From the speech of Comrade Kaganovich. February 25, 1937
Molotov. I give the floor to Comrade Kaganovich. [Reprinted from the text of the uncorrected transcript. - Ed. ]
Kaganovich.
Comrades, although about two months have passed since the last plenum of the Party Central Committee, Bukharin and Rykov were powerless to present at this plenum any serious arguments in their defense. Again, naked denials were repeated, naked statements that tries to make us believe , or attempts to catch certain random formal contradictions in order to build their defense on. Instead of coming to the plenum, if you think that you are right, that you are innocent, come to the plenum and lay out, first of all, the facts of your positive activities and the facts of your positive principled political line, as they looked in life throughout the entire period of the struggle. This is the most compelling argument. Instead, they repeat: I am not me, and the horse is not mine. And this is no coincidence.
It is no coincidence that they have nothing positive, but only negative facts of their activities, which fully confirm the testimony of all their former associates, who all, as one, testify that Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky, starting from 1928, from from the moment of the formation of the right opposition, until 1936 they represented the leading center of a virtually new illegal party, a counterrevolutionary party, which was blocked with other counterrevolutionary organizations, which had its own platform and modified and adapted this platform to the various needs of a particular period.
But before moving on to this main question, and it seems to me that it is the main question, the question of the platform, and the question of how they practically fought for this platform of theirs, I want to dwell on two statements made by Comrade Bukharin: citing them as the main arguments for their defense. These are contradictions in Sokolnikov's testimony and contradictions in Kulikov's testimony.
Comrade Bukharin says that at the trial, Sokolnikov said that the right-wingers only maintained contact, while at the confrontation he says that the right-wingers then entered the bloc, the center of the bloc. I asked Comrade Vyshinsky and looked at the verbatim record of the trial. The verbatim record of the trial refers to the year 1932. Indeed, in the protocol of the confrontation there is a statement by Sokolnikov that in 1932 there was an attempt to create a bloc with the entry of the right into a single center. The rightists then agreed only to contact and refused to enter this unified center. But in 1935, on behalf of the new center, he negotiated with Tomsk, and Tomsky, at first saying that he could not give an answer himself, then after a while on behalf of Rykov and Bukharin agreed to enter the center. This is in the protocol of the confrontation and in the minutes of Sokolnikov's testimony.
At the trial, there was no need to interrogate Sokolnikov about 1935, because Sokolnikov judged the participation of Bukharin and Rykov on the basis of Tomsky's application, while Pyatakov and Radek, who were directly connected with Bukharin, were also at the trial. Naturally, Comrade Vyshinsky asked Radek about 1935, not Sokolnikov. So, as you can see, there is no contradiction here. The protocol of Sokolnikov's interrogation before the trial says the same thing that Sokolnikov confirmed during interrogation, what he showed at the confrontation.
Kulikov's contradictions. Bukharin claims that in his testimony Kulikov indicates that he had an intention to commit a terrorist act against Stalin, and that he was talking about a terrorist act against Kaganovich at a confrontation. This is not true. There is a document on confrontation. At the confrontation, Kulikov showed: "A couple of days later I went to Uglanov again ... (Reads.) ... near the garden." Incidentally, this habit of meeting in the streets, it passes through a series of protocols with Comrade Bukharin ... (Voices from the localities. Correct.) And with Astrov and others. "I told Nikolai Ivanovich about my own ... (Reading.) Nikolai Ivanovich showered me with reproaches, he reproached me for being slow ... but do you have solid cadres?" Then, at a confrontation, Nikolai Ivanovich confirmed that he had asked Kulikov about the personnel ... (Reads.) "He must be removed." "So it was, Nikolai Ivanovich?" He asks, addressing point-blank to Nikolai Ivanovich. And Nikolai Ivanovich, who usually at confrontations, as Comrade Stalin correctly said here, responded very sharply to the testimony of the Trotskyists, scolded them, he does not deny here at the time when Kulikov directly addresses him. Bukharin does not deny, but answers: "I will tell you about everything." Isn't this a confirmation of Kulikov's testimony? (Voices from the field. Of course.)
I asked Kulikov - you were with me in 1932 and repented then, so you were already double-dealing then? “Yes, he double-dealing, he also double-dealing even with you,” says Kulikov. Voroshilov at this time asks him - why did you want to kill Kaganovich? Kulikov: "Just like Stalin in order to behead the leadership." What is left? As you can see, the same is confirmed in the protocol and at the confrontation. There are no contradictions in the testimony of Kulikov, as Bukharin says, that in the protocol he wanted to commit a terrorist act against Stalin, and at the confrontation only over Kaganovich. I could read a few more passages where Kulikov repeatedly confirms his conversations with Bukharin. Bukharin himself tries to admit some of them as his own mistake. This is what he says ... (Reads.) ... "and I believe in what he is saying now." (Mikoyan. Is this Bukharin speaking?) Yes, after the confrontation. "But I categorically protest" ... (Reads.)
Incidentally, as regards "thoughts" and other things, I want to remind you that even at the first trial of the murder of Comrade Kirov, Kamenev said the same thing. This is his exact expression: "Neither by thought, nor by action, by nothing, I myself am immune to this matter." So Bukharin also says: "I am not guilty either by thought or by action." And further: "I can only try to explain how such an opinion could have formed, how Kulikov could have thought about such a thing."
Mikoyan asks: "Do you deny a date at the Alexander Garden?" - "I explain it this way ... (Reads.) And did not feel it." This means, on the one hand, when Bukharin was asked here: "You knew that in 1932 the Uglanov group had some acute moods," he replied: "Yes, I knew, but by these acute moods I understood deployment of movement ". "You didn't understand by acute sentiments terror?" "No, I didn't understand terror." This means, on the one hand, in 1932 he goes to Uglanov, declaring that there is no need to take sharp actions, declares that by sharp actions he meant the development of the movement in general, and on the other hand, when he was pinned down by Kulikov at a confrontation , he directly says: "I can only try to explain" and explains by the fact that they worked in two ways, that we did not give directives, and there could be terrorist sentiments in the Uglanov group. Comrade Stalin replied: “Cleverly done,” and indeed cleverly done. We, they say, are the center, on the sidelines, and when we get caught, we are not to blame, but the switchman is to blame. Well, this is not really a switchman, but, anyway, the ones who were supposed to act.
Voroshilov asks: "How could such moods appear in Kulikov, which you admit?" Bukharin instead of a substantive answer: "I give absolutely my word of honor that the idea of terror did not even occur to me." Is this a serious answer to the question? "I really met Kulikov in 1932 in the alley where Uglanov lived ... He took my arm ... (Reads.) And this is really a story ... I even cried." (Voices from the field. Why was crying?) What is the story, it is not known why I was crying, it is not known. “I threw up my hands and said: what to do? He says nothing, you need to act. This is Kulikov telling him. I read and asked where you have strong people. We have never said the word "terror". (Voices from their seats. And kill, remove.) Yes, yes. So I read and spoke about strong people. So, the first thing - they met in 1932, Kulikov demands action, he goes through this story, cries, and then asks where the hard people are. (Lozovsky. Cries because there are no solid people.) That is not the point, Comrade Lozovsky. Judas can often cry. (Voice from the spot. This is good for Shchedrin.) It is not known what he is experiencing here, whether he is experiencing, whether he relishes the results of an action, whether he is experiencing that it is difficult to decide on something here, because it is dangerous, in any case, Kulikov demands action from him. On one page, he admits that the Uglan group had sharper intentions,they were split. Kulikov demands action, he asks where your solid people are. (Bukharin. You are confused.) He deliberately entangles the knots so that we don’t understand, but it is clear to us that Kulikov demanded action, terror, and he blessed. where you have solid people. (Bukharin. You are confused.)
Then Yezhov asks Bukharin: "In 1932 you considered it possible to have a conversation with Kulikov ..." (He reads it.) Bukharin replies: "I was still fighting the party at that time." I am reading this from the transcript, it was in 1932. So, he says that in 1932 he was fighting the party. On the one hand, a person declares ... (Bukharin. You are reading from an uncorrected transcript. You need to correct the transcript, then use it.) We could even quote from memory, because such confrontations rarely happen. And we went to this confrontation not in order to contemplate you, but in order to be convinced. Do not think that members of the Politburo have no other business but to go to confrontations. So he says: "I was still fighting the Party then." Ordzhonikidze asks him: “That was in 1932. You remember some things very well ”... (Reads.) Bukharin dodges here too ... (Cites a quote.) It is clear that he pressed you, and you gave him your consent. Here is what Kulikov showed at the confrontation and what I am quoting briefly.
From this you see, comrades, that Bukharin's statement, his search for some kind of contradictions here disintegrate like a house of cards, nothing remains of his statement. And so it turns out, instead of here, at the plenum, Bukharin answer on the merits of the conversation in 1932, instead of here at the plenum, clearly and coherently tell what you said in 1932 to Uglanov, what you were talking about the conversation, what you said to Kulikov, what the conversation was about, what kind of struggle you waged with the party in 1932 - Bukharin bypasses all these very serious questions, and does not answer any of them. Instead, he tries to grab one seeming contradiction and present it here as an argument in his defense, thinking that it represents something serious.
And so they do with all indications. Indeed, as a matter of fact, Bukharin and Rykov, in their notes and in their speeches, did not give an answer in essence, what direction they had, what their line was in 1932, 1933 and subsequent years, they did not say a word that they thought about party politics, how they argued and fought with those who challenged this party policy and practice. They also did not say anything about how all these criminal chicks grew up under their wing, who wanted to stab in the back of the party, in the back of the working class. Essentially they said nothing about any of this. They took one position - the position of discrediting all readings. All testimonies are incorrect: Bukharin denies the testimony of Astrov, the testimony of Slepkov, Eichenwald, the testimony of Zaitsev, Uglanov, Kulikov, - all his students and the entire so-called Moscow group. You will notice that none of these students remained in the ranks of the party. This is also no coincidence. (Mikoyan. Such a teacher.) Exactly such a teacher. (Voice from the place. What is the pop, such is the arrival.)
And Rykov denies the testimony of his entire group. I will also touch upon the most important group of Rykov - Smirnov, Eismont, Tolmachev. He denies the testimony of Nesterov, declares that he is crazy, denies the testimony of Radin, denies the testimony of Artemenko, who was faithful to him - we know this, he finally denies the testimony of Schmidt. Well, you know, you can say that Astrov, Slepkov and other young people, although they are not so young ... (Voices from the field. For 40 years old.) Well, let's say, I'll tell you about it later, but deny Schmidt's testimony , Uglanova ... Do you want to portray Schmidt and Uglanov before the plenum as, you know, crooks who, even being caught and testifying, will lie to you and to themselves. They are scoundrels and it is not for us to take them under protection. Scoundrels, scoundrels, people who were in the Central Committee, fought against the Central Committee, people who, being in the party, fought against the party, but nevertheless we know these people, they were people close to you. People are all serious. Schmidt, after all, is a former deputy chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, a former People's Commissar, a member of your center Uglanov, after all, your pillar, because when you conceived the Right Opposition, you were counting on that. that the Moscow organization is yours. You were wrong, of course. (Postyshev. Yes, yes, just like Zinoviev in Leningraders.) There was a small group of those who broke away from the party masses behind you, but you were counting on this, and now they are brazenly denying everything.
At first glance, this looks quite simple, well, people are defending themselves, Bukharin and Rykov appeal to our human understanding - you understand humanly, in what position we are, and so on and so on, but in fact, comrades, this is - and I here I want to stop at this - this is a new maneuver of the enemy ... (Voices from the field. Correct.) An attempt to discredit all testimonies, an attempt to discredit the testimony of dozens of people who, in different places, interrogated in different ways, show the same thing ... Basically, of course, they may have individual omissions, individual contradictions, but the main trend is that all show that the center took a terrorist position, that the center in 1932 directed the drafting of the Ryutin platform. They all show
I must say that Astrov made a very strong impression on all of us - members of the Politburo. He is a very capable, very sensible person, you cannot say about him in any way that he, as Rykov said about Nesterov, that he was crazy. This is a man who, in our opinion, is sincere, who felt the whole abyss into which they had slipped, and in his testimony and at the confrontation one could feel his indignation, his indignation with Bukharin, who raised them, who pushed them into this abyss and who he himself is now trying to discredit them, declaring that "you are lying and slandering us," calling them slanderers. After all, none other than Astrov showed that back in 1929 - after all, you read and you will see here Bukharin himself. Here he shows. “In the spring of 1929 Slepkov told me that on this morning, when he told me, Bukharin ran to him, while he added: you know Bukharin, when something lights up for him, when a new idea arises, he can't wait to share this idea. I asked what the matter was ... (Reading.) Now I see that this thought stubbornly pursues Bukharin. "
This was in 1929, and in 1931 and 1932 Bukharin was already directly giving directives to Astrov and others. It is necessary, he says, to remove Stalin, to kill Stalin. (Bukharin. An absolute lie, one hundred percent slander.) We have heard this more than once. (Bukharin. And I will repeat it again, again.) Please, that's what the plenum is for, to listen to you and us. We must understand the essence of the matter. Naked denial won't convince anyone. You have to convince with facts. We convince with facts, but you have no facts. (Voice from the seat. Except for slander.) In 1930, there was a meeting at Slepkov's dacha in Pokrovsky-Streshnevo, where Bukharin was and where Bukharin taught his people how to play double-dealing, gave perspectives. He said: "The spring of 1930, in which the third grain procurement campaign will be carried out, will be the most formidable for the Stalinist party leadership." He said,
You see, a typical Socialist-Revolutionary formulation of the question of using collective farms against Soviet power. You can be indignant as much as you like, speak out and say that you did not want to conclude a bloc with the SRs, but ideologically, according to the platform, you were one with them. "The task of the organization of the right is to rally its cadres and prepare for the moment when it will be necessary ... (Reads.) On the other hand, he said that he made it easier for information to access leadership positions." Here's to you - the stay in the Central Committee made your information easier. Astrov says that this facilitated information, and this tactic of double-dealing was continued by those who were in the party, and Bukharin and Rykov, being in the Central Committee, came to the Politburo of the Central Committee. How did Kamenev and Zinoviev know the news of Party life? You, sitting on the Politburo as candidate members of the Central Committee, were informants for Zinoviev and Kamenev, informants of the Trotskyists. (Postyshev. Traitors.) Astrov further shows that he had a meeting with Bukharin in 1932 after Slepkov's arrest. "I told Bukharin everything that I knew about the circumstances of the arrest ... (Reads.) I accepted this as a directive from the center of the organization."
Thus, you see that in 1929 it was said in an ostensibly veiled manner, but in fact, the directive was also direct. And in 1931-32. no doubt a direct directive is already being given. I'm not even talking about further testimony, about 1933, about Radek, about Pyatakov, about Sosnovsky. They deny them. But we must take things politically. And if politically, then what difference does it make if in your right-wing organization you have taken a course towards terror, towards insurrection, why don't you really increase your forces in order to increase your chances. Why don't you, in fact, align with them, why don't you go in one line here? The logic here is complete and absolute. And the testimonies here are well-grounded. Take Schmidt's testimony, confrontation. This is most serious. They are all very serious, all the testimony is serious. This is not one random reading, one random reading, which speaks of a person. The party must analyze any indication, at least one indication. And here we are dealing with dozens, and especially the testimony of Schmidt.
Schmidt showed that terrorist sentiment began as early as 1930.
Not only Nesterov, not only Radin, not only Artemenko, who, by the way, shows this Artemenko, the devil would have tore her, that she and some with her organized surveillance of government vehicles here. So this is not simple, you know, chatter of the rightists, the testimony of Artemenko, Nesterov, Radin, chatter about terror. No, there was an organization here. But here Schmidt, where will you go from the testimony of Schmidt, Uglanov, Kulikov? Where will you go? Where can you get away from this testimony, where people say directly to Rykov's eyes: yes, you gave us such and such a directive. You are the center, Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky, had a terrorist attitude. And Rykov, do you think Rykov could have parried with something in the confrontation? Read the confrontation. The only question he asks is: have I been to this meeting? Schmidt answers him: yes, you were at this meeting. Next time, when Schmidt shows about the discussion of the Ryutin platform, he asks: "Was I at this meeting?" - Schmidt answers: "Yes, you were." He seems to be denying it, but when Schmidt begins to expound, he jumps up and says: "I am her ..." (Stalin. Who?) Ryutin's platform "called the Medvedev platform." So, on the one hand, he asks the question as if he was not at this meeting, and on the other hand, he admits that he discussed this platform, participated in the discussion.
You have nowhere to get away from this testimony. These are your deeds, these are your people, you brought them up, you prepared them, you directed them, you brought them up politically, and now you want to get away with talking about the fact that, you see, you are offended. Tsetlin is offended, Bukharin's closest person. Bukharin says that Nesterov is crazy, Schmidt is no longer known how to be identified. You deny all testimony.
By the way, it is necessary to say about these offended here, here is a note from Comrade Bukharin to Comrade Sergo. Here he showed his most vile cynical trait and speculates in the name of Sergo. The whole party is still mourning Sergo. Sergo was buried, all the people are in mourning, and at this time he sees a selfish path, immediately puts his vile provocative agents into service. He refers to the name Sergo - the name of our deceased comrade. It is no accident that he wants to show his closeness to comrade Sergo by this. We all know, we can look at dozens of transcripts with what sharpness Sergo smashed. Yesterday I just read the transcript - the case of Eismont and Smirnov - and from this transcript you can see how Sergo spoke against you then, he then said that the case of Eismont and Smirnov is a very serious, very important matter - terror. Keep in mind, we will not spare you. And you are now speculating in the name of Sergo. At least you should be ashamed of your cynicism here. And so he writes a note to comrade Sergo: "Dear Sergo, let me get away for a few days" ... ( Stalin. When was that?) It should have been in 1932. There is no date here. (Voice from the place. Later.) In 1933, at the end of 1933. (Bukharin. Tsetlin was arrested at the end of 1933.) This was the case in the summer. You see how Bukharin defended Tsetlin.
For what reason is Tsetlin offended? You defended Tsetlin in this case. (Bukharin. Tsetlin reproached me for not defending him.) You and Tsetlin lived together, ate together, slept together, your most devoted friend, unquestionably devoted person. What reasons does Tsetlin have to be offended? Tsetlin was then released. This means that Tsetlin could count on your help and your petition to help free him. What are the reasons for Tsetlin to be offended by you? Why do you declare him offended in order to discredit his testimony? (Bukharin. Because I can prove it to you, as two times two is four.)
There is another fact. Here is a group of those arrested, employees of the Academy of Sciences. Incidentally, in this work of the Academy of Sciences, Bukharin could show himself as a man who there really raised non-party scientists to the party. He didn't show himself. (Bukharin. And Pavlov?) Pavlov? We can make out what happened to Pavlov, that's not the point. So, there they arrested a whole group of people who turned out to be malicious Zinovievites, terrorists, a group of people who turned out to be the very group that united both Bukharin and Zinoviev. They personally sympathized with Bukharin, loved him, supported him in every possible way, praised him in every possible way, and at the same time were in the Zinoviev-Trotskyist organization. Bukharin defended this group of people in every possible way when they were free, he gathered them in this institute, in the academy, he brought them up when this school was destroyed. (Stalin. And Maretsky was.) And Maretsky was in the role of deputy. He brought up this school No. 2 in a legal way, Bukharin supported it, this included: Sedykh, Koshelev, Busygin, Vasiliev, Bibikov, Tinyansky.
Bukharin sent a letter to Krzhizhanovsky, vice president of the Academy of Sciences, academician Gorbunov. Let me read this letter. (Voices from the localities. Please. Kaganovich reads out the letter.) As you can see, he uses this term, "cowardly," right and left. If necessary, the Academy of Sciences will be able to tell about this conflict. But this precedent is important to me from the point of view of this: here Busygin, whom Bukharin defended, told a number of comrades that he was a good man, a wonderful comrade, and this Busygin shows that Bukharin had anti-Soviet conversations with him, that Bukharin was aware of their terrorist sentiments ... (Bukharin. Nothing of the kind happened.) Karev is an inveterate Trotskyist. After all, you knew about this, in your presence Karev shows that they were talking about the wrong policy of the party, scolding the Central Committee, discredited the party leadership in every way, but where were you? How do you explain the testimony of these people, your former students?
Here is the testimony of a person who was in our editorial office, academician Luknitsky. (Bukharin. In what edition? Mikoyan. You know in what edition.) This is in Izvestia. (Bukharin. He has never been to Izvestia, he was with me at the Academy of Sciences. A voice from the place. He himself knows where he was, let him tell.) Here Luknitsky shows that “I had a conversation with Bukharin in February or in April 1936, in his office in Moscow, on Pushkinskaya Square in the editorial office of Izvestia, in this conversation Bukharin sharply criticized the party leadership, and especially Comrade Stalin. " (Bukharin. Lord, my God. He brought his book, there was nothing else. Molotov. You will tell about this later.) These are people who are not connected with your school, from a completely different angle, they all show it. You yourself showed at the confrontation, that they talked with Sosnovsky about the difficulties of the situation, that they are pecking you, that they are poisoning you. (Bukharin. I did not say "they are poisoning", but what they are pecking - I did.) They peck or poison is one and the same thing. From different sides, people who had excellent and wonderful relations with you show that with one you spoke with complaints about the policies of the Central Committee, with others you spoke and gave direct directives about terror, and now you come and want to portray the matter in such a way that everyone you are being slandered. Do you want to convince us by this? and now you come and want to portray the matter in such a way that everyone slanders you. Do you want to convince us by this? and now you come and want to portray the matter in such a way that everyone slanders you. Do you want to convince us by this?
Comrades, I believe that these statements, the speeches of Rykov and Bukharin, who here stubbornly prove that everyone is slandering them, that they are clean ... (Shkiryatov. They are the most slanderers of all.) That this is a new tactic. Keep in mind that Pyatakov, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Lifshits, and all the others whom we tried, they actually showed what had already been failed. (Shkiryatov. That which had already been revealed.) They revealed that which could no longer be defended, they took with them to their lousy grave very many secrets. (Voices from the field. Right, right.) It is no coincidence that now, after we have shot them, it is revealed that Kamenev took with him to his grave his secrets of espionage, his secrets of negotiations with foreign powers, his connections with intelligence officers. Zinoviev is the same. Pyatakov took many secrets and people with him to the grave. Lifshits is this bastard, about which I will report especially - he took with him, did not reveal a lot on transport, and therefore, after we shot them, sabotage and crashes on transport are arranged, but they had such a tactic - to show what has been disclosed. Now it is clear that these testimonies did not save them and did not save them. We shot them.
Now Bukharin and Rykov are resorting to other tactics, hostile tactics: they deny everything, undermine the testimony even while the English lawyer appears in the press, a liberal lawyer, and proves that the testimony is quite sufficient for the accusation, at a time when part of the bourgeois the press and especially the fascists are sophisticated in showing and proving that these testimonies are being adjusted and so on, so on, Bukharin speaks here and declares: "They smell with their noses what to point at me, they give appropriate answers to the relevant questions." A whole series of equivocations, a whole series of hints and statements show us that we are dealing here with a campaign of discrediting testimonies that cannot be refuted by facts, because the facts are against them, and therefore they switch to the tactics of enemies in this matter as well.
What are the facts? Facts: organization, one terrorist organization disclosed in 1930, terrorist organization of Smirnov Sormovsky, Uglanovskaya organization, it was disclosed. The first signal was given to them: "Drop this business." Other terrorist organizations, discovered in 1932, are two terrorist organizations - Slepkova on the one hand, Smirnova and Eismont on the other. They are warned, the Politburo is discussing issues, there are transcripts. These warnings don't take their toll. The Eismont-Smirnov terrorist organization, it was the first serious terrorist organization. After all, this terrorist organization had its own serious group in the Azov-Black Sea region and it is no coincidence that Beloborodov is now showing that when he met Rykov, Rykov pointed out to him as the place of the assassination attempt - Sochi. Beloborodov's plan coincides with the plan of Eismont, Tolmachev, Smirnov, Miroshnichenko. Miroshnichenko then shows that “our course, our Donetsk plan was to keep a course for an uprising. But, since it is not known whether it will come out or not, we have focused entirely on committing terrorist acts. "
These are facts that no one can refute and which did not help them to come to their senses and quit their job. The fact that there was a conference of the Slepkovites - Bukharinites? Fact. Can Bukharin refute this fact? He does not refute it, he only says that he was not there, but it will be possible to say about his stay. It is a fact. The fact that there was a meeting at Tomsky's at his dacha - was it under a drunken shop or not under a drunken shop, but there was a meeting where the Ryutin platform was discussed, what Rykov acknowledged here? Definitely a fact. How can you go against these facts?
I believe that the central question that gives us the key to understanding all the tactics of the right and which gives us the key to understanding the single bloc is the question of the Ryutin platform. Schmidt reveals that there was a meeting in April. We needed, he says, a platform. It was necessary to summarize. Bukharin, Rykov, Tomsky attended this meeting in April. And there it was decided to draw up a platform, there were developed theses and directives for the compilation of the platform. In August, they gather at Tomsky's dacha and discuss this platform. In October, the plenum of the Central Committee of the party discusses the question of the Ryutin platform. Rykov, both at the plenum of the Central Committee, and after the plenum of the Central Committee, and when we interrogated him at a confrontation, and at the last plenum, never once said that he had taken part in reading even this platform. Didn't tell anyone
Bukharin declares that if it is proved that he wrote this platform, in style, etc., then that is all. But we are not children, comrades. We understand that this is not about the technical writing of the platform. I could cite dozens of examples from another area that are not relevant to this issue, when we sometimes sit and write, while Comrade Stalin dictates to us. His hand is not there, but he shows us how to write resolutions, memoranda, all kinds of documents, and so on. I apologize for this example and this comparison, but this is also a purely formal comparison. So, the point is that Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky gave a directive, gave theses for the compilation of this platform. (Bukharin. I didn’t give any theses.) And the platform came out later, written by the hand of Ryutin, Slepkov or someone else, it makes no difference. After all, in the end, it’s not a matter of technology, but of being. Does the Ryutin platform differ in any way from your position in 1930, 1931, 1932, does it differ from your position? (Bukharin. Absolutely diverges.) No, it does not diverge.
If you, comrades, remember the positions of the Rights, starting from 1928, if you carefully read the platform of the Rights, written by Bukharin, you will see that in general the Ryutin platform completely coincides with the position of the Rights. Think of the so-called agricultural degradation. Remember the swing with the peasantry. Remember the slogan of free trade. Remember the slogan of priority support for individual farming. Remember the slogan for the abolition of all restrictions on the fist. Remember the slogan of abolishing the individual taxation of the fist. (Postyshev. Military-feudal exploitation.) Recall the statement about the military-feudal exploitation of the peasantry and you will see that if we now cite the Ryutin platform, it is entirely based on the same propositions. The same degradation of agriculture, the decline that he depicts. It is even said here - robbery of the peasantry, more mildly than the words about the military-feudal exploitation of the peasantry. Apparently, they did not want to betray Bukharin here with a quote about the military-feudal exploitation of the peasantry and said more mildly "robbery".
The demand for priority support for the individual economy, the demand for the dissolution of the forcibly created collective farms, but don't we hear this in your platform, in the platform of three? What did you say in it? "We are not against collective farms," you said bashfully at the time, "but we must dissolve the extra state farms and, in any case, prevent forced collectivization, or at least cancel all measures that lead to forced collectivization." Remember all this, remember your demand for the abolition of emergency measures against the kulak, but as the question was then - either we will defeat the kulak and get bread for the workers, or the kulak will prevail over us. You want to present your platform with an episode. The Ryutin platform is exactly what followed from all your requirements. Of course, there is something new in the Ryutin platform. It `s that,
You, Bukharin and Rykov, put your hand in your negotiations with Kamenev, you and Kamenev negotiated a bloc. The Ryutin platform later, in 1932, formalized that it was necessary to unite all forces, that it was not a question of the differences between Trotsky and Bukharin, but a matter of the struggle against Stalin. Grab it now and read the flyer you distributed. Read it now and you will see that the description you gave in your conversation with Kamenev of the party regime, the state of the party, the state of the Soviet state, it is completely embedded in Ryutin's platform, repeating it word for word. Didn't you say at the Politburo meeting regarding the discussion of Pyatakov's statement that we have a prison in our party, a casemate. Are these not the words that are written in the Ryutin platform?
I affirm that Bukharin, if he does not evade the answer, will not get away from the fact that ideologically, theoretically, politically, essentially slogans, according to its program the Ryutin platform is entirely based on your positions, starting from 1928 with some growth and modification as your struggle with the party grows. Why didn't you say a word about it? What do you think we are children? We are gathered here to discuss who met where, on which street, through which gates did they pass, in what car? We are interested in politics. Why don't you touch on these issues on the merits? Because you cannot refute the fact that this is your platform, you created it, you organized terror, you and Kamenev offered Zinoviev the bloc that you got from 1928 until 1936, a bloc of an unquestionably fascist order. Because,
You want to portray this as a naive episodic mistake - "I made a mistake by accident, I fought the party against Trotskyism for two years, and then I accidentally left." But no, you can't move here. This was not an episode. Rather, the episode was a couple of years when you fought against Trotskyism together with the party. And if this couple of years is thrown away, then see what you have left? Your struggle with the party both on the question of nationality policy and on the question of trade unions, on the question of the state, on the question of defeatism, on the question of the party program, on the question of capitalism and imperialism, then skip over the few years that you fought against Trotsky, it turns out that this couple of years of struggle with Trotsky is only an episode. (Postyshev. Moreover, they regret this episode.) Of course, they do.
The fact that they fought against Trotsky and went along with the party was an episode, with mistakes, with such slogans as "enrich yourself", which the Central Committee condemned, and so on. And there they wagged, but nevertheless they fought together with the party, and went along with the party in the struggle against the Trotskyists. And after that the anti-Leninist policy began again and the struggle against the Leninist-Stalinist committee of our party. (Voices from the seats. That's right.) In order not to be unfounded, let me cite some facts here. After all, comrades, we are extremely interested in the question. There is evidence, and in addition to evidence, there are objective facts. After all, it is impossible, Bukharin still considers himself a Marxist, he must understand that there are some objective indicators, and now let's turn to these objective indicators, to these objective facts.
How did Bukharin and Rykov fight for the party after they made their statement, after they admitted their mistakes? What actions did they take, what facts were there to refute the testimony? I assert that they do not have such facts, but we have facts, objective facts to prove that all the testimonies are correct. These are the facts. First of all, facts of an organizational nature. 1931, I no longer take 1929, he negotiated with Kamenev. 1931 - Kamenev is in talks with Rykov: everyone must get together, discuss the situation. Rykov did not say a word to the Party about this, and only six years later Rykov said about it, threw us a dice - you see, I am frank, I might not say, but I did. 1932 Tomsky meets Zinoviev with open arms at the People's Commissariat for Education. Zinoviev is negotiating in his office at the People's Commissariat for Education that the country is in a difficult situation,
To end this, allow me a small digression. Bukharin declares: "I was not at the conference of the Slepkovites, but I was under the Ryutin platform." I want to cite some facts to show that this is a tactic. In 1928, when the Thälmann case was discussed in the Comintern, where he was entangled, he left. There is no Bukharin. 1930, XVI Party Congress, where the results of the struggle were summed up. Bukharin is gone. (Postyshev. Yes, yes.) What do you think, we have forgotten that you were not at the 16th Party Congress, and you and the leader, you are undoubtedly the leader, how did you leave Tomsky to get rid of jokes, jokes? You left Rykov, who on occasion maybe a word and swallow, but they themselves fled to the Crimea, lived during the XVI Congress in the Crimea. In 1932 - a conference of the Slepkovites, Bukharin prepared it. (Bukharin. How do you know this?) According to the testimony. But Bukharin himself is not. Is it a coincidence that Bukharin was not there at that time? Tell anyone, but we still have some experience and understand what this means, and now you want to cling to Zaitsev's slip of the tongue. The main reason. Zaitsev said: Bukharin presided over our conference, but I don't remember whether he was at this conference or not. Ryutinskaya platform. Discussion of the Ryutin platform at the plenum of the Central Committee. Where is Bukharin? Bukharin is not there, he was somewhere. (Postyshev. I climbed the mountains.) Yes, yes.
1936 - the trial of the Zinovievites-Trotskyists. Editor of Izvestia, the central organ of the government, where was he at that time? Was he by chance outside Moscow, somewhere in the Pamirs? Either he is attracted there by the Shiite gods, but in any case, away from Moscow, so as not to be summoned, and if he is summoned, then we can say that he was flying in an airplane, the airplane broke down, was on the train - one can refer to the crash. You see, I was not at the discussion of the Ryutin platform. He, such a poor man, came from the Pamirs and was forced to take advantage of Rykov's information about the discussion of the Ryutin platform at the plenum of the Central Committee. After that, he writes his own note. This is a tactic, comrades. This is a cowardly, cunning tactic. This is a scout tactic, a tactic of struggle with the aim of covering up the tracks.
1932 year. Meeting at Tomsky's dacha, where the platform is read. You will notice how Rykov spoke here, trying to pass himself off as a naive person. Look how he portrays this meeting: he was at the dacha in a drunken shop, I was called to another room. And in the testimony he let slip that they had read this very platform. Here he declares: I was told that I need to read the factory document. Found weirdos who believe such fables. They said they found a leaflet at the factory, you need to read it. It is quite clear that you read this platform at Tomsky's dacha. The plenum was in October, the meeting at Tomsky's dacha was in August. You read this Ryutin platform before the plenum of the Central Committee, you not only read it, you edited it, gave instructions. Schmidt's testimony says: “Rykov said that there are painfully open restoration sites, Tomsky said - it can be smoothed out later, but the second part is very good, strong, terrorist. " They needed a platform that could unite all forces against the party, against the Soviet state. But Bukharin, one of the main leaders, was absent. They say, let there be no leader, even if he is in the Pamirs at this time, and we can take some part, we can fail Ryutin if something happens, but he will not give us away.
1932 year. The case of Eismont, Tolmachev and others. The case to which Tomsky and Rykov were directly related. And note, after the case of Ryutin and Smirnov and during the discussion of the Ryutin platform, Tomsk and Bukharin were not there. Tomsky and Schmidt left for Nalchik to hunt, Bukharin was not there either. They left Rykov alone - let Rykov cover up his tracks and say with indignation that the platform is ugly, the White Guard platform, let one lie for all of us. 1932 year. Kamenev and Zinoviev are regulars at Tomsky, they meet with him very often. This can be seen from the testimony.
1934 year. Meeting Tomsky - Zinoviev at Tomsky's dacha. Tomsky's advice to Rykov - to go or not. I spoke about this at the last plenum of the Central Committee and characterized it as a council of two leaders of one organization. It certainly was. You can easily imagine what Tomsky and Zinoviev talked about at the dacha. Rykov can portray the meeting at Tomsky's dacha as some kind of completely innocent philistine meeting, he will not deceive anyone with this. But, by the way, he himself scoffed when discussing the Eismont-Smirnov case, when they tried to portray their conversations as innocent and philistine, he himself scoffed at this and said: of course, if two party members get together, they are not getting together for that , to have philistine conversations, and conduct political conversations. And now Rykov tells us that there were philistine conversations going on there.
1935 year. Rykov maintains contact with Tomsky, he was at his apartment, was at his dacha. In 1936 Tomsky and Rykov get together and Tomsky tells Rykov that he was summoned to the Central Committee, that the situation is such and such, that appropriate measures must be taken. Of course, they consulted, of course. And this is called "loyalty"!
How did they work? How Tomsky worked in Vsekhimprom, we know how Tomsky worked in OGIZ, we now know - this is a cesspool, how Rykov worked in the People's Commissariat of Communications - this was reported here and in this we will figure out how Bukharin worked and how did Bukharin show himself? (A voice from his seat. A double-dealing man.) In addition to these actions, Bukharin had a number of speeches, beginning with his work at the People's Commissariat for Heavy Industry, where he, in one way or another, always tried to contribute something. There was a controversy - I will not talk in detail here - about the understanding of reconstruction, where he characterized the reconstruction of our economy, not saying a word about classes, about a kulak, about politics, but characterized the reconstruction only from the point of view of technology - a new technician, engineer was found - he had gone from politics so much that he spoke only from the point of view of technology, did not want to touch politics.
At the 17th All-Union Conference, where he spoke, the only flaw he found in our life was the poor performance of laboratories. You remember the speech he gave was double-dealing, the only flaw is the laboratories. And now it is revealed to us that back in 1932 he fought with the party, that he had disagreements about incentives in agriculture. We are Marxists, we understand in economics what it means: stimulus? Wasn't all your controversy over the question of incentive? Either the incentive is capitalist or socialist. You fought for an incentive to free trade and the possibility of developing a kulak economy. This was the starting point of your struggle against collectivization, against socialist industrialization, you fought for your incentive. And on this little question of incentive, he was at odds in 1931-1932. And at the all-Union conference, if you take his speech in 1932, you will see that at this conference he spoke in a double-dealing manner: "I," he says, "for the party, the only negative I found was the laboratories." And at the same time he was stuffing bombs in his terrorist laboratory in order to commit terrorist acts against the leaders of the party. (Voices from the seats. Right.)
Finally, take you his articles. Here already Comrade Molotov gave a description of one article, I could say that he came out with an article on November 7, 1935, in which he summed up the results - "The Revolutionary Year and Our Enemies." There is a lot of confusion in this article, a lot of mistakes and on the question of the characteristics of the middle peasant - the middle peasant, he says, ceases to be a force of hesitation. This is when our collective farms have already developed with might and main. He does not say that mechanical engineering is the heart of our economy, ferrous metallurgy is everything in its own way. He does not say that heavy industry is the foundation of our economy, he says: we have created a heavy foundation. He had an article about the elections, for which we in the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee examined him quite thoroughly, where he declares that the Seventh Congress of Soviets will be the first congress when collectivization has already won or won, whereas at the Sixth Congress of Soviets we summed up these results when our collectivization was already on solid feet. He had a lot of confusion regarding the understanding of our state. Finally, take the issue of Izvestia dated November 7, 1935. I have already said that about this issue, Comrade Stalin wrote a special note in which he analyzed in great detail the shortcomings and gross errors.
I must say that Nikolai Morozov's article is published here, neither to the village nor to the city from the point of view of the holiday, but now it stands in a different light. "Nikolai Morozov at Marx," where he depicts that Marx approved of the activities of the People's Will, including terrorist ones. And two lines later, he also tells how they prepared the terrorist act of 1881. Why is it in the issue of November 7 to bring an article by Nikolai Morozov? I, he says, wanted to popularize the old People's Will. No, excuse me, this is a signal to terrorists, Trotskyists and Zinovievites. This is no coincidence.
Take all these cartoons further. Look, the most interesting thing, I have to say, I just saw it today, maybe in a new light. Here is Bukharin's article "Some Results of the Revolutionary Year and Our Enemies" and there is such an illustration - I don't know what the newspapermen call it: the giant tower of Babel by the great Flemish artist Brekheim [So in the text. - Ed ], a huge unfinished pyramid, peoples who do not understand each other and are at war with each other, the legendary symbol of the uprising of anarchy and internal enmity. (Voice from the spot. Here is a bastard.) These are the results, you see, of the revolutionary year and our enemies. And here the tower of Babel is drawn and such an inscription is given. But what is this inscription, isn't it clear? The article itself consists entirely of quotes from fascist newspapers with some reservations.
Generally speaking, Bukharin for some time became a fan of citing fascist newspapers. (Stalin. Propaganda.) He quotes fascist newspapers and refutes them very weakly. And by the way, in the articles about which Comrade Molotov spoke today, which he tried to write about the Zinoviev-Trotskyist process, in these articles he also wrote such nonsense about the fascists that neither to the countryside nor to the city, we could not type. (Bukharin. You told me to publish it about the Nuremberg congress.) The work of the institute — I didn’t want to drag all this mass — of the USSR Academy of Sciences "In memory of V. I. Lenin" a huge thick collection, a collection dedicated to the tenth anniversary of his death. This collection contained a preface. This preface was not allowed, it was banned by the press department of the Central Committee, and something else was done. But this is the preface under the direct editing of Bukharin. (Bukharin. It was not me who wrote it.) Who wrote,
This is what is written here in this preface: "In our era of bourgeois reaction, the rule of fascism, racism and mysticism, the teachings of Lenin, etc." Allow me to characterize our era as the era of bourgeois reaction, the rule of fascism, racism and mysticism - but the era of the socialist revolution, the era of the victory of the proletarian dictatorship in one-sixth of the globe? Can our era be characterized as the era of bourgeois reaction, the rule of fascism, etc.? Is it written by chance in a scientific work? Is this slip of the tongue? Is this not a smuggling of the fundamental thesis of Radek-Bukharin, which Radek developed during the trial, that fascism is winning? (Bukharin. Lazar Moiseevich, I didn't even write it. What are you, really?) You were proud of this as your work. This is undoubtedly a reflection of the fact that Bukharin, like Radek, understood our era as the era of the domination of fascism. And consequently, fascism dominates, fascism is advancing, the era of the socialist proletarian revolution has passed into history, this era is no longer there, there is an era of the domination of fascism, and therefore it is necessary to submit to this fascism, it is necessary to agree with it. (Bukharin. What are you talking about, by God!) No, not "what are you talking about," but we must look for the roots of ideology, if you refute it with a bare generalization.
Comrades, I think that Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky, in all their ideology, in all their attitudes, since 1928, have inevitably sunk to what they are now. This is the logic of things, such is the logic of historical events. If you insist on your mistakes, if you mobilize forces, what forces will go with you? The forces of fascism, the forces of the enemy, the forces of terrorism, and you must lead them, whether you want it or not. (Voice from the seat. That's right.) Bukharin is given an interesting characterization by Kuzmin, his follower, who declares in his testimony: yes, he says, I am your enemy, here Comrade Molotov has already quoted this. After Kuzmin says about Bukharin: “I gave him the following characterization. In the same way, he did not know ... (Reads.) ... either take the power, or go hunting. " (Laughter.) This is his exact description. This is his student, but nevertheless it is characteristic, when a person doesn’t know, it’s either to take power, or to go hunting. It does not diminish the harm this person brings.
He was left and right. Where were they when the Syrtsov-Lominadze right-leftist bloc came to light? After all, Syrtsov was a close person to him, where were they? They did not fight, they sympathized with him. It was, as they say, a subsidiary. Bukharin sympathizes with both the Left and the Right, if only they fought against the Party, against the Central Committee, against Comrade Stalin. What Bukharin said is evident from the confrontation. Comrade Stalin asks Bukharin: "Under Lenin, during the Brest-Litovsk Peace, did you follow a course of aggravation or reconciliation?" Bukharin replies that I was then for reconciliation. Bukharin said that I believed that the Party would perish under Lenin's tactics, and I behaved very sharply. You know how he behaved sharply about the leadership of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, about the arrest of Lenin. (Bukharin. They know from me.) This is a fact that has been cited more than once in documents. (Bukharin. And you say the opposite.) Okay, they know from you that you wanted to arrest Lenin together with the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries and create a new government under the leadership of Pyatakov. (Bukharin. Not true, not true.) You yourself told that. (Voice from the place. He typed it himself.) You can finally cite his transcript and his own notes. We know that Bukharin fought bitterly.
He is also a cynic. This cynic can do anything and he did anything. He told me himself in 1927, I do not remember on what occasion, when I told him about Bogdanov that Lenin had dropped Bogdanov from the Central Committee. He said: “You know, you are a naive person. Bogdanov was a very capable, interesting, talented person, but Lenin did not like, did not tolerate talented people and kicked him out. " He can deny it, that he didn't say it, he said it. I told this here as an example of cynicism in relation to Lenin, to whom we treat sacredly. And Bukharin pursued this cynicism both in relation to the Central Committee and in relation to Comrade Stalin to the extent that he incited these scoundrels in order to march against the Party, in order to prepare an uprising, to go on terror, against the Party.
It's good that it all turned out to be a soap bubble. It is good that they all turned out to be miserable pawns, that they themselves ended up in the counter-revolutionary camp, that they headed the counter-revolutionary elements. It is good that the party won, it is good that the party has such a leadership, it is good that they appear before us in the role of miserable renegades - that is good. Nevertheless, we have shown the generosity of the victors for too long. (Voices from the seats. Right, right!) It's impossible, though. Well, one can and should be generous, especially since it is not so much about generosity as it is about a political approach. In this case, I must say that both the Central Committee and Comrade Stalin displayed great generosity towards Rykov, and towards Bukharin, and towards others. We, close workers, spoke several times, but Comrade Stalin always told us that we are too zealous in approaching the question,
Today, in 1936, we have the discovery of such vile cases, which we did not imagine. Until 1936 we had no idea to what extent both Zinoviev and Kamenev, whom we expelled from the Party several times, could slip, to which Pyatakov, Livshits and others could slip. To what extent they can slide, in 1936 we see it in a different light. That is why today, in my opinion, this generosity cannot be continued further. We must cleanse our party of these people, we must continue the investigation so that these people, who, although they do not have the strength behind them, but who can be enemies, we must do away with them in order to render ourselves harmless from these people. (Applause.)
Molotov. Comrades, there is a proposal to postpone the discussion until tomorrow at 12 noon. Any objections?
Voices from the field. No.
.jpg)
No comments