Conferences Bukharin himself narrated this story when he was in the Central Committee and fighting the Trotskyites. When confronted with accusations later on and to justify himself he said: "Well, I only told you this!"
Bukharin was then supporting the Left SRs?
Of course, they proposed Lenin's arrest. The 'Left' Communists published Bukharin's explanation in 'Pravda'. Bukharin not only did not refute the statement, but did not even inform the CC.
Till the year 1924, not a word passed Bukharin's lips about this story, that the 'Left' SRs proposed Lenin's arrest to the Communists. See what blasphemy! I don't know whether Molotov told you or not that amongst ourselves we called Bukharin a cunning fox. Bukharin in my opinion was a double-faced man. He was unreliable. A lot can be said about him and then there were contradictions too. Stalin affectionately called him 'Bukharchik'. We also related well to him. But when he once again went to the right and started lashing out at the Party, and organised his own rightist followers, we all opposed him. This should be underlined. Today people would like to juxtapose Stalin the cruel man, with Bukharin the kind, affectionate person, in order to rake up unpleasantness.
Further along in the interview.
QUOTE
Since the days of his youth at the gymnasium, Stalin asks him: 'What was your underground name?' He answers: 'Blokha' [flea]. Stalin looks at the court and says 'Blokha!' Bukharin's character has been developed at the cost of servile caricaturisation of another part, this is a kind of theft.
Why, was he untrustworthy?
Of course not. But he did everything to destroy Stalin, this is for sure.
Is this true?
Yes, there was his confrontation with Kulikov. He was a Moscovite. At the meeting of the Politbureau members, Kulikov addressed Bukharin: 'You remember, Nikolai Ivanovich, how you took me by the arm and we walked along the Vozdvizhenka, and I said to you: 'Why are you wasting your time there, when it is time to act and simply talk.' Bukharin inquires 'but where are your people? Who would act?' 'Well, people could be found.' 'And why don't you act yourself? Participate in terrorist acts?'
'I never said that' shouted Bukharin. How do you deny this when you wanted the surnames [familia] of the persons I had listed - said Kulikov who was a member of the Moscow Committee, Secretary of the Regional Committee, a tanner by trade and very politically aware.
Sergo [Ordzhonikidze] asks Bukharin whether he had said this or not.
Yes, answered Bukharin.
How could you?!
I thought that Sergo was about to hit him.
I asked Kaganovich whether he was present during all of this.
Yes, of course.
Which year was it?
Perhaps 1933 or 1934 or 1935. Sergo was still alive. Bukharin was arrested in 1938.
The Trial was already in 1938.
He only sat for awhile... Slepkov was cross-examined during the trial: 'Did Bukharin send you to the Northern Caucasus?' - 'Yes'. 'What tasks did he give you? - 'The task was to find out the mood of the Kazakhs, and the residents of the Kuban and the Don whether they were prepared for something or not?' Once again they asked Bukharin: 'Did you say this to him?' He hesitated and said 'Yes'.
Once again Sergo sprang up: 'Is it really possible that you might have said this?' - 'Then I was opposed to all the politicians of the CC, but today - no.
I asked Kaganovich whether Stalin was present in these proceedings.
Of course, he, as well as all members of the Politbureau were present. Voroshilov was there. Molotov chaired the meeting.
Rykov's proceedings were arranged with Chernov.
And was not this Kulikov already arrested? Yagoda might have cooked up something.
Look, a cross-examination was arranged to see the truth in Kulikov's utterances. We were convinced about his statement.
Kulikov perished after that?
Yes, perished.
I wonder whether it was worth executing them. They should have been removed front all posts, and sentenced to an unknown life in some provincial town.
See, my dear, the situation of capitalist encirclement was very complicated. There were the supporters of Trotsky, Zinoviev and Rykov. Each one of these could have headed separate governments. Out of the opponents of Stalin three states could have emerged.
Trotsky was sent away. Bukharin could also have been.
Those were difficult and complicated times. This only shows Stalin's patience, that he carried along with Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev uptil 1927. Kamenev in those days had organised a parallel rally: 'Down with the Government, Down with Stalin!' Then he was dropped from the Politbureau, he was a member of the P.B. until 1927. How forbearing Stalin was! There were times when Kirov and Kamenev wanted to drop Trotsky from the Politbureau and Stalin was defending him.
It is said that you shot people even for ideas.
Not for ideas. Why for ideas at all? But who would believe that these old, experienced conspirators, using the experience of Bolshevik conspiracy and cooperation, underground organisation would not get together to form an organisation.
They did form an organisation. Tomsky and Zinoviev did get together. They met at their dacha. And what about the Ryutin Platform - these were not ideas. These people organised an uprising against the Soviet state and they could have headed a revolt.
The entire method of Lenin's struggle against the bourgeoisie could have been used against us. They had their people everywhere, in the army and elsewhere. They had formed organisations spread out in chains. Bukharin used to meet Kamenev and others and talk over the matters of the CC. How could one let this happen freely? People ask how could they possibly get in touch with foreign governments? Well, they saw themselves an independent underground government. Trotsky being a good organiser could have led the revolt.
They were all in contact with each other. One would show restraint and the other would say everything. We already knew that this was a strong, organised group, such opponents who could organise terrorist activities and even kill.
It is also said that Stalin held discussions with Bukharin, Zinoviev and Kamenev: 'If they confess they would be pardonned, or their children and their wives would be shot.' They were told all this?
They themselves asked for a meeting. I know that Zinoviev and Kamenev met Stalin, Voroshilov was also present. Kamenev and Zinoviev had requested mercy. They were already arrested, still Stalin met them. Stalin asked them to admit their guilt. They said that they were guilty. It was clear that they would never forgive Stalin for cornering them like this.
There were rumours that he promised them their lives.
This I do not know. I doubt that there was such a conversation. Stalin immediately understood that Kamenev and Zinoviev were against the October Revolution. Trotsky was a Menshevik and he did not believe in socialist revolution. Rykov also was against the revolution and refused to be part of Lenin's government. Bukharin knew that the SRs wanted to have Lenin arrested and still chose to keep silent.
With such people around him Stalin could not have possibly waited for such a time when these people would have caught him by the neck and like they did to Robespierre annihilated him. Robespierre was eliminated because he awaited a reconciliation with his opponents. Those who had applauded him were today shouting: 'To the Guillotine!' If Robespierre had not been there, with all his ferocity, feudalism would not have been uprooted. He was a despot, as they say, the Trotsky of the French revolution.
On the Kirov murder, the fact that Nikolaev shared the exact same ideology of Zinoviev and Kamenev and admited that he had been in contact with 'Trotskyites and Zinovivites' should show you what really happened. Zinoviev and Kamenev were both let back into the party (gey that Stalin what a evil guy) after 1 year in prison. A Party member actually declared to Kamenev 'If it weren't for Comrade Stalin we would of buried you poltically years ago.'. A KGB investigation during the late 1980's chaired by the same people (Yakoleov) that accussed Stalin of 'murdering 40 million' revealed that there was no evidence to support the claim Stalin was involved in Kirov's murder or that the originall investiagtion back in the 1930's was in any way flawed. Fact is at the time in 1934 there was not enough evidence to link Zinoviev and Kamenev to Kirov's murder and Nikolaev, Pravda said 'There is insufficient evidence' and Nikoleav had admitted only to links with 'Trotskyites' in terms of 'persons' and not 'groups'. Once the evidence was revealed to Kirov and other things they were bought to trial.
Note also that Stalin said he was against Bakhurin's execution. And the theory that they were 'tortured' or 'forced to confess' is ludicrous. In front of the worlds press, diplomats and lawyers they don't show any signs of being abused or make any such claim, when according to a witness they are 'Given free will' to speak.
So there you have it. If any comrades would like to contribute more sources which help prove that the so called 'Show Trials' were infact trials which bought to justice people whom were guilty then please do. To the anti-Stalin members of this board please refrain from bringing up whatever other criticisms you have of Stalin in this thread and just address the above.
See yeah!