From the speech of Comrade Bukharin. February 26, 1937

Questions of history, 1993, No. 2, pp. 3-17

Andreev (presiding). The floor is given to Comrade Bukharin.

Bukharin.

Comrades, I must first of all say that I am passing by various attacks on me, which were largely personal in nature, which portrayed me either as a pea jester or as a refined hypocrite. I cannot dwell on the unworthy side of the speeches, and I think it is completely superfluous.

I will begin my speech with a few comments on Comrade Ikramov's last speech. The remarks are very short. Comrade Ikramov dwelt here for a long time on the issue of the so-called archive of the counter-revolutionary organization of the Right, although this pseudonym meant my personal archive. I criticized the very formulation of this question, because, as is clear from the testimony, the vast majority of documents there are official party and Comintern documents.

Comrade Ikramov subjected one of the documents to a very large analysis, but just not the one that was discussed in Tsetlin's testimony. In his testimony, Tsetlin spoke about the draft of our Comintern program, while Comrade Ikramov dwells on the draft theses on the current moment, about which there was not a single word in Tsetlin's testimony. (Noise, a lot of remarks. Voices from the seats. Again the same thing; again lawyer's tricks). These are not lawyer's tricks. Let me listen further. If there were theses on the current moment, if there was an initial draft that I introduced and which then underwent major changes under the influence of Comrade Stalin's guidelines, I see absolutely no reason to consider this draft counter-revolutionary. Second, I do not see anything vicious in the fact that this document was also stored in the archive,

What could be a stone in the bosom in the fact that the archive contains the draft of the initial edition, the draft submitted to our delegation, I do not know. It may, on the contrary, prove to be proof of my well-known political folly, if what was there is wrong, and vice versa, confirmation of the correctness of the instructions and amendments introduced by Comrade Stalin. What kind of a stone in the bosom is - it is impossible to understand. (Noise, many remarks.) And even more so, Comrade Ikramov expressed himself in such a way that this thing could be a stone in his bosom against the Soviet regime. After all, it reminds me that yesterday, among the many accusations of sabotage and terror, there was another point. It turns out that I am also to blame for the fact that young Kayurov in a drunken state killed his elderly father. (Voices from the field. Nonsense. Shkiryatov. You are essentially.) I am ready to be responsible for anything,

First of all, I want to dwell on the fact that here I was thrown a whole series of accusations of a special, cunning, refined method of influencing the party and the party leadership. Especially in connection with Comrade Voroshilov's speech, allow me to dwell on those questions that provide a certain coverage of all other questions. It is necessary to dwell on them, since Comrade Voroshilov paid great attention to them.

Comrade Mikoyan said that I, like Trotsky, bombarded the Politburo with letters, as if the Politburo had nothing else to do but read my letters. But Trotsky bombarded the Politburo with his letters in order to attack the Politburo. (Voices from the seats. And you too). I have not written a single letter to the Politburo during this time, which would set itself the goal of attacking him. (Voice from the place. And the last letter in connection with the hunger strike?) And the last letter related to the hunger strike - let me remain with a separate opinion. (Kosarev. And the letter to Voroshilov?) The letter to Voroshilov was written in an extremely nervous state. Only one phrase in it is odious, which I deeply regret, but in general it does not represent anything aggressive at all. I cannot write to anyone else. In the Politburo, when I write, they tell me that you are bombarding with letters.

I was told that I was using some clever maneuver that I was writing to the Politburo, then personally to Comrade Stalin in order to influence his kindness. (Stalin. I'm not complaining.) I am talking about this because this issue was raised, and then there are many reproaches or half-reproaches that I write to Stalin differently than in letters to the Politburo. But, comrades, I do not think that this was a solid reproach and that I can be suspected here of any special cunning. It is quite natural that when a person writes to an official party organ, he writes one at a time, and when he writes to Comrade Stalin as the highest authority in the country and in the party, he here expresses a number of hesitations, raises a number of questions, writes about what in the official document will not write. There is some difference here, some shade. And it seems to me that such a thing was established even under Lenin. When each of us wrote to Ilyich, he posed questions with which he did not enter the Politburo, he wrote to him about his doubts and vacillations, etc. And no one ever noticed this refined cunning. It's the same now: it's one thing to write to the Politburo, and another to Comrade Stalin. There is nothing reprehensible in the fact that they address and pose to Comrade Stalin a whole series of questions differently than in an official letter. I personally do not see anything reprehensible in this.

They tell me that I want to speculate on the kindness of Comrade Stalin. I think that Comrade Stalin is not the kind of person to speculate on his kindness. He will quickly see through any speculation. Therefore, it was in vain attributed to me as an additional negative trait. It seems to me that it is impossible for me to set such norms, which I seemed to feel in a number of speeches and speeches, that, they say, it is in vain that you write to the Politburo, write to individual members of the Politburo, here and there, etc. it is impossible, it is impossible to limit here in any way.

The second question, which is connected with a series of these questions, is the question of my alleged attack on the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs. So, I want to say that everyone who spoke decisively here, all the comrades who criticized me and attacked me with terrible harshness, they all proceed from the same thesis. This thesis says that the testimony of witnesses is the essence of the truth, the lie lies only in the fact that they do not finish speaking. This is the main thesis that was developed in all the speeches of the comrades who opposed me, who criticized my method of criticizing the testimony directed against me. I absolutely disagree with this thesis.

I must say here that there were facts of slander. I do not concern myself here personally, but these facts of slander were. I am not talking about myself, about Rykov, I am not talking about the complex of those people who are being spoken of here. But, I repeat, were there any facts of slander? I know that there were, it was published in Pravda, it said directly: "We are separating honest Soviet people, for whoever the Trotskyists tried to slander." (Mehlis. So it says about honest people.) About my honesty or dishonesty, Comrade Mehlis, you can have any opinion. I want to give a reasonable argument here, but you will not give me. Allow me to abuse your patience a little. I say: were there any facts of slander or not? This is a very important question. (Postyshev. There was no voice in relation to you. Voices from the localities. This applies to honest people. We are not discussing abstractly, we are discussing you. This is not an abstract conversation. It's about you.)

Wait. If there were facts of slander in general, then how can one put forward the thesis that these same people are engaged only in telling the truth and only sometimes do not finish speaking? So, it follows from this, from this extremely essential point ... (Lobov. Hence, it means that everything they say is not true.) This may be the case in the paper industry, but in my opinion, this is completely wrong. There may be cases of untruth, and a specific analysis is needed where the truth is and where the untruth is. (Postyshev. Bukharin, tell me how much slander is against you and how much truth?) Let me tell you, Comrade Postyshev. I have my own speech plan, let me follow it.

I personally do not take the point of view that in advance, a priori, the testimony is correct, and since I feel completely innocent in such and such matters, allow me not to defend this testimony, but to destroy it. The task of the defense is to destroy those statements that it considers to be incorrect. (Voice from the spot. It won't succeed, Nikolai Ivanovich). Is there a destruction of these testimonies by an attack on the NKVD? I believe that there is no attack on the NKVD in the destruction of this testimony, any testimony [no], because the NKVD is not the subject of testimony. He is not at all obliged to answer one hundred percent for testimony, he fishes out these testimonies, he receives these testimonies, he achieves these testimonies, he helps to formulate these testimonies, but he is not at all obliged to answer for the truth of each testimony. This is the material of the investigation,

Another, more complicated question: how to explain a whole series of indications, their large number, and everything else? I deliberately dwell on this in my note, repeatedly fired at by various comrades, in which I dwell on this issue in detail. Here I say the following: "A large amount of unified slander on the part of the right is explained by the following circumstances ..." on page 52, line 13.] Voices from the localities. We read it, read it. Stetsky. You all borrowed it from Trotsky. Trotsky wrote the same thing in the American press during the trial.) I don’t know what Trotsky wrote, I did it. wrote out from the protocols. I do not know who kindly provided Trotsky with the protocols, but I read them according to the protocols. Further, I do not know whether it was written by Trotsky or not, but after this very quotation, I am writing on my own behalf. I don't know, maybe Stetsky will say that Trotsky also wrote that, then Trotsky will not be in a particularly pleasant position.

I wrote: “Such and even more striking examples ... (Reads.) [In the text, Bukharin's note:“ Insert from page 52 of my letter. answer to the words: "In such cases, a person" (line 26 at the top on page 52) ".] ... those in prison probably think that they have been arrested again because of me." (Shvernik. You think badly of the people.) Yesterday Mezhlauk said that he would have torn me to pieces if Comrade Stalin had not held back. (Mezhlauk. I would have done it. Noise.) I’m just talking, I’m saying it myself. They reproach me that this is not so, and I refer to such a serious testimony as yours. (A voice from the seat. ... to remove the charge from you.) I am writing here that there is no legal data, which means that the charge has not been dropped. This was known. What do you say: "In such cases, a person ... (Reads.) [In the text, Bukharin's note:" Insert from page 52 of the "answer" to the 8th line above on page 53 of the "answer".] ... to the whole world. " (Kosarev. You say this for the transcript, you read all this, and not in order to justify yourself). Comrade Kosarev, I have nothing to read for the transcript, because it has already been printed. (Kosarev. We've read it all.)

Well, so can't I remind you? Are you protesting against this? I take an exact quote from what I have written in order to ask: is there an attack here? (Yezhov. Why do they slander themselves, answer this.) I understood this clearly, more or less, in connection with Comrade Molotov's speech yesterday, when Molotov said: “Well, if you would come and say that this is this and that, we would have helped you, we would have pulled you out of the trash heap ”. Imagine if a person is in such a position .. (Voice from the seat. In what position?) Listen, I put a comma here, and if you keep interrupting me, I will never finish reading to the next word. So, a person who is in such a position, when they tell him, if you admit that you have done this and that, then, perhaps, you will receive condescension, and do not admit, we will deal with such gentlemen. (A voice from a place. He did not say this. A voice from a place. You need to understand. Recognize what you did. Noise.)

Molotov. You have to understand that there were two trials of the Trotskyists, they admitted their guilt. You can believe these testimonies when they themselves showed themselves to be terrorists, saboteurs, and so on. and so on?

Bukharin. Can. (Mikoyan. Why?)

Molotov. If your logic is such that it follows from my speech that the confession of one's guilt is made only in some personal interests, how can you explain the behavior of the Trotskyists? We call you to what we called Pyatakov and others to. Why you, really ... more or less could the plenum expect this from you.

Bukharin. Vyacheslav Mikhailovich, I personally do not discredit the Trotskyist process. (Voice from the place. How can you not defame?)

Molotov. Your friends kept order, they also denied, then they said - rightly.

Bukharin. You can't say that. For some of the guilty first deny, then they admit, while some innocent people may not admit, deny, and then sometimes, out of various calculations, they also admit.

Mikoyan. Do you know Radek well, why he admits?

Bukharin. You see, Anastas Ivanovich, I thought that I knew Radek quite well, but I think now that I did not know him well enough. (A voice from a place. Twists.)

Molotov. Is what the Trotskyists showed plausible?

Bukharin. Of course.

Molotov. And what your students show is not believable.

Bukharin. No, what kind of Trotskyists?

Molotov. Radek, Sokolnikov, Livshits, etc. Bukharin. I am taking only one position here ...

Molotov. My question is not difficult to answer.

Bukharin. ... I answer: there is neither a solid norm, nor one or the other order. Here you need to approach differently in each individual case.

Molotov. In this case, the testimony of the Trotskyists is plausible.

Bukharin. What Trotskyists?

Molotov. Sokolnikov, Pyatakov, Radek.

Bukharin. Where they show against me, it is wrong. (Laughter, noise in the hall.) Why are you laughing, there is nothing funny here.

Molotov. Is their testimony plausible about themselves?

Bukharin. Plausible.

Molotov. Is it plausible about Astrov and others?

Bukharin. I said yesterday that I do not believe that Rosit is engaged in terror, that Tsetlin is engaged in terror - I do not believe. I don't know about Astrov.

Molotov. As you do not know, there was Astrov's testimony.

Bukharin. I'm talking about what he says in the testimony: there is both plausible and implausible.

Molotov. Although one right is showing credible in his testimony or is there no such right?

Bukharin. It is possible that it is. But let me tell you clearly. Why am I speaking so carefully? Because I'm not used to blaming other people just like that, stating that I think it is "plausible" that someone or that was doing terror. After all, this is almost an accusation. To do this, you need to have at least some data. And those people about whom Vyacheslav Mikhailovich asks ... (Voice from the place. The testimony that you read ...) ... I have not seen these people, as you know very well, since 1932.

Molotov. Have you seen Astrov?

Bukharin. I saw him at a confrontation. But I don’t know his evolution, the evolution of recent years, I don’t know the changes that could have happened to him and in him since I knew him and saw him. I affirm that I have lost touch with these people for several years.

Molotov. But do they show believable or not?

Bukharin. I can't say anything about them. Theoretically, nothing is out of the question. But I can’t say yes or no about people now unknown to me, because they are unfamiliar to me, I don’t know them anymore. I cannot solve one equation with many unknowns. If they continued to fight against the party, they could have gotten to anything. But what have I got to do with it?

Postyshev. Let me ask him one question. When Rykov read this Ryutin platform with unknown members of the Central Committee of trade unions, did he tell you about it?

Bukharin. No, he didn't tell me. (Voice from the place. You're lying.) You can say as much as you like - "you're lying."

Mikoyan. Is Rykov correct in saying about your note that there is no smoke without fire?

Bukharin. In general, there is no smoke without fire. (Laughter.)

Mikoyan. This is what we are talking about.

Bukharin. But here is another question: to what extent can my note be called smoke?

Mikoyan. Is Rykov correct or not?

Bukharin. What he says is his business. He says that Tomsky is to blame, this is his opinion. I do not know. I cannot say to a person, because he died, that he is to blame.

Postyshev. And you tell us about the living, Rykov is not dead, tell us about him.

Bukharin. I can only say the following about living people. Even if we do not take earlier years, then in 1935 and 1936. I have never seen either Rykov, or Tomsky, or Uglanov, who was not in the top three.

Molotov. The fourth cannot be included in the top three.

Bukharin. Vyacheslav Mikhailovich, you think that this witty expression is a refutation of me, and this is just a refutation of you. Because "troika" was then a popular term, and no one mentioned the word "center", so this troika was a troika.

Molotov. Do you think this is very witty?

Bukharin. I don't know, but at least I think it's convincing.

Khrushchev. And Tsetlin said that in essence you had a second Central Committee. (Bukharin is silent.) [In the text, Bukharin's note: "I did not hear Khrushchev's remark and therefore could not remain silent."

Shkiryatov. You say what you said at the beginning, you follow the same path.

Bukharin.How so? Here I am answering Comrade Voroshilov's speech and "at the beginning" I did not know what it would be. (Voice from the floor. Today you are acting as a lawyer for all the defendants.) If I say that I wanted to discredit the new composition of the People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs, then I must declare that I absolutely did not want to discredit him. (Lozovsky. You have written that demand gives rise to supply.) Demand gives rise to supply, which means that those who testify, they know what the general atmosphere is. (Laughter, there is a noise in the hall. Postyshev. What is the general atmosphere?) Tell me, please, you are asking about the leadership of the right movement, of course, they will point to me, Tomsky, Rykov, what's so surprising? (Chubar. Why aren't you showing yourself? Why didn't your students say that they created their center without Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky?) I don't understand. (Chubar. Why don't they point to the center without Rykov, Bukharin and Tomsky? Why did they not show that they had gathered at the conference and created their own center?) That means they didn’t create their own center, or maybe they didn’t want to show it. (Chubar. They didn’t create it, so they had their own counter-revolutionary center.) As for the “center,” I have a special paragraph, I wanted to tell you about it. There was a "troika" that existed half-open until 1930 inclusive, called the Bukharin group. Then there was the second period, which I want to talk about here. There were occasional encounters at this time, but they were not as intense as they were then. Then there was a period when it all came to a standstill. I wrote, I repeat, you can believe it or not. (Voice from the place. We do not believe.) But why do you want me to repeat in a different way what I said? Moreover, I must say that approximately in the first period when this "troika" actually existed, Schmidt stood completely on the sidelines. I remember that Tomsky was even afraid of this Schmidt; then, when the new convergence of Tomsky and Schmidt began (if there was any), I do not know at all. (Postyshev. He was afraid that he would betray.)

Now, comrades, further. Do I have some doubts about the apparatus of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs? There is, as, probably, each of you has. If Comrade Yezhov's theses say how many double agents have been discovered there ... (Voices from the localities. The agents are not an apparatus. They are not agents, but those who are already in prison.) I am talking about the composition of the apparatus. (Kosior. Do you have doubts about the testimony?) Maybe the agents, maybe the apparatus, have not completely cleaned up. May I write about this? I can write. Can this be considered an attack on the Central Committee? I do not think. And here, comrades, I wanted to touch upon one point that came across in speeches: the attack on the Central Committee. Mikhail Ivanovich Kalinin, it would seem, is a gentle person, he put an end to the "i".

The question can be posed as follows: outstanding members of the Party Central Committee are speaking at the plenum of the Central Committee, and you object to them, which means that you object to the Central Committee. (Kalinin. Thorns.) Can you object so? I think no, then you will come to the position that, generally speaking, you cannot defend yourself if Molotov, Kalinin, Voroshilov, etc. (Chubar. Kamenev and Zinoviev also used this methodology. Khrushchev. What kind of personnel did you talk about with Kulikov - about party cadres or counterrevolutionary cadres?) I'll tell you later. I have said this three times and, if you like, I will say it four times. Hence, it seems to me that this is also a wrong objection. I did not want to discredit anyone, but I defended myself and I defend myself as best I can, and I am obliged to defend myself, I think this is not only my personal duty, but also a party duty, because if I consider myself innocent, I must defend myself. (Postyshev.

There was one more remark which a number of comrades repeated; they said this: in connection with the fact that I was developing a detailed argumentation, which comrade Chubar wanted to characterize as casuistry, they say: this is not a tribunal; it would be different if there were a tribunal; and here we are weighing everything politically. To be honest, I don’t know, I cannot understand this position. What does it mean that there is no tribunal here? What is the reason for this statement? Isn't there a judgment about individual facts here? Wasn't a series of testimonies sent out? Actual evidence? Dispatched. Doesn't this factual testimony put pressure on the minds of the comrades, who are called upon to judge and draw conclusions? They crush. (Voice from the seat. This is not a tribunal, this is the Central Committee of the Party.) I know that this is the Central Committee of the Party, not the Revolutionary Tribunal. If there was a difference in the name, then it would be just a tautology. What's the difference? The question is the relationship between the Soviet and party institutions. The question is solved first in the party order in full detail, then it is carried out in the Soviet order. The first time they decide, too, weighing all the details, even sometimes petty ones, with full knowledge of the matter, and then the decision is made in the Soviet order. So, I believe that the same thing happened here. Is the question solved intuitively here? No, it is decided by weighing the facts. There is actually a party court here. that here the same thing happened. Is the question solved intuitively here? No, it is decided by weighing the facts. There is actually a party court here. that here the same thing happened. Is the question solved intuitively here? No, it is decided by weighing the facts. There is actually a party court here.

And if so, then I ask: how to refute the numerous facts that exist? I believe that these facts fall into two broad categories. The first category is about individual, one-on-one conversations, this is the first category. The second category is all other facts. But now, comrades, I just ask you to understand how to be here in general from the point of view of protection. If you have individual facts that speak of a private conversation, how can you refute them? There is nothing else but to tell a person: no. (Postyshev. You had whole meetings, tell me about the meetings.) Comrade. Postyshev, wait, my business will come to meetings. I have to answer a number of things that Kaganovich and Molotov spoke about. (Noise. A voice from a place. Regarding the rules. do not interfere.) If you do not need to listen, then I will not speak. (Stalin. Don't you want to talk?) No, I want to talk. So, but to the second facts. It requires a thorough analysis, comparison of facts, contradictions, the establishment of the fact that you at a given time in a given place could not be, etc. This is what I am doing .. Who objects to this? Comrade Chubar says - this is casuistry. (Chubar. Of course. Voice from the place. Speaks correctly. Budyonny. The Jesuits say so.) I don't know, Comrade Budyonny, maybe you are familiar with the history of the Jesuits ... (Budyonny. You are lying to your party. Postyshev. Tell me that you studied the Jesuits on them.) So, comrades, is this analysis necessary? Necessary. After all, this is the only way to refute the facts, right or not? I believe it is true. And for this you are conducting a very large shelling against me.

I will focus your attention on Comrade Kaganovich's speech. First, a question about Sokolnikov and Kulikov. Nobody stopped at Radek and Pyatakov, about whom I spoke in detail in my written reply. I believe that I have defeated the analysis of the testimony of Tsetlin, who was once closest to me. (Noise, laughter. Shkiryatov. Defeated ?! Postyshev. Directly nothing is left - only from you!) Good. But then why didn't anyone really talk about it? This is not the answer. (Kaganovich. We talked about your main argument that Tsetlin is offended at you, that you did not defend him.) But this is not at all my main argument. I have a comparison of facts, numerous chronological dates. And with this I refute every single statement of Tsetlin. (Molotov. Nothing of the kind. Your refutation is not worth a damn thing, because there are enough facts.) I would be grateful if someone said, no one spoke about this decisively, no one spoke about it. (Molotov. My God, my God! Everyone is talking about it in chorus. Petrovsky. Tsetlin has come to communist consciousness, and you want to discredit him. Kosior. As for communist consciousness, it's a questionable matter. Voice from the spot. Began to confess.)

I do not want to discredit Tsetlin, on the contrary, this was not in my thoughts, it does not enter into my thoughts in any way. I have given a number of comparisons on the composition of the center, on the Ryutin platform, on the Slepkov conference, on terror. This means that, especially in connection with the last topic and with the great role that Comrade Kaganovich assigned to Kulikov's testimony, I wanted to present an additional argument and say precisely what is said in connection with Kulikov's testimony in Matveyev's testimony. Matveev shows in the minutes of October 17 regarding the fall of 1932, regarding one meeting, which was held in the fall of 1932 at Uglanov's.

He declares (reads.): “Uglanov invited me home for a cup of tea. I went to Uglanov and found people with him. Uglanov said that the final defeat of the right had begun, that in the current situation the old methods of struggle against the party were no longer suitable and that it was necessary to switch to more active methods of struggle. Uglanov directly raised the question of the need for a transition to terror, and primarily against Stalin and Kaganovich; at the same time, Uglanov stressed several times that the main evil is in Stalin. I remember that Kulikov and someone else asked Uglanov whether this is his personal point of view or whether it comes from the "troika" (Bukh., Ryk., Tomsk.), Uglanov replied: "Whoever needs it, he knows" - this is literal expression of Uglanov ”(prot., p. 3).

Kaganovich. What did Uglanov answer?

Bukharin. I say that Uglanov answered: "Whoever needs it, he knows." Comrades, Kulikov asks Uglanov about the terrorist directive in the fall of 1932, and he himself, in his testimony against me, which is interpreted in different ways, says that in the spring of 1932 he received a directive from me. And supposedly the directive was in confirmation of the directive that he knew even earlier from Uglanov.

Kaganovich. Uglanov is not obliged to talk about Matveyev when he was with Kulikov. He could be with Kulikov in the spring, and with Matveyev in the fall. Matveev says that Kulikov was present.

Bukharin. Kulikov and someone else asked Uglanov! (Mikoyan. This is not a blatant contradiction, there is no contradiction here.) Maybe there is no contradiction. But this thing completely refutes the whole conversation of Kulikov about terror, which, according to him, refers to the spring of 1932. (A voice from a place. Why don't you stop at pets? A voice from a place. But Kulikov knew about it?).

Why did he ask Uglanov? (Chubar. For reinforcement. Yakir. In order to convince the people, it is necessary to refer to the fact that the authorities know that this is with their knowledge.) Kulikov knew that!

Mikoyan. Kulikov confirmed everything to you face to face, and you could not argue with him. Were there such things? After all, I remember, as now, the confrontation.

Bukharin. I did not deny that we spoke with Kulikov. I denied that there was any terrorist directive on my part. (Yakir. Why did you need the Kulikov thugs? Eikhe. Personnel, personnel. Postyshev. Here Kotov shows that Uglanov raised the question of Stalin's murder.)

The next question is about the "strongest" argument that was put forward against me: why are they showing themselves? I already answered this question some time ago. Regarding one part of them, we can say that, theoretically speaking, they could do anything, as long as they continued to struggle. Regarding the other, as I said here, I think this is unlikely. But I ask you to look closely at the following fact. Their situation is very difficult, and now, I think that since they are told that you are still exposed, that you are lying, that you are a hypocrite, then they can expect that if they admit something and say something against themselves, it will be better for them. This is in the case of slander. And where someone is really guilty and convicted, there is crushed by evidence, and the consciousness of his own guilt, and fear, that all the same everything will be revealed and then it will be even worse. (Kalygina. And the confrontation with Kulikov? After all, this is a provocation, slander.) I call this a guess when I speak about slandering ourselves; I say that this is a hypothesis, but I also say that I cannot fully answer the question; if I knew the rules of interrogation, all the questions of the accused, all their testimony, what was presented to them from other testimonies, and I knew the order of these testimonies, etc., I could and would be able to answer the whole question, but now I I can’t do it. (Voice from the place. Does Kuzmin show the truth or not? Kalygin. Slander?) all the questions of the accused, all their testimony, what was presented to them from other testimonies, and I would know the order of these testimonies, etc., I could and could answer the whole question, but now I cannot do that. (Voice from the place. Does Kuzmin show the truth or not? Kalygin. Slander?) all the questions of the accused, all their testimony, what was presented to them from other testimonies, and I would know the order of these testimonies, etc., I could and could answer the whole question, but now I cannot do that. (Voice from the place. Does Kuzmin show the truth or not? Kalygin. Slander?)

Now about the center. I must say that there was no center, except for the "troika" for the period before 1930. (Molotov. There were no protocols?) Yes, and there were no protocols, nothing at all. (Postyshev. So Uglanov and others are lying?)

Kaganovich. Why, when you arrived from the Pamirs and when you were informed about the Ryutin platform, you did not go to the Central Committee, but went to be informed to Rykov?

Bukharin. Then we met again. (Kaganovich. On the street?) No. Probably I came to him, or he came to me.

Kaganovich. Why didn't you come to the Central Committee when you returned from the Pamirs and said: "Comrades, I was not at the plenum of the Central Committee, inform me about everything that happened," but went to Rykov?

Bukharin. It was a time when communication between us did not stop. Yes, I learned about what happened "from Rykov." (Mikoyan. So the "troika" existed before 1932?) Doesn't mean at all. This does not follow from this fact, because the "troika" has already turned into a low-intensity and non-factional connection between people. (Mikoyan. A, the degree of intensity?) Yes, partly because things can either lead to the formation of some kind of conspiratorial organization, or, conversely, to its disappearance, that is, to unwind completely.

Kaganovich. Do you confirm your testimony at the confrontation that you fought the party back in 1932?

Bukharin. That's not what I said.

Kaganovich. No, that's right.

Bukharin. I will still get to Kulikov and I will tell you about it. (Postyshev. Turn, turn.)

Kaganovich. It has something to do with something else. (Shkiryatov. He is not telling the truth.)

Bukharin. Relative to the center. So I collected all the testimonies that were just sent to me, collected everything that was sent about the testimonies. Part of the testimony speaks of Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsk; others add Uglanov and then comes Kozelev's version, which includes Schmidt and Syrtsov. Then comes the Kotovsky version, which also includes Smirnov. (Voice from the seat. Where does Bukharin enter? In all variants? Noise, laughter.) No, not in all. You see, the fact is that ... (Akulinushkin. You'd better tell me who was in the center?) I have already said this. You say who was in all the options, and you demand that I tell the truth about all the options. But in reality, variants cannot all exist. The very existence of these numerous options undermines the version of the existence of this very "center" for a long time.

There are two more options. There is testimony from Kashin, which says that "from a whole series of conversations with Tomsky during the period from 1934 to 1936, I know that the leadership of the entire underground terrorist organization of the Right was headed by Tomsky, Syrtsov and Uglanov." And, finally, there is the Zaitsev version, this is a relatively "supercenter", which supposedly unites all the centers. So, I must say it again on this occasion: the troika stood out, and it was then called in the official party documents - the group of Comrade Bukharin. There were 3 people: me, Rykov, Tomsky. In fact, during the period of the struggle (until 1930) it was the leading troika. As for Uglanov, he was on the side of the heat, he rarely, but sometimes came. (Kaganovich. Uglanov was your side of the heat ?! Postyshev. Good heat! Kaganovich. Your main support. Polonsky. He also played a prominent role in the Moscow organization.)

This does not mean that Uglanov played a major role in the Moscow organization, but Polonsky should be better aware of this matter. (Polonsky. You are wrong to deny this.) But, as Vyacheslav Mikhailovich correctly noted, he was not a member of the troika. And then there was even such a terminology - "troika". (Voices from the localities. Molotov did not say this. Kaganovich. Three, seven, ace. Laughter.) Regarding Schmidt. During that period, Schmidt stood completely on the sidelines. About Smirnov. Smirnov was also completely aloof. (Molotov. Speak, but know the measure.) What is the point for me to lie, where did Smirnov enter? I know very well. (Budyonny. So tell us what you are well aware of, but what you are talking about, you do not know well.) Comrade. Budyonny, please wait. (Budyonny. You know very well about the Jesuits, tell us how you performed their role.) Thomas Smirnov said at the very beginning, having met me on the street in the Kremlin, so that I would not even speak at the plenum of the Central Committee. (Zhukov. Where did he meet you? Again on the street?) When he later contacted someone, I don't know, but Foma Smirnov was not in this "troika" either. Maybe he somehow got involved with Uglanov or somewhere else, but at that time Foma Smirnov was not there. From this I do not at all want to draw the conclusion and the conclusion that Foma Smirnov did not carry out any right work. I do not even want to say that he did not have his own people, any of his own organization or group, but he kept completely separate. but at that time there was no Foma Smirnov. From this I do not at all want to draw the conclusion and the conclusion that Foma Smirnov did not carry out any right work. I do not even want to say that he did not have his own people, any of his own organization or group, but he kept completely separate. but at that time there was no Foma Smirnov. From this I do not at all want to draw the conclusion and the conclusion that Foma Smirnov did not carry out any right work. I do not even want to say that he did not have his own people, any of his own organization or group, but he kept completely separate.

I repeat once again, you judge my activities not from the point of view of party history, but mainly from the point of view of the current moment, for which, of course, you need to know the party history and link the whole matter with it. But I tell you that since 1932 I have not seen Uglanov and, in my opinion, he was not in Moscow, so I could not see him. Rykov in 1935-1936. I have never seen. Tomsky in 1935-1936. I have never seen. Schmidt was last seen either in the summer of 1932 or in the summer of 1933.

If there is some organization that is engaged in something, which has a centralized management, etc., then how to explain this in terms of these facts? Or what I say is not true, then please prove that I saw Uglanov, I saw Tomsky, I saw Rykov, I saw Schmidt. This cannot be proved, because it did not happen. As for 1935-1936, this is the absolute truth. Well, they may say to me: maybe you have fornicated, but 1935 - 1936. from this they completely turn off. But they say about me that until very recently and now I am a Jesuit, a traitor, I am engaged in sabotage, set my sons against fathers, etc., etc. I consider this an unusually important fact for my defense. I ask you to think carefully about this story.

As for Uglanov, you all know that he was not in Moscow. (Mikoyan. He came to Moscow, was in Moscow two or three times.) Maybe, but I don't even know where he was at work. (Mikoyan. You do not know anything.) No, what I know, I tell, but what I don’t know, I cannot tell. Well, please prove that I saw him in Moscow. (Postyshev. You got in touch with them through Slepkov.) How could I get in touch with them through Slepkov, if Slepkov and Maretsky have been in prison since 1932? (Polonsky. You were connected with Radek.) But was Radek connected with Uglanov? (Noise in the hall. Andreev. I ask you not to disturb the speaker, otherwise he cannot speak.) I affirm that I had absolutely nothing to do with any theory of sabotage or a bloc with the Trotskyists. ...

Let me now dwell on some of the major speeches that have been given here. Comrade Molotov took on a very large section of a historical character, which was supposed to show how I had to inevitably slide down to the most counter-revolutionary lowlands. Everyone knows my party history, and I will not dwell on this for a long time. I will say that I did not only one bad thing. I did a number of good things, both during the October uprising, and before the October uprising and after it. So if ... (Molotov. Even Trotsky did something good, and now he is a fascist agent, he's gone!) Right, right. But I state the fact that otherwise the party would not have held me in very important responsible posts. I did good things for the party. (Molotov. Nobody disputes.)

My struggle with Lenin during the Brest Peace, a very hard, big and criminal struggle, is put in a very big minus to me. But the mistake after the Brest Peace, my mistake was quickly realized by me, and at the meeting of the Moscow Council, you know that I made a declaration. Then Vladimir Ilyich called me, and that was the end of the matter. You know that in the then group of "left communists" there was not only me alone, it included Valerian Kuibyshev, and Bubnov Andrey, and Osinsky, and Emelyan Yaroslavsky, who knows very well both the historical and practical path of the party ... (Yaroslavsky I did not take part in conspiracies against Lenin with you.) There were no conspiracies, but you were part of the "center." There was also a left wing in this group of "left communists". And you, Vyacheslav Mikhailovich, made a mistake when you attributed to me the thesis of the surrender of the proletarian dictatorship (war with the risk of losing the dictatorship). I objected to that, it was the extreme left wing in this group. (Molotov. I did not say that.) You said that even the thesis about the surrender of the proletarian dictatorship appeared. This was not just proclaimed by me, it was the thesis that was put forward by the Moscow Regional Bureau.

The second remark concerning the history of the party is the question of the "labor party" as a type of party, a question relating to 1923. But, Vyacheslav Mikhailovich, have you read this notorious document, which was then called a "memorandum?" Some members of the Politburo seem to have read it. So after all, it was said in the same place as some kind of conjectural hypothesis - "Couldn't we have such a state of affairs"? But there was no directive, no preaching. Did not have. It was a period when everyone liked to theorize very often on a variety of things, and this theorizing was admitted to practical and topical issues. (Molotov. Come on, either theorizing or the prostitution of a theory.) Well, let it be a prostitution of a theory, I am not advocating that it was some kind of valuable thought. (Kalinin. It turns out that you are defending. ) I do not know, I only explain what happened, and this is what I say. This was a certain hypothetical formulation of the question. True, the very formulation of this question was harmful, I agree, because the very formulation of the question suggests a certain idea. But one must distinguish between a certain line, which is given, and a certain abstract theoretical formulation of the question. (Kaganovich. Your entire subsequent line in relation to the party shows that this is not an accidental theorizing, but deep roots.)

Anything can be. But my further attitude suggests something else. For example, you know that I had a lot of sharp speeches during the struggle against Trotskyism. This is a fact, no one will erase this from party history. There I, together with all the comrades, very sharply and ardently defended the idea of ​​the monolithic nature of the party, smashed Trotsky and the Trotskyists. Everyone remembers this. (Kaganovich. How many years did it last?) Well, four years. (Kaganovich. Less than four.) Well, maybe I don't know. After all, I have been a member of the party since 1906. As is known, the questions of the composition of the party, its party ranks and structure, arose from the founding of the Bolshevik party as a trend. (Molotov. Kamenev was in the party before you, and to what extent he has sunk.) True, but I'm not talking about that. I say that if you count the years that I have defended the party position, then the number of these years is considerable. (Stalin. Few will come out. ) Not particularly. (Voices from localities. Few, few.).

Then Vyacheslav Mikhailovich, when he quoted here the very vile platform of Kuzmin, about which I heard for the first time, then I treat it with the same indignation as he does, Vyacheslav Mikhailovich. (Yezhov. Your student. Molotov. Not only Kuzmin, but Slepkov as well.) And Slepkov. This is an outrageous platform. What do you think, that I do not understand that this platform deserves not only condemnation, but the devil knows what? I am protesting, however, here against one thing, I have never, in spite of what is deliberately carried out in all the testimony, was not close to Kuzmin. Kuzmin was never my closest student. (Voice from the place. But drew your line?) Yes, wrong. He had his own, although he was part of a group of young people, I don’t deny it. (Voice from the place. He came to the Institute of Professorship with documents from you.) There were different people. I assure you, that I know this composition better than yours. I say about another, that Kuzmin was the most distant, and not at all the closest person, he did not live in Moscow. There is a certain political fact: Kuzmin refused for a long time to shake hands with me, because he believed that I had completely changed. (Stalin. Is Slepkov close?) Slepkov was very close in the past. I do not want to say that Slepkov was not close to me then only because he now wrote this vile platform; now they are all thousands of kilometers away from me, but I say that in all the testimonies it appears that Kuzmin is one of my close people. I dispute this, I say it is wrong. Kuzmin figures on the most acute facts, it is important for me to dispute this, because I defend myself, I must defend myself. (Molotov. Slepkov from the youth?) Different people entered in different ways. (Voroshilov. How to figure it out, different people entered in different ways. They were all united into one group under your direct leadership, ideological, practical and organizational, and you are a nonsense organizer.) That's right. But there is a dismemberment within it. (Voroshilov. This is your business.) This is my business, I am not saying that this is your business, I am not attributing Kuzmin to you, but I am saying that he was one of the most distant ... .), and not one of your loved ones.

Comrade Molotov says that when I speak or write a note, I want to give a signal to Tsetlin, but how can I do this? I sent you a copy, what am I copying and sending? (Molotov. The devil knows what you are doing, everything can be expected from you.) If it is generally said that I stabbed my mother, because the devil knows what, that is not an argument. (Molotov. The point is in your line of behavior.) As for the last few years, I have brought up one argument, please break it down. (Voroshilov. During these two years you worked alone. Take the issue of Izvestia from the 7th and take a good look.) Of course, I was engaged in "sabotage"? Well, okay, I was engaged in sabotage. As soon as it is not ashamed to tell you, comrades.

Comrade Mezhlauk was offended by the fact that I said that he was a member of the group, he denies, says that he was not a member, says that he was a member of the group created by the Central Committee, this group included many. Comrade Mezhlauk stands on the point of view of the veracity of not all testimonies. However, Levina points at him. It is directly written there. What do you say, what is wrongly written? (Mezhlauk. You pathetic liar.) Or is there evidence that is wrong? (Mezhlauk. He did not work in your school in 1921 and 1922, but in 1926 and 1927 - in the fight against Trotskyism, where he was sent by the Central Committee.) You spent the night with Slepkov in the same bed. (Mezhlauk. Scoundrel, scoundrel! On what bed and where, pitiful liar?) You can, of course, be indecent to swear and get angry, but the fact remains. He compromises you very little, because it was a completely different time.

I do not agree with the conclusions made here by Comrade Kaganovich, who spoke about Kulikov. Regarding Sokolnikov, I disagree here's why. How does this relate to 1932? The main focus of his testimony was the recent connection between the Right and the Trotskyist Left. His first testimony was based on this. (Yezhov. Comrade Kaganovich read the documents, why are you bypassing the documents?) I am quoting Sokolnikov's speech as it was published in Pravda, I have nothing else. And there it was said about the bloc with the right, at the very end, where it is about the connection with the right center and about the organization of the right. Concerning Kulikov. I remember Kulikov's testimony very well. Lazar Moiseevich quoted the document here. This document sounds like an indication. I did not sign, read or check this document. But I remember very well that it was about Kaganovich and nothing was said about Stalin. (Kaganovich. Nothing of the kind.) For me, what you say is not at all convincing.

Kaganovich. How not convincing when it's all written down? All the members of the Politburo were present, the stenographers were taking notes, but he said not convincingly.

Bukharin. In my entry on the right, it was written in large letters about Kaganovich, and nothing was written about Stalin. (Voice from the place. You never know what has been recorded and what has not been recorded.) This is not in my recording, but I trust my recording more than others.

Kaganovich. Here he declares that he has a memory gap, that he has a terrible nervous shock, etc. And here he says that for him all this is not convincing. Seven members of the Politburo were present at this, there is a stenographer's record, and he does not believe all this, but believes his record.

Bukharin.And I answer you: what you read about me, you say, is written down, but there is written down meaningless rubbish, in which nothing can be understood. (Noise, excitement.) Then Comrade Kaganovich drew against me one conclusion of absolutely exceptional sharpness, superhuman sharpness. He cited here again the testimony of Kulikov. Kulikov talked about the fact that he was in my apartment at the beginning of the Right Opposition, I did not know what to do, and sometimes cried. Comrade Kaganovich turns this cry into crying on the street in the spring of 1932, and on this occasion makes the following conclusion: what was Bukharin crying about? He wept because he, you see, relished all the consequences of the terrorist acts. (Kaganovich. You said so yourself.) What nonsense! I answer you, Lazar Moiseevich, that it was a completely different cry.

Kaganovich. You can take an undeciphered transcript, submit it to any examination, and it will establish.

Bukharin. To this I answered you, Comrade Kaganovich, you asked me not to criticize you on the basis of the uncorrected transcript, and you, as artillery, take against me a completely corrected transcript. Yesterday there were places where it was impossible to understand anything. You spoke about the Academy of Sciences, stopped there at the preface to one collection, attributed this preface to me, and in this collection, if you like, there are two editors - myself and Deborin. The preface, in my opinion, was written by Deborin, maybe someone else, then it was appealed by Adoratsky or someone else, after that there was a replacement, because there were unsuccessful phrases. In your opinion, this preface is bad, but the content of the entire collection, is it also fascist? The same is not possible. When I gave you a reply, why didn't you tell me then ...

Stalin. There is a note, read it aloud. (He gives Bukharin a note.)

Bukharin.“I testify that the preface to the collection“ Vladimir Ilyich Lenin ”of the Academy of Sciences, beginning with the words ... was written by Bukharin himself. This can be confirmed besides me by such and such ... (Voices from the localities. Who? Read the names.) The publisher Chagin, Valerianov and the representative of the Leningrad Goslit ... (Voices from the localities. Who writes?) Chagin writes. (A voice from a place. Explain this note. Noise, excitement. A voice from a place. There is a manuscript. A voice from a place. He does not want to read. He looks like a ram at the new gate.) I don't see anything else. (Voice from the place. You said you didn't write?) I remember that it was not me who wrote this preface, Deborin wrote, (Laughter.) Well, okay. However, even if I were confused and mistaken here, does the content of the collection remain? Does one bad phrase really solve everything? (Postyshev. How they are catching you.) Maybe I'm mistaken, we'll get this manuscript. Or, perhaps, Chagin confused. We had several collections: there was a collection in memory of Marx, there was a collection in memory of Lenin, there was a collection in memory of Engels. I wrote the foreword to the collection in memory of Marx - I probably remember that. (Kaganovich. We are talking about this collection.)

I think that there is probably a confusion here, because I wrote the first preface. Here is Comrade Adoratsky, do you remember who wrote the second preface? (Adoratsky. No.) I believe that I did not write the second preface, let's check it out, because Chagin may have a mistake, he could have been confused. (Laughter. Stetsky. And the first collection was also delayed.) Good, good. With you, Comrade Stetsky, it always happens that you first detain, then control, and then bear no responsibility. It was the same with a number of articles, I can prove it. (Kaganovich. It also indicates exactly which preface and with what words it begins.) That's right, but I'm saying that, perhaps, Chagin confused the first preface with the others. (Voice from the place. Everyone is confused, except you.) I said why I am talking about it. Because when Adoratsky appealed against this preface, Then I talked about this at Deborin's request with the same Adoratsky or Krzhizhanovsky that Abram Moiseevich had requested. I remember that perfectly. Maybe he wrote, or maybe me. Only I believe that it is more likely that Chagin confused the two collections here. This is not a big fact, you can check everything. However, in the end, this question is not that important. (Stetsky. The point is not in the collection, but in the counter-revolutionary group that you had at the Academy of Sciences.)

As for the counter-revolutionary group, okay, I'll tell you. Of those who were arrested at the Academy of Sciences, whom I know, the largest person in a responsible position was, in my opinion, the secretary of the faction of academicians Pechersky in his party position, who was sent by Stetsky as the main person who was supposed to be in charge of everything. faction of the Academy of Sciences. He was specially sent for supervision, he wanted to form a bureau of the faction and deliberately pretended to be Gog and Magog, until everyone saw that he was an insignificant person in terms of his content. This is the first one, because the secretary of the faction of the Academy of Sciences is a large person, and he was deliberately sent or sent by Comrade Alexei Ivanovich Stetsky. (Stetsky. Tell us about your group.) And whether Pechersky was a member of your group, I do not know, and I was not interested in this.

Second. The second was the head of the personnel department ... (Voice from the spot. The second is worse than the first.) ... Busygin. Busygin was at the Academy of Sciences long before I came there. I was introduced to Busygin by Volynsky, the then manager of the Academy of Sciences, an old Chekist. Volynsky Busygin was settled in the hostel of the Academy of Sciences, where we all stayed. Busygin was constantly attending the Leningrad government offices. Here is the second of those arrested. Then who else was there? Uranovsky. Uranovsky was in the biological group, was the editor, in my opinion, of the journal "Nature", he was never in any connection with me. This is Uranovsky.

What concerns me and what concerns me to one degree or another? I'll tell you what concerns me. At our institute for the history of science and technology, we needed a person who would know philosophy and at the same time would be engaged in technology. When I once read a report in Baku, in the Baku branch of the Academy of Sciences, a certain Garber was the head, the head of this branch. (Stetsky. Trotskyist.) I did not know that he was a Trotskyist, but he was the head of a branch of the Academy of Sciences. He asked me if he could study the history of technology. I was very happy that there is such a person. I received a special telegram, I even brought this telegram to the confrontation, but it got lost somewhere. They asked me to talk to Comrade Beria or Bagirov regarding this very Garber. He was sent from there, went through Stetsky's approval, through the Cultprop Central Committee. (Stetsky. Tell me, As you discussed with Radek about this group, they said they were your pistols.) You did not read Radek's testimony well. "Pistols" - this is about Mrachkovsky. (Bagirov. The reply was not caught.) This is true. I cannot assure you that I ... (Bagirov. But then why do you ascribe to Stetsky? You took him. He arranged Trotskyite-White Guard work for you in Baku, and then you took him.) I saw him for the first time in your life. , and you had him as the head of your entire branch of the Academy of Sciences. If he held such a position with you, I say, could I have any a priori mistrust of him? (Bagirov. Here is Radek talking about this.) I tell what I know, not what others know. If you want Radek to tell you, let Radek tell you. I told you; who you believe is another matter. By the way, I did not read about Garber from Radek.

The second case is with Vasiliev, who was not appointed to the institute by me, but spent his time at the Ioffe institute. I knew he had an oppositional past. But Vasiliev was the only person who knew natural science well, the history of natural science and at the same time was engaged in Marxist philosophy. And since the institute needed such a person, I pounced on him and took. There were special reasons why I could take him there. Because there were comrades at the Ioffe Institute who had a special secret service, and therefore the supervision there was especially strong. I thought that the risk there would not be particularly great. That's all. And what Radek tells, he tells a lot, I am not obliged to believe everything. (Stetsky. How does he know about your institute, that it consists entirely of counter-revolutionaries.) Yes, not the whole institute. (Stetsky.

I still asked Kaganovich one question: well, well, why did I agitate Pavlov? (Kaganovich. Who knows what you campaigned there. Voice from the spot. We all know who campaigned him.) Well, okay, I won't talk about it. Molotov, do you know? (Molotov. I know you didn’t do anything good there.) Well, this is the height of “impartiality,” I can’t say anything else. I wanted to say what Lazar Moiseevich said about the Ryutin platform. Kaganovich spoke about the Ryutin platform as follows: well, Bukharin says, who wrote, various combinations, casuistry, etc .; tell me the essence of the matter. By the essence of the matter, as I understand it, Comrade Kaganovich meant the political essence of the restoration-capitalist tendencies and an acute form of struggle. But I, comrades, must say that to the political essence of the Ryutin platform, since I am aware of it, I have always had the most negative attitude. (Kaganovich. How to say.) Not how to say, but such a negative attitude as to a vile counter-revolutionary document.

Here we use this kind of technique when it is indicated that some of the constituent parts are similar to the ideas of the Right. Yes, of course, there are ideas similar to those previously defended by the right. Right. But, comrades, the most basic Marxist requirement is to consider things historically .. Everything flows. (Shkiryatov. This is true, it flows.) If in the Ryutin platform there were some ideas of the right-wingers, which I gave up a long time ago, then how can they be imposed on me? If it is about the evolution of these right-wing ideas to the right, while I went to the left in my evolution, then how can we talk about the affinity of the being and so on? I'm not even talking about a certain period of development, when I defended both ideologically and practically a certain, very harmful group, but I say that I left it a long time ago in the direction of the party and ardently defended the party line. You may not believe me, do not believe me. I am talking about what is organically connected with my whole being. Therefore, one cannot make such a conclusion that if there are similar moments there, then the platform is yours. (Kaganovich. And since Tomsky and Rykov discussed this platform, and Rykov later had a judgment with Bukharin after the plenum of the Central Committee ...) The fact remains that neither Rykov nor Tomsky told me that they had read Ryutin's platform. How can this be explained? Maybe the fact that, as it was said about me here, my tongue is chatty. But this is a definite absolutely fact. Comrade Kaganovich says that I didn’t do anything positively at the NKTP and when I was at Izvestia. (Kaganovich. Tell us about your doubts about incentives in 1932 and about your speech at the 17th Party Conference on the laboratory.) I spoke in detail about incentives,

Comrade Mikoyan put the question in such a way that if you admit that in 1932 the question of incentives was not clear to you, then, consequently, you remained in the old position. I objected to that. I formulate: the question of incentives in agriculture was unclear to me. (Gamarnik. This means to be against the collectivization of agriculture. Voice from the spot. Not to see the driving forces of socialism.) Because different tasks were set, different tasks were solved, the defeat of the kulak, the unification of farms, organizational strengthening, this is also part of the growth of collectivization. And then I said that a whole series of questions about industrialization, about collectivization, total collectivization, the elimination of the kulak were clear to me, I completely accepted them completely. And these critical questions were completely clear to me. (Stetsky. And your article in 1934, what is this?)

With regard to the laboratory (Kaganovich's question), the explanation is very simple. I spoke about the laboratory because I was specifically involved in this matter, it was a kind of my service. I had to reflect at the conference what I was practically working on then. You see, even now Comrade Kaganovich accuses me of not saying anything about practical work. (Molotov. Don't bother Comrade Bukharin from talking. He's been talking for an hour and a half.) Good. I will go to meet you. I wanted to say this, comrades: extremely grave accusations have been brought against me. I assure you that I will be everywhere and everywhere, under any circumstances, be that as it may, under any circumstances to deny my guilt, because I really did not commit anything of those crimes that are imposed on me by false witnesses. ...

My sins before the party were very grave. My sins were especially grave during the period of the decisive offensive of socialism, when, in fact, our group turned out to be a huge brake and caused very severe damage in this socialist offensive. I admitted these sins: I admitted that from 1930 to 1932 I had big tails, I realized them. But I, with the same force as I admit my real guilt, with the same force deny the guilt that is being imposed on me, and I will always deny it, and not because it has only a personal meaning, but also because I believe that it is impossible under any circumstances to take on something superfluous, especially when the party does not need it, the country does not need it, I personally do not need it. (Noise in the hall, laughter.)

Despite the fact that I cannot explain a number of things, fair questions that are asked, I cannot fully or even half-explain a number of questions about the behavior of people pointing at me. But this circumstance, that I cannot explain everything, in my eyes does not serve as an argument for my guilt. I repeat, a lot of guilt was on my side, but with all the strength of my soul I protest against the accusations of such things as treason, sabotage, terror, etc., because any person who would be endowed with such qualities would be my mortal enemy ... I am ready to do whatever I want with respect to such a person. (Noise, voices. Peters. You yourself wrote). no movement of the soul, no tears. (Laughter.) A whole series of human manifestations that used to be proof, and there was nothing wrong with that, have now lost their power. (Kaganovich. Too much double-dealing!) I, comrades, will tell you about what happened ... (Khloplyankin. It's time to go to jail!) What? (Khloplyankin. It is high time to put him in jail!) Okay, put him in jail. Do you think that from the fact that you shout - to put in jail, I will speak differently? I will not speak. what are you shouting - to put in jail, I will speak differently? I will not speak. what are you shouting - to put in jail, I will speak differently? I will not speak.