Bukharin: Rehabilitated with no evidence he was innocent

[DiaMat86]

(Just released in English)


"Nikolai Bukharin's First Statement of Confession in the Lubianka"

http://clogic.eserver.org/2007/Furr_Bobrov.pdf

Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin (1888-1938) remains one of the most puzzling
figures of Soviet history. Although his rehabilitation took place in 1988 to this day not a single piece of historical evidence supporting this verdict has ever been published. All the documents published during the period of the “Bukharin Boom” of the 1990s in one way or another touch on the question of the accusations against him. But only in a single case — his letter to Joseph Stalin of December 10, 1937 — did Bukharin utter a determined “Not Guilty” to the crimes of which he was accused. All the remaining documents, including other letters of his, provide evidence supporting the opposite conclusion.

[Faceless]

Lolz, you really think he was a nazi spy? How credible are letters extracted in Lubyanka? Yes, "ve have vays of making you talk," to coin a phrase. Stalin murdered nearly all the old bolsheviks as either nazi agent or saboteurs. How did Lenin's party complete a revolution when apparently its entire apparatus was intent on murdering him and betraying the revolution for "German gold"? :laugh:

[DiaMat86]

This happened after Lenin's death.

There were many other bolsheviks who supported Stalin.

The issue raises important questions:

Didn't Bucharin write several books while imprisoned?

Is there any evidence he was mistreated?

How do you determine whose confessions are false and whose are real?

Which left leaders have not been accused of such things? Why do you believe the accusers are lying?

It's exciting that the Soviet Archives are being published. Now we can see evidence instead of relying on the beliefs of expatriates, exiles and cold warriors. Assuming you rely on dialectical materialism to view the world, you should prefer evidence.

[Holden Caulfield]

^ he begged for his life and wanted to make sure his family was safe... safe from what? the same treatment he got if he made a scene!

[Random Precision]

"Evidence he was innocent"? That's one of the best things I've heard yet. :laugh:

[Faceless]

It's exciting that the Soviet Archives are being published. Now we can see evidence instead of relying on the beliefs of expatriates, exiles and cold warriors. Assuming you rely on dialectical materialism to view the world, you should prefer evidence.And as a dialectician, watch as Trotsky magically disappears! I spent ages trying to work dialectician and magician into one word but I couldn't do it in the end. You know, it is possible to have evidence "made up" either by crudely scratching a revolutionary's face out of a photograph or torturing your prisoner or threatening their family with death.

http://www.tc.umn.edu/%7Ehick0088/classes/csci_2101/trotsky-orig1.jpghttp://www.tc.umn.edu/%7Ehick0088/classes/csci_2101/trotsky-alt1.jpg

As you can see Stalin tried to remove great revolutionaries such as Trotsky from history. These weren't the methods of Bolsehvism.


How do you determine whose confessions are false and whose are real?How could the russian revolution have succeeded if it was full of spies? Why would members of the POUM in Spain have been risking their lives to fight the fascists if they had been nothing but fascist agents? The fact is that the whole hypothesis that they could have all been fascist agents is absurd. Read Trotsky's writings on terrorism - he was clearly oppposed to methods of individual terrorism and spent his last years building up the "Fourth International". And yet he was accused of terrorism by Stalin! The accusations are plainly absurd. The fact that Stalin was trying to systematically eliminate the Bolshevik party - physically as well as from history (see the above photo) - is plain to see. Why did Stalin feel it necessary to murder a single isolated man in exile in Mexico?


Which left leaders have not been accused of such things? Why do you believe the accusers are lying?I defy you that Lenin and Trotsky were never accused of annihilating thousands of members of their own party. Not even by the bourgeois press. I think the Stalinists lied because they were mortally afraid of genuine Bolshevism and because, basing themselves on a massive bureaucracy, they were reaping more and more privilleges from their position in the Soviet state. This is why they liquidated the Bolshevik party, they liquidated the Polish Communist Party, they liquidated the POUM and so on. In fact, the nazis actually commented that the Stalinists did a better job of liquidating the communist party of poland than they could ever have done!

[DiaMat86]

"I defy you that Lenin and Trotsky were never accused of annihilating thousands of members of their own party"


In exile Trotsky encouraged overthrow of the Soviet Union and fomented rebellion when they were most vulnerable. From 1934 on Trotsky called over and over for the overthrow of the Bolsheviks. Was that his party? It's easy to forget the context, you know, the Nazis preparing to attack. Forget about his party, how many innocent people would have died if he had been successful? I would have photoshopped him out too.

Stop using Lenin and Trotsky together. Lenin denounced Trotsky numerous times in his collected works. I guess that is a fraud too.

Lenin: " I don’t think Comrade Preobrazhensky could suggest any better candidate than Comrade Stalin."

Trotsky: “The wretched squabbling systematically provoked by Lenin, that old hand at the game, that professional exploiter of all that is backward in the Russian labour movement, seems like a senseless obsession.... The entire edifice of Leninism Is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay.“

http://users.ameritech.net/klomckin/LeninDenouncesTrotsky.html

[Random Precision]

Trotsky: “The wretched squabbling systematically provoked by Lenin, that old hand at the game, that professional exploiter of all that is backward in the Russian labour movement, seems like a senseless obsession.... The entire edifice of Leninism Is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay.“

http://thegrandnarrative.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

But anyway, how about one more? Say, a blank sheet of paper (for Trotsky to fill in) that says at the bottom,


Comrades, knowing the harsh character of Comrade Trotsky's orders, I am so convinced, so absolutely convinced, of the correctness, expedience and necessity for the good of our cause, of the orders issued by Comrade Trotsky, that I give them my full support.

V. Ulianov (Lenin)

[DiaMat86]

http://thegrandnarrative.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

But anyway, how about one more? Say, a blank sheet of paper (for Trotsky to fill in) that says at the bottom,

I love this picture! You must know your way around the internet.

[Herman]

"Evidence he was innocent"? That's one of the best things I've heard yet.

You fool! You're guilty until you're proven innocent! Don't test me on this!

[Louis Pio]

Lenin denounced Trotsky numerous times in his collected works. I guess that is a fraud too.


Look at the context, Lenin and Trotsky had plenty of clashes prior to the revolution. Like would happen between two people capeable of independent thinking.
However on the most important point which was the revolution they were in absolute agreement. While Stalin, Kamenev, Zinoview and so on took a totally menshevic position. It's quite clear to anyone with half a brain how much menshevic ideas influenced Stalins ideas both before and after he had gotten power and how it's still influencing the small numbers of his appologists today.

Btw I love how it seems one should prove yourself innocent instead of the opposite. What a nice society we can build on that idea:laugh:

[Yehuda Stern]

Lenin and Trotsky had many disagreements which seemed very big at the time. Lenin and Trotsky both had many disagreements with other members of Russian and international social democracy which seemed quite small at the time. When push came to shove, Lenin and Trotsky found that they were actually quite close politically, while many Bolsheviks were in fact much closer to being class-collaborationists than Marxists. So Stalinists can dig up all the old quotes they want - it doesn't change the fact that after Trotsky joined the party, Lenin called the best Bolshevik, or that Lenin broke with Stalin shortly before his death.

[Faceless]

In exile Trotsky encouraged overthrow of the Soviet Union and fomented rebellion when they were most vulnerable. From 1934 on Trotsky called over and over for the overthrow of the Bolsheviks. Was that his party? It's easy to forget the context, you know, the Nazis preparing to attack. Forget about his party, how many innocent people would have died if he had been successful? I would have photoshopped him out too.

No Trotsky did not. In fact the Nazi-Soviet pact was signed months before Trotsky was murdered. Stalin actually believed that he could defend the Soviet Union by doing deals with the Nazis! In Britain the Stalinists advocated a popular front between communists, labour, liberals and "left" tories!! They actually believed that by cozying up to the Nazis and the bourgeois democrats they could prevent intervention. By contrast the trotskyists supported unconditional defence of the Soviet Union and had no illusions in the "popular front":

http://tedgrant.org/archive/grant/1941/07/fascism.htm