Socialism – class struggle in the Soviet Union (1936-1953).

The
revolutionary trials of the 1930’s as the continuation and escalation
of the class struggle
The revolutionary changes that took place in the economy of the Soviet Union during
the first two decades led, in the mid ‘30s, to the building of the economic foundation
of socialism and the elimination of all exploiting classes; these changes were
expressed in the new country’s Constitution (1936).

Analyzing the economic, social, class situation in that stage of Soviet Union’s
development, Stalin points out the following in relation to the class structure: “The
landlord class, as you know, had already been eliminated as a result of the
victorious conclusion of the Civil War. As for the other exploiting classes, they
have shared the fate of the landlord class. The capitalist class in the sphere of
industry has ceased to exist. The kulak class in the sphere of agriculture has
ceased to exist. And the merchants and profiteers in the sphere of trade have
ceased to exist. Thus all the exploiting classes have now been eliminated.

There remains the working class.

There remains the peasant class.

There remains the intelligentsia.” (I. V. Stalin, “On the Draft Constitution of
USSR” contained in “Problems of Leninism”, 1936)

However, besides the remnants of the exploiting classes that still exist, new
bourgeois elements emerge inevitably due to the transitional nature of socialism –
which is not yet a full grown classless society – and the degeneration of former
revolutionaries in the course of the construction of socialism-communism.

The experience drawn from the construction of socialism showed that during the
whole course of revolutionary transformations in the economic field – facilitated by
the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, constantly strengthened under the leadership of the
Bolshevik party – from 1917 up to the mid 1930’s the economy of the Soviet Union
progressed towards socialism-communism in the midst of tremendous and unseen
difficulties and the intensification of the class struggle. The reason why the class
struggle became more intense lies in the desperate resistance put up by the exploiting
classes still present from the first until the beginning of the second decade and,
afterwards, by their remains together with the degenerated bourgeois elements that
gained political representation in the ranks of the Bolshevik party: Bukharin, Trotsky,
Zinoviev, Kamenev et al). Unless the building of socialism stopped, these elements
had to be politically and ideologically crushed. Moreover, they had to be totally
eliminated when they proceeded to form terrorist organizations with a view to
assassinate party and state leaders, when they became agents and spies of imperialism
and, first of all, the Nazi Germany. The assassinations of S. M. Kirov, B. P.
Mrezhinsky, V. Kuibyshev, A. M. Gorky are well known. (Report of Court
proceedings in the case of the Anti-Soviet "Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites"”). “The
Trotskyite-Zinovievite terrorist centre, after it had killed Comrade Kirov, did not
confine itself to organizing the assassination of Comrade Stalin alone. The
terrorist Trotskyite-Zinovievite centre simultaneously carried on work to
organize assassinations of other leaders of the Party, namely, Comrades
Voroshilov, Zhdanov, Kaganovich, Kossior, Orjonikidze and Postyshev”
(“Prozessbericht ueber die Strafsache des Trotzkistisch-Sinowjewistischen
Terroristischen Zentrums”, p. 181, Moskau 1936).

In a decade so critical for the Soviet Union as the 1930’s, the severe crisis in the
capitalist world not only deepened the contradictions between the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat compelling the former to resort to fascism in order to check the
revolutionary struggle of the latter; it also deepened the competition among the
imperialist powers for new markets and spheres of influence a fact that would
inevitably lead to a new imperialist war. But “every time the capitalist
contradictions start deepening, bourgeoisie turns her attention to the USSR.
Perhaps this or that contradiction of capitalism can be resolved or all of them
together at the expense of USSR, the land of the Soviets, the acropolis of
revolution whose mere existence revolutionize the working class and the colonies
and is an obstacle to re-division of the world” (Stalin)

In imperialist Germany the monopolies help Hitler’s Nazi gang to rise to power and
subsequently, the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo axis is formed on the basis of a tripartite
military agreement.

Knowing that the ensuing war was going to be against her, Soviet Union had not only
to take advantage of the intra-imperialist competition but, also, to reinforce her
defense. This task included the purging the country’s rear of all the terrorist counter-
revolutionary groups that had gone too far with their counter-revolutionary action and
degenerated into agents and spies of the imperialist and fascist states with the sole
aim to undermine Soviet Union’s defense, organizing sabotage, plots, espionage and
assassinations. This situation posed a serious danger for the country, especially on the
eve of the Second World War, and intensified the internal class struggle. It was in
these circumstances, that the revolutionary Moscow Trials against the Bukharinists,
Trotskyites and other traitors, agents took place. On the pretext of the revolutionary
trials, the world reaction, the Trotskyites, the social-democrats and the various
opportunists launched a gigantic campaign of slander against the Soviet Union.

Now, some comments on the trials.

As it is known, the court proceedings of the Moscow Trials – that were trials in open
court and not held “in camera” – have been published in three volumes by the
People’s Commissariat of Justice of USSR: the first trial (19-24 August 1936):
“Report of Court Proceedings in the Case of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite Centre”,
Moscow 1936, the second trial (23-30 January 1937): ”Report of Court Proceedings
in the Case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre”, Moscow 1937 and the third trial (2-
13 March 1938) “Report of Court proceedings in the case of the Anti-Soviet "Bloc of
Rights and Trotskyites"”

1. Trials of views or of criminal actions? The claim made by various well informed
reactionaries that the Moscow Trials were “trials of views” of the defendants, i.e.
trials that aim to suppress their political views, is utterly groundless and false; it has
an obvious albeit undisclosed objective: to defame and slander the socialism of that
period presenting it as “anti-democratic”, and “oppressive”.

The above claim not only is absolutely groundless but it bears no relation whatsoever
with the historical truth and this can be easily seen in the verbatim report of the court
proceedings which clearly refer to the defendants’ actions and to their ideas.
Moreover, and most importantly, it is refuted altogether by the actual conditions
prevailing in the Soviet Union at that time: all the books written by the accused
former cadres, notwithstanding the false and anti-Marxist views they contained, had
been published in the Soviet Union and, many of them, even abroad in various
languages by publishers well disposed towards the communist movement. In this
respect, the books of the prolific Nikolai Bukharin had a special place. At this point
we mention only one which is probably known to many people since its anti-Marxist
views were subjected to criticism by Stalin (I. V. Stalin, “The Right Deviation in the
CPSU(B)”, 1929, v. 12). We are taking about N. Bukharin’s book “The path to
socialism” that was published almost simultaneously in Soviet Union and in Austria
(N. Bucharin: “Der Weg zum Sozialismus”, Verlag fur Literatur und Politik, Wien
1925). Bucharin himself in the preface of the German edition confirms the publication
of this brochure in other languages: “these reflections justify, I think, the
publication of this brochure in other languages” (N. Bukharin: “Der Weg zum
Sozialismus”, p.6) All this is familiar to everyone who has even the most elementary
knowledge of the foreign literature and the history of the international communist
movement

All this is more than enough to rebut the crudest of lies circulated by the reactionaries
and the various counter-revolutionaries (the Trotskyites, the old social-democrats and
Khrushchevian revisionists) as well as the slanderous fabrications of Trotsky himself.

2. “In camera” or open court trials? When the spokesmen of the reaction, the
social-democrats, and all sorts of counter-revolutionaries refer to the revolutionary
Moscow trials, they imply that these were held “in camera”, i.e. they were
close court trials aiming obviously to slander socialism and the Dictatorship of the
Proletariat presenting it before the working class and peoples as “undemocratic” and”
oppressive”. They conceal the fact that all the trials, except one, were public, open
court trials.
They were attended by diplomats from various countries, lawyers, and soviet workers
and even Dmitri Volkogonov, this fascist and pathetic mudslinger of Stalin, dares not
doubt this (not to pass for totally unreliable): “Foreign journalists and even diplomats
were invited to attend” (Dmitri Volkogonov, “Stalin, triumph and tragedy”, p. 299,
Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London, 1991). In relation to this question, we read in
“Rundschau”: “the court room is packed. Foreign and soviet correspondents,
members of the diplomatic corps and numerous workers were present at the
trial” (“Rundschau” ueber Politik, Wirtschaft und Arbeitbewegung, No 10,3/3/1938,
p.17, Basel). Also, the American ambassador in Moscow Joseph E. Davies, himself a
layer, attended all the sessions and narrates: “At 12 o’clock noon accompanied by
Counselor Henderson I went to this trial. Special arrangements were made for
tickets for the Diplomatic Corps to have seats” and “on both sides of the central
aisle were rows of seats occupied entirely by different groups of “workers” at
each session, with the exception of a few rows in the centre of the hall reserved
for correspondents, local and foreign, and for the Diplomatic Corps. The
different groups of “workers”, I am advised, were charged with the duty of
taking back reports of the trials to their various organizations.” (Joseph E.
Davies: “Mission to Moscow”, London 1945, p. 26 and 34)

Davies lists the names of the American correspondents, among the many others,
present in the trial: “it was Walter Duranty and Harold Denny from New York
Times, Joe Barnew and Joe Phillips from New York Herald Tribune, Charlie
Nutter or Nick Massock from Associated Press, Norman Deuel and Henry
Schapiro from United Press, Jim Brown from International News and Spencer
Williams as a correspondent from Manchester Guardian” from whom “Schapiro
was an attorney holding an academic title from the Law School of the Moscow
University” (Joseph E. Davies: Mission to Moscow).

Concerning the most slandered Andrei Vyshinsky, the revolutionary prosecutor, the
American ambassador notes: “the prosecutor who conducted the case calmly and
generally with admirable moderation” while in connection to the defendants’
condition, writes: “there was nothing unusual in the appearance of the accused.
They all appeared well nourished and normal physically” (Joseph E. Davies:
“Mission to Moscow”, London 1945, p.35).

Concerning the legal side of the trials, we are informed by the leader of the
treacherous Austrian social-democracy the following: “the eminent English lawyer
D. N. Pritt concluded that, the court proceedings were flawless and the accused
were able to freely enter their pleas before the court” (Otto Bauer,
Grundsaetzliches zu den Hinrichtungen in Mokau, in “Der Kampf”, 10/1936, p.396).

But despite this and the assurances given by eminent layers such as D. N. Pritt, Pierre
Villar, Joseph Davies and others for the contrary, the reactionary D. Volkogonov does
not hesitate to claim that “most of the accused could only find words to agree with
Vyshinsky” and that “all the accused agreed with the procurator, accepted the
monstrous charges in a friendly spirit”. He also talks about “violation of the basic
rules of socialist legality” (Dmitri Volkogonov, Stalin, triumph and tragedy, p. 294)

Whoever is interested in the historical truth, he has only to study the full verbatim
record of the court proceedings mentioned above and, also, the communist and
bourgeois press of that time.

The only trial that was not held in open court – because it was related to Soviet
Union’s defense– was the trial of Tukhatchevsky who, thrilled by the military might
of Nazi Germany, aimed to stage a military coup in order to overthrow the
Dictatorship of the Proletariat in the Soviet Union.

In the beginning of 1936, on his way to London to attend the funeral of king George
V, stopped at Warsaw and Berlin where he met with Polish and German generals.
Returning from London and during a banquet held by the Soviet embassy in Paris, he
praised Nazi Germany in public and advised the Romanian minister for foreign
affairs Nicola Titulescu to attach his country to “New Germany”:

“Tukhatchevsky who was sitting on the same table with Romanian Minister for
Foreign Affairs Nicola Titulescu, explained to him: Monsieur le Ministre, it is not
fair to connect your career and the fate of your nation with old and “doomed”
countries like Great Britain and France. We have to turn our attention to the
new Germany. For, at least, certain period of time Germany will take the
leadership of the European continent. I am convinced that Hitler will contribute
to the salvation of all of us” (Michael Sayers and Albert Kahn: “The Great
Conspiracy against Russia”)

These comments by Tukhatchevsky were recorded by another invited Romanian

diplomat, Schachanan Esseze, the head of the Press Bureau of the Romanian embassy
in Paris. The well known political writer, Genevieve Tabouis recounts later in her
book: “My name is Cassandra”:

“I saw Tukhatchevsky for the last time on the day of the funeral of George V. In
Soviet embassy banquet, the Russian general appeared very open in his
conversations with Politis, Titulescu, Herriot and Boncour…He had just come
back from a trip to Germany and he couldn’t stop praising the Nazis. He was
sitting on my right, and whenever he referred to an imaginary agreement
between Hitler and the other great powers, he repeated: “Madame Tabouis, the
Germans now are already invincible”

What urged him to make such enthusiastic statements? Had the German
diplomat brainwashed him with an especially cordial reception? That evening I
wasn’t the only one who felt worried with his enthusiastic remarks. One of the
guests, an important diplomat, after leaving the embassy, whispered in my ear:
Well, I can only hope that not all Russians think in this way.” (Michael Sayers –
Albert E. Kahn: «Die grosse Verschwoerung», p. 310-311, Verlag Volk und Welt,
Berlin (DDR) 1949, US title: “The Great Conspiracy against Russia”).

3. “Extraction” of confessions through “torture” and “pressure” or voluntary

admission of the crimes by the accused?

The crux of the slandering campaign launched by the world reaction, the Trotskyites
and the social-democrat traitors against the Soviet Union, on the eve of the war, was
the lie that the defendant’s confessions resulted from torture and pressure. This was
later spread by the Krushchevians’ Goebbelist propaganda against Stalin: “the
confessions were acquired through the exercise of physical violence, torture” (N.
Khrushchev: “The Secret Report” at the 20th Congress of CPSU). This totally
groundless claim is still widely spread nowadays as it is shown by the references
made by reactionary “historians” and journalists: “the confessions, the course of the
trials, was a result of torture” (Christine Reymann, Berlin).

We have to note, at first, that this argument of the anti-stalinist reaction of all kinds
(from fascists to Trotskyites and from old to new Khrushchevian social-democrats) is
nothing more a charming fairy tale for children when we are discussing about
experienced cadres. In our country, the revolutionary communist Nikos Belogiannis
didn’t confess under “the exercise of physical violence, torture” nor in the offer of
the local reaction to become a minister and he was executed, choosing to die instead
of being humiliated. The same did lots of hundreds of communists.

Isaac Deutscher, with the semblance of seriousness shown by a professional

Trotskyite slanderer writes: “the accused hoped that their confessions would save
them and their families, offered them a ray of hope if being saved” (Isaac
Deutscher, Stalin, a political biography). But being careless, he forgot a “small”
detail: every admission of such criminal acts was punishable by death in the
Soviet Union at that time, a fact known to everybody and, most and foremost, the
accused themselves. How is it, then, possible that there was even a “a ray of hope of
being saved”?

The same ridiculous slanders are repeated by Dimitri Volkogonov: “Stalin had
defeated Zinoviev and Kamenev by exhaustion and deception. He took Pyatakov and
his “partners” by torture” (Dmitri Volkogonov, Stalin, triumph and tragedy, p. 292,
Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London, 1991). “The investigators had a wide range of
means to obtain the desired confession” (ibid, p.294) and for Bukharin he says that
“threats were made against his young wife and infant son” (ibid, p.300). This is
how low the Khrushchevian social-democrats have descended.

However, Volkogonov and Co. are unfortunate to be refuted, 52 years in advance, by

an eye-witness, lawyer and representative of the American imperialism, the then USA
ambassador in Moscow, Joseph E. Davies who was attending the court sessions on a
daily basis: “there was nothing unusual in the appearance of the accused. They
all appeared well nourished and normal physically” (Joseph E. Davies: “Mission
to Moscow”, London 1945, p.35).

Concerning the issue of forced confessions, we make some brief but important
remarks:

First, none of the accused stated that he was tortured.

Second, the flawless way the Trials were conducted made sure that the accused had
the opportunity for a free statement according to the conclusion of the eminent
English lawyer D. Pritt but also of others including Joseph E. Davies.

Third, the representative of the American imperialism in Moscow, Davies, did not
notice that any of the accused were tortured but on the contrary, as mentioned above,
“there was nothing unusual in the appearance of the accused. They all appeared
well nourished and normal physically”. Neither did he mention that there was an
atmosphere of fear restriction since Vyshinsky “conducted the case calmly and
generally with admirable moderation”

Fourth, if the accused had confessed false crimes, i.e. crimes they had not committed,
under the “pressure” or “torture” – as the international reaction claims – then, they
would have been shot unjustly but surely since these criminal activities were
punishable by death in the Soviet Union at that time.

However, for the case of Bukharin, there is fortunately an additional and of the
gravest importance, testimony which is almost entirely unknown: whatever Bukharin
publically admitted in his trial, were confirmed by the testimony of his close friend
and renegade Jules Herbert-Droz; consequently, the conspirator Bukharin deliberately
admitted his crimes without any alleged “pressure” or “torture” .

A very close political and personal friend of Bukharin, the Swiss Jules Herbert-Droz,
former secretary of Comintern (1921-1928) refers to his last meeting with Bukharin in
an interview (30/10/1965) an in a letter to A.G. Loewy (22/11/1965): “I saw
Bukharin for the last time at the end of May 1929. He informed me about two
things: 1. his companions Rykov, Tomsky and others were planning to form a
bloc with the Trotskyites. Tomski had already contacted Kamenev. 2. The
opposition was planning to organize individual terrorism against Stalin” (A.G.
Loewy: Die Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht, p. 373, Europa Werlag Vien, 1969)
Moreover, Humbert-Droz himself, writes in the second volume of his memoirs:
“before my departure (to Latin America) I visited Bukharin for a last time
because I didn’t know whether I was going to see him after my return. We had a
long and open conversation. He briefed me on his group’s contacts with the
group of Zinoviev and Kamenev and coordination of the struggle against Stalin’s
authority. Bukharin also told me that they had decided to resort to individual
terrorism in order to get rid of Stalin! This was our last conversation. These
who, after Lenin’s death, could eliminate Stalin politically, based on Lenin’s
testament, tried to eliminate him physically when he firmly held the police-
security apparatus of the state” (Karl Hofmeier: “Memoiren eines Schweizer
Kommunisten / 1917-1947”, p. 142, rotpunkt verlag Zurich 1978 and “Memoires de
Jules Herbert-Droz”, v.2, p. 379-380).

And the communist Karl Hofmeier comments the attitude of the renegade Droz:
“until his death, Humbert-Droz remained silent about his Trotskyite-Bukharinist
past! That is the disgraceful end of the long-term secretary of the Communist
International” (ibid, p.380). Afterwards, Droz became the secretary of the Social-
Democratic party of Switzerland, 1946-1959).

More than 35 years after this very important testimony from a very close and personal
friend of Bukharin, Herbert-Droz, according to which Bukharin was planning to
physically eliminate Stalin, the credibility of the Khrushchevian revisionist slanderers
of Stalin and the Goebelist Volkogonov amounts to continue the mud-slinging:
“Bukharin was threatened and blackmailed”,

It is obvious from all the above that the accused were compelled to admit their
criminal acts not because of “torture and pressure” but because of the legal and
political formulation of the indictment by the Procurator and the overwhelming
evidence amassed against them.

Moreover, the opinion of foreign diplomats for the Trials and the existence or absence
of the Trotskyite-Bukharinite centre and its terrorist activity are of particular
importance.

The American ambassador Davies notes: “I have spoken with many, if not all, of
the members of the Diplomatic Corps here and, with possibly with one exception,
they are all of the opinion that the proceedings established a clearly the existence
of a political plot and conspiracy to overthrow the government” (Joseph E.
Davies: “Als USA-Botschafter in Moskau”, p. 35, Steinberg Verlag Zuerich 1943,
English version: “Mission to Moscow”, London 1945, p. 39).

Somewhere else: “Another diplomat, made a most illuminating statement to me

yesterday. In discussing the trial he said that the defendants were undoubtedly
guilty; that all of us who attended the trial had practically agreed on that; that
the outside world from the press reports, however, seemed to think that trial was
a put-up a job (façade, as he called it); that while we knew it was not, it was
probably just as well that the outside world should think so” (Joseph E. Davies:
“Mission to Moscow”, London 1945, p. 83)

In a letter to Sumner Welles, concerning the Tukhatchevsky trial, he writes:

“Conditions here are, as usual, perplexing. The judgment of those who have been
here longest is that conditions are very, very serious; the best judgment seems to
believe that in all probability there was a definite conspiracy in the making
looking to a coup d’ etat by the army – not necessarily anti-Stalin, but anti-
political and anti-party, and that Stalin struck with characteristic speed,
boldness and strength. A violent “purge” all over the party has been going on.
The opinion of the steadiest minds of the Diplomatic Corps is that the
government is not in imminent danger and is still strong.” (Joseph E. Davies:
“Mission to Moscow”, London 1945, p. 111)

In a letter to his daughter (on the 9th of March 1938) he writes: “The extraordinary
testimony of Krestinsky, Bukharin and the rest would indicate that the
Kremlin’s fears were well justified. For it now seems that a plot existed in the
beginning of November 1936, to project a coup d’etat, with Tukhatchevsky as its
head for May of the following year. Apparently it was touch and go at that time
whether it actually would be staged.”

In his overall evaluation of the Bukharin trial, he writes to the State Department: “…
after daily observation of the witnesses, their manner of testifying, the
unconscious corroboration which developed, and other facts in the course of the
trial, together with others of which a judicial notice could be taken, it is my
opinion so far that as the political defendants are concerned sufficient crimes
under Soviet law. Among those charged in the indictment, were established by
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 opinion of those diplomats who attended the trial most regularly was
general that the case had established the fact that there was formidable political
opposition and an exceedingly serious plot, which explained to the diplomats
many of the hitherto unexplained developments of the last six months of the
Soviet Union.” Joseph E. Davies: “Mission to Moscow”, London 1945, p. 178-179)

4. The slanderous campaign launched by the world reaction, the Trotskyites and
the social-democrats.

The world reaction, the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo axis in the first place, together with the
counter-revolutionary Trotskyites and the support of social-democrats outdid
everyone else in vilifying the Soviet Union and Stalin. The leaders of the treacherous
social-democracy, in particular, were among the campaign’s main props, widely
publicized in the daily press.

Under these circumstances, the international communist and proletarian movement

was obliged to respond and one of its leaders, Georgi Dimitrov, addressed the social-
democrats with an article: “Support to the terrorists is the same as help to
fascism!”, whereby he accurately determine the content of the dispute making clear
from the start, that: “it is impossible to read the telegram that the official
representatives of the socialist international and the international trade-union
federation, De Brouckere, Adler, Citrine and Scheveneis sent so hastily to the
soviet government on the occasion of the trial of the terrorist Trotskyite-
Zinovievite center without feeling the deepest indignation”; and rightly pointing
out that “the trial of the terrorists, the agents of fascism, is an integral part of the
international working class anti-fascist struggle” (Georgi Dimitrov: “Gemeine
Terroristen in Schutz nehmen, bedeutet dem Fascismus helfen” in ‘RUNDSCHAU”
ueber Politik Wirtschaft und Arbeiterbewegung, 5, Jahrgang, No 28, 27/8/1936, p.
1541 Basel).

The counter-revolutionary Trotsky who, from a Menshevic social-democrat, had

degenerated to an agent of fascism and a traitor of his country, the Soviet Union,
organized a “counter-trial”; he set up the so-called “Dewey Commission” (1937-
1938) presided by the most famous ideological spokesman of American imperialism,
the ultra-reactionary pragmatist philosopher John Dewey. Unfortunately for him, the
outcome was disappointing since none of the evidence presented in the Moscow
Trials could be refuted. However, the arrogant collaborator of the Hitlerites assures us
that: “I had the opportunity to give an oral and written account before the
Investigation Commission on the “Moscow Trials” presided by John Dewey, and
not one of these reports was doubted”. So Trotsky gave an account to the
Commission set up by himself!

The significance of the “American Commission for the defense of Trotsky” is

indicated by the fact that it published a statement signed by 17 personages seven of
whom reported that their names were used without their consent, that they didn’t
know the content of the statement and nobody asked them. Among those who
complained, was Professor Franz Boas, the Professor Goldenweiser from the
University of Wisconsin, Professor Lundberg, the writer of the book “The sixty
families of America”, Professor Kilpatrick from Columbia University, Professor
Leonard von Roscoe from the University of Wisconsin the writer Burton Roscoe and
Wood Krutsch” (RUNDSCHAU” ueber Politik Wirtschaft und Arbeiterbewegung, 5,
Jahrgang, No 16, 17/3/1938, p. 1541 Basel).

What is of particular and special interest is the content of the agreement between
Trotsky and the Nazis. In his meeting with Trotsky on the outskirts of Oslo, in the
beginning of December 1935, Pyatakov received first hand information about this
agreement and fixed date of the outbreak of the war:
“It was clear to Pyatakov that Trotsky had not invented this information. Trotsky now
revealed to Pyatakov that for some time past he had been "conducting rather lengthy
negotiations with the Vice-Chairman of the German National Socialist Party—Hess."
As a result of these negotiations with Adolf Hitler's deputy, Trotsky had entered into
an agreement, "an absolutely definite agreement," with the Government of the Third
Reich. The Nazis were ready to help the Trotskyites to come to power in the Soviet
Union.
"It goes without saying," Trotsky told Pyatakov, "that such a favourable
attitude is not due to any particular love for the Trotskyites. It simply proceeds
from the real interests of the fascists and from what we have promised to do for
them if we come to power."
Concretely, the agreement which Trotsky had entered into with the Nazis
consisted of five points. In return for Germany's assistance in bringing the
Trotskyites to power in Russia, Trotsky had agreed:—
(1) to guarantee a generally favourable attitude towards German
government and the necessary collaboration with it in the most
important questions of international character;
(2) to agree to territorial concessions [the Ukraine];
(3) to permit German industrialists, in the form of concessions (or some
other forms), to exploit enterprises in the U.S.S.R. essential as
complements to German economy (iron ore, manganese, oil, gold,
timber, etc.) ;
(4) to create in the U.S.S.R. favourable conditions for the activities of
German private enterprise;
(5) in time of war to develop extensive diversive activities in enterprises of
the war industry and at the front. These diversive activities to fee
carried on under Trotsky's instructions, agreed upon with the German
General Staff.
…At the end of two hours, Pyatakov left Trotsky in the small house on the
outskirts of Oslo and returned to Berlin as he had come—by privately chartered
plane, and carrying a Nazi passport” (Michael Sayers and Albert Kahn: “The Great
Conspiracy against Russia, p. 104-105)

The existence of the Trotsky-Nazi agreement was also admitted by Bukharin in his
confession: “In the summer of 1934 Radek told me that directions had been
received from Trotsky, that Trotsky was concluding negotiations with the
Germans, that Trotsky had already promised the Germans a number of
territorial concessions, including Ukraine. If my memory doesn’t fail me,
territorial concessions to Japan were also mentioned. In general, these
negotiations Trotsky already behaved not only as a conspirator who hopes to get
power by means of an armed coup at some future data but already felt himself
the master of Soviet land, which he wants to convert from Soviet to non-
Soviet….As I remember Tomsky told me that Karakhan had arrived at an
agreement with Germany in more advantageous terms than Trotsky” (Report of
Court proceedings in the case of the Anti-Soviet "Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites”, p.
430,432, Moscow 1938).

Fortunately, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat managed to defend itself and foiled the
plans of the Trotskyite-Bucharinite bloc and the counter-revolutionary Trotsky that
included: 1. The undermining of the country’s defense through the action of the
terrorist “5th column” 2. The secret agreement with General Staffs of fascist Germany
and Japan. 3. The agreement that offered Ukraine and other soviet territory, to the
Germans.
Fifteen years after the treacherous agreements of Trotsky with the Nazis, the various
Trotskyite factions show their real facee; we only mention the case of Tony Cliff who
outrageously defended the Russian fascist traitors Vlasov-Molyskin who joined the
Nazis in the war against their country. (Tony Cliff: “State Capitalism in Russia”)

It should be reminded that besides the soviet state, the Republican government of
Spain during the civil war also put the Trotskyites conspirators to trial and in
particular the cadres of POUM (Partido Obrero Unificacion Marxista) who were
Franco’s “fifth column”. The leader of POUM at that time was Andreas Nin, an old
friend and associate of Trotsky (RUNDSCHAU” ueber Politik Wirtschaft und
Arbeiterbewegung, 5, Jahrgang, No 52, 20/10/1938, p. 1765-1766, No 53,
27/10/1938, p. 1807-1809, No 54, 3/11/1938, Basel). Nevertheless, the Trotskyites
“recount” that these trials were also organized by Joseph Stalin.

5. Defense of the Trials from the international communist movement and by

hundreds of anti-fascists and communist intellectuals.

The international communist movement in one voice, the Comintern, the communist
and workers’ parties individually, including the revolutionary KKE, the anti-fascist
and progressive organizations, the revolutionary syndicates and many hundreds of
anti-fascist and communist intellectuals from all over the world, defended the
revolutionary Moscow Trials of the conspirators, murderers-terrorists, agents and
spies of the fascist powers standing by the side of the Stalin’s socialist Soviet Union
that was the homeland of all proletarians and the hope for the crushing of fascism.

At this point, let us mention the universally known names of the communist poet
Bertolt Brecht and the anti-fascist philosopher Ernst Bloch. Both of them have been
chastised by the reaction and all kinds of pseudo-leftists and pseudo-antifascists not
only because they defended firmly the revolutionary Moscow Trials but mainly
because they never changed their correct antifascist attitude regarding it as the right
one also in the post-war years. The attitude of the two German intellectuals
represented the attitude of the overwhelming majority of many hundred anti-fascist
intellectuals of that critical period, an attitude vindicated by the great historic event of
the 20th century: the great peoples’ Anti-fascist Victory on May 1945.

Among the various reactionaries and anti-Stalinists that criticize the two German
intellectuals are the revisionists Michael Lowey and Robert Sayre who express their
grief because Ernst Bloch “from all of his compromises with the Stalinist version
of communism, the worst was, undoubtedly, his attitude towards the Moscow
trials”, and that he declared “his faith in the USSR and in its “revolutionary
tribunals”. They claim that his article “Jubiläum der Renegaten” would be a dark spot
in his political activity” (Michael Lowey and Robert Sayre: “Révolte et mélancolie”).
Apparently, in order to remove this alleged “dark spot”, Bloch had to collaborate with
Hitler like the counter-revolutionary and traitor of his country, Leon Trotsky. The
provocative embellishment of the feudal views of the ultra-reactionary German
Romanticism is indicative of the anti-Marxist views of this book.

The great communist poet Bertolt Brecht in an interesting article with the title “For
the trials” (1936-1937), expresses himself, from the beginning in the most clear cut
way: “concerning the trials: it would be totally erroneous to take a position
against the soviet government that conducts them. Because, such a position, by
itself, would be very soon transformed to opposition against the Russian
proletariat threatened with war by the world’s fascism, opposition against
socialism that this proletariat builds. According to the opinion of the most
fanatical enemies of the USSR and the soviet government these trials clearly
showed the existence of active conspiracies against the regime, demonstrated that
the conspirators’ nests had proceeded not only to wrecking activities inside the
country but also to negotiations with fascist diplomats regarding their
governments’ attitude to a potential governmental change in USSR”. And
elsewhere: “The trials is an act of preparation for the war …Initially, Trotsky
saw the crushing of the workers state by means of war as a danger – but later it
was precisely this possibility that became the prerequisite of his practical
activity. Let’s see how: the war breaks out, the superstructure in defense is
crushed, the apparatus is alienated from the masses, USSR is forced to concede
Ukraine, Eastern Siberia etc, in the interior is forced again to concessions, the
return of the capitalist forms, the strengthening of the kulaks (or to tolerate such
a strengthening) – yet all these are, at the same time, the conditions of the new
era, the return of Trotsky” (Bertolt Brecht: “For philosophy and Marxism”, p. 71
and p. 75, Athens 1977).

The philosopher Ernst Bloch, besides his main activity in philosophy, he used to
comment often the political current affairs of that gloomy period; he wrote four
articles on the question of Trials: “Kritik einer Prozesskritik” (March 1937),
“Jubiläum der Renegaten” (1937), “Feuchtwangers “Moskau 1937” (July 1937),
“Bucharin Slusswort” (May 1938).

Talking about the Trials, he correctly lays emphasis on the distinction between a
revolutionary and a west-European class court because they have completely different
class content; he sees “the hate of the Trotskyites against Stalin”, which becomes an
ally of fascism only after Hitler’s rise to power and the united “action of Nazi
monster, the Japanese grabbing state and the Trotskyite hate” comprising a unified
force that should not be underestimated at all; he underlines that the “final result of
the Trotskyite action would not be, of course, the world revolution…but the
introduction of capitalism in Russia” and “it can be plainly said: the result will
be the entry of German fascism to Moscow. Russia would then become what
Rathenau had dreamed: a vast eastern colony, a German India”. Somewhere else
he writes that it would be “an unprecedented naiveté to doubt about Trotsky’s
plans” and wonders “that it would be indeed incomprehensible if Gestapo and
Trotskyism did not meet on the ground of the common hate” against the Soviet
Union and Stalin (Ernst Bloch, “Kritik einer Prozesskritik“ in Vomm Hasard zum
Katastrophe, Politische Aufsötze aus den Jahren 1934-1939, p. 177-179, Suhrkamp
Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 1972).

In his article, Jubiläum der Renegaten, Bloch formulates in the most plain terms the
nature of the confrontation and the historical dilemma of that time: FASCISM or
SOVIET UNION, HITLER or STALIN pointing, at the same time, to the alternative
course of action in the most critical moment of that period: “Monopoly capitalism
does not give rise to vacillations, the choice between this and the socialist cause of
the people is easy. One could say, today, that the notion according to which the
anti-Bolshevik slogans serve the devil is the most evident. An unreasonably
inflated criticism of the motherland of the revolution, as even Klopstock and
Schiller would be able to believe, does not promote at all the ideal of revolution
which is only served by Popular Front. And this does not necessarily demand an
absolute devotion to Russia but only the simplest and, one would say, easily
accepted: w i t h o u t R u s s i a , t h e r e c a n b e n o A n t i f a s c i s t
S t r u g g l e a n d n o V i c t o r y ” (E. Bloch “Jubiläum der Renegaten” in
Politische Messungen, Pestzeit, Vormörtz, p. 233, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am
Main 1970).

What Hitler and his collaborators, the spies of the treacherous Trotskyite-Bukharinite
Bloc, did not accomplish – the destruction of the Stalin’s socialist Soviet Union – was
unfortunately accomplished by the international reaction in the beginning of the
1950’s, after the death-murder of Stalin through the treacherous clique of
Khrushchev-Brezhnev that played the leading role in the overthrow of the
Dictatorship of the Proletariat in the Soviet Union, the elimination of socialism, the
restoration of capitalism and its break up in the time of Gorbachev.

In conclusion, let’s give as an answer, to all those who distort the historical truth,
regarding the revolutionary trials, to all kinds of anti-Stalinist slanderers, what the
Foreign Affairs Commissar of the USSR Maxim Litvinov told the American
ambassador Joseph E. Davies when the latter pointed out that the “purges were bad to
the outside reputation of USSR” and “had shaken the confidence of France of
England in the strength of USSR vis-à-vis Hitler”; an answer fully confirmed by the
course of historic events: “they had to make sure through these purges that there
was no treason left which could co-operate with Berlin or Tokyo; that someday
the world would understand that what they had done was to protect their
government from a menacing treason. In fact, he said that they were doing a
while world a service in protecting themselves against the menace of Hitler and
Nazi domination, and thereby preserving the Soviet Union strong as bulwark
against the Nazi threat. That the world someday would appreciate what a very
great man Stalin was” (Joseph E. Davies: “Mission to Moscow”, London 1945, p.
115).
January 2009

The Political Committee of the “Movement for the Reorganisation of the

Communist Party of Greece 1918-55”