[KEY STATEMENTS ARE IN ALL CAPS]
TRIAL OF 1937
DEFENDANTS IN THE 1937 TRIAL
THE 1937 INDICTMENT
KEY PARTS OF PYATAKOV’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
KEY PARTS OF RADEK’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
KEY PARTS OF LIVSHITZ’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
KEY PARTS OF ROMM’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
KEY PARTS OF SOKOLNIKOV’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
KEY PARTS OF SHESTOV’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
KEY PARTS OF SEREBRYAKOV’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
KEY PARTS OF LOGINOV’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
KEY PARTS OF BOGUSLAVSKY’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
KEY PARTS OF DROBNIS’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
KEY PARTS OF MURALOV’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
KEY PARTS OF STROILOV’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
KEY PARTS OF NORKIN’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
KEY PARTS OF STEIN’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
KEY PARTS OF ARNOLD’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
KEY PARTS OF KNYAZEV’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
KEY PARTS OF TUROK’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
KEY PARTS OF RATAICHAK’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
KEY PARTS OF HRASCHE’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
KEY PARTS OF PUSHIN’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
KEY PARTS OF TAMM’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
KEY PARTS OF EXPERT WITNESS MONOSOVICH’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
SPEECH FOR THE PROSECUTION
LAST PLEA OF PYATAKOV
LAST PLEA OF RADEK
LAST PLEA OF SOKOLNIKOV
LAST PLEA OF SEREBRYAKOV
LAST PLEA OF BOGUSLAVSKY
LAST PLEA OF DROBNIS
LAST PLEA OF MURALOV
LAST PLEA OF NORKIN
LAST PLEA OF SHESTOV
LAST PLEA OF STROILOV
LAST PLEA OF ARNOLD
LAST PLEA OF LIVSHITZ
LAST PLEA OF KNYAZEV
LAST PLEA OF TUROK
LAST PLEA OF RATAICHAK
LAST PLEA OF HRASCHE
LAST PLEA OF PUSHIN
TRIAL OF 1937
Report of Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet
Trotskyite Center heard before the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR
Moscow , Jan. 23-30, 1937
THE DEFENDANTS IN THE 1937 TRIAL
PYATAKOV, RADEK, SOKOLNIKOV, SEREBRYAKOV, MURALOV, LIVSHITZ, DROBNIS, BOGUSLAVSKY, KNYAZEV, RATAICHAK, NORKIN, SHESTOV, STROILOV, TUROK, HRASCHE, PUSHIN, ARNOLD
The accused Knyazev is defended by Counsel Braude, Member of the Collegium of Defense.
The accused Pushin is defended by Counsel, Kommodov, Member of the Collegium of Defense.
The accused Arnold is defended by Counsel Kaznacheyev, Member of the Collegium of Defense.
Upon receiving the indictment, the accused Pyatakov, Radek, Sokolnikov, Serebryakov, Livshitz, Muralov, Drobnis, Boguslavsky, Rataichak, Norkin, Shestov, Stroilov, Turok, and Hrasche declined the services of counsel for defense and declared that they would conduct their own defense.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 3
The President: I must explain to the accused who have declined counsel for defense that in addition to the other rights of the accused which I will presently explain, they are entitled to speak in their defense after the speech for the prosecution.
I must explain to all the accused that they have the right to put questions to witnesses, experts, and to the other accused, and also to submit explanations on any question that may form the subject of investigation by the Court.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 4
THE 1937 INDICTMENT
The investigation of the case of the united Trotskyite-Zinovievite terrorist center, members of which were convicted by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR on August 24, 1936, established that in addition to the above-mentioned center, there existed a so-called reserve center, formed on the direct instructions of L. D. Trotsky, for the eventuality of the criminal activities of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite bloc being exposed by the organs of the Soviet government. The convicted members of the united Trotskyite-Zinovievite center, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and others, testified that the reserve center consisted of Pyatakov, Radek, Sokolnikov and Serebryakov, all known for their past Trotskyite activities.
The preliminary investigation of the present case established that the so-called reserve center was actually a parallel Trotskyite center, organized and operating under the direct instructions of L.D. Trotsky, now in emigration.
The Trotskyite parallel center developed its criminal activities most energetically after the dastardly murder of Kirov, and the subsequent break-up of the united Trotskyite-Zinovievite center.
The main task which the parallel center set itself was the forcible overthrow of the Soviet government with the object of changing the social and state system existing in the USSR. L. D. Trotsky, and on his instructions the parallel Trotskyite center, aimed at seizing power with the aid of foreign states with the object of restoring capitalist social relations in the USSR.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 5
The investigation has established that L. D. Trotsky entered into negotiations with one of the leaders of the German National Socialist Party with a view to waging a joint struggle against the Soviet Union.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 7
ALL DEFENDANTS PLED GUILTY
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 20
KEY PARTS OF PYATAKOV’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
SAYS SEDOV CLAIMED TROTSKY HAD ABANDONED APPEALING TO THE MASSES AND TROTSKY FAVORED THE FORCIBLE OVERTHROW OF THE STALIN LEADERSHIP BY TERRORISM AND WRECKING;
SHESTOV SUPPORTS WHAT PYATAKOV SAYS;
SAYS HE GOT A LETTER FROM TROTSKY SAYING STALIN HAD TO BE REMOVED BY VIOLENCE AND ALL ANTI-STALIN FORCES HAD TO BE UNITED;
SAYS KAMENEV TOLD HIM OF THE BLOC BEING FORMED AND THEY WOULD USE TERROR AND WRECKING;
SAYS KAMENEV SPOKE OF THE NEED TO WORK FOR CAPITALIST GOVTS;
SAYS RADEK TOLD HIM TROTSKY SAID THE BLOC WITH THE ZINOVIEVITES MUST BE MAINTAINED SINCE THEY AGREED ON TERROR AND WRECKING;
RADEK FULLY CONFIRMS HIS COMMENTS;
THE PARALLEL CENTER OPERATED TOTALLY UNDER TROTSKY;
SAYS THE PARALLEL CENTER STARTED BY WRECKING COKE OVENS IN 1933;
SAYS DROBNIS WAS SENT TO INTENSIFY WRECKING;
IN THE KUZBAS SHESTOV RECEIVED DIRECT WRECKING INSTRUCTIONS FROM SEDOV AND MYSELF;
PLEADS GUILTY TO ORGANIZING TROT ACTIONS;
SHESTOV’S GROUP CARRIED ON WRECKING IN THE COAL INDUSTRY; NORKIN, KARTSEV, DROBNIS, MURALOV AND BOGUSLAVSKY KNEW OF WRECKING IN POWER STATIONS;
ADMITS HE AND TROTSKY ORDERED KOLEGAYEV TO ENGAGE IN COPPER WRECKING
SAYS MARYASIN CARRIED ON WRECKING WORK IN URALS CAR PLANT; ADMITS HE CAUSED A DELAY IN SODA PLANT CONSTRUCTION;
SAYS HE DIRECTED RATAICHAK AND PUSHIN TO CAUSE WRECKING IN NITROGEN INDUSTRY;
ADMITS HE DIRECTED DIVERSIVE ACTIVITIES;
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIVES FROM TROTSKY, HE ADMITS TELLING NORKIN THAT WHEN WAR BROKE OUT KEMEROVO WOULD HAVE TO BE PUT OUT OF ACTION;
ADMITS TELLING NORKIN THE CHEMICAL WORKS MUST BE DESTROYED IF WAR COMES AND HUMAN DEATHS SHOULD BE EXPECTED AND NORKIN SAYS HE SAID IT;
ADMITS MEMBERS OF HIS ORGANIZATION WERE CONNECTED TO FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES;
SAYS TROTSKY DEMANDED THAT TERROR AND WRECKING BE COMMITTED;
SAYS TROTSKY CONTENDED THEY MUST PREPARE FOR DEFEAT WITH WRECKING BECAUSE WAR IS COMING;
SAYS TROTSKY CONTENDED THEY COULD NOT COME TO POWER WITHOUT THE HELP OF GERMAN AND JAPAN;
SAID TOMSKY TOLD HIM IT WAS NECESSARY TO ORGANIZE TERRORISTIC ACTS;
SAYS TROTSKY STATED IN A LETTER TO RADEK 2 WAYS THEY COULD COME TO POWER-KILLING LEADERS AND DEFEAT IN WAR;
SAYS TROTSKY BECAME VERY EXCITED WHEN IT CAME TO WRECKING; SAYS TROTSKY REPEATEDLY STRESSED OVERTHROWING THE GOVT BY A COUP D’ ETAT;
ADMITS THEY WERE TRAINING DIVERSIONISTS TO HELP THE FASCIST ATTACK AND COMMITTING HIGH TREASON;
SAID TROTSKY CONTENDED THEY MUST WORK WITH THE FASCISTS; SAYS TROTSKY REBUKED THEM FOR NOT ENGAGING ENERGETICALLY ENOUGH IN DIVERSIVE, WRECKING, AND TERRORIST ACTIVITIES; SAYS TROTSKY TOLD HIM THAT HE HAD COME TO AN ABSOLUTELY DEFINITE AGREEMENT WITH THE FASCIST GERMAN GOVERNMENT AND THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT;
SAYS TROTSKY TOLD HIM HE NEGOTIATED WITH HESS;
SAYS IT WAS AGREED BETWEEN HESS AND TROTSKY THAT THE TROT FORCES WOULD OBEY THE GERMANS BY WRECKING AND DIVERSION;
SAYS THAT TROTSKY STATED THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A GREAT RETREAT ALMOST TO THE RIGHT’S POSITION;
SAYS THE TROT ORGANIZATION WAS TRANSFORMED INTO AN APPENDAGE OF THE FASCISTS;
SAYS HE WAS COMMITTING A GRAVE CRIME AGAINST THE STATE IN REGARD TO TERROR, WRECKING, DIVERSION, DEFEATISM, AND ESPIONAGE;
SAYS HE CONSIDERED ORDERS FROM TROSKY AS DIRECTIVES;
SAYS HE CONTINUED HIS CRIMINAL ACTS AFTER TALKING TO TROTSKY; SAYS IN WESTERN SIBERIA THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO KILL MOLOTOV & IN THE UKRAINE TO KILL KOSIOR AND POSTYSHEV;
SAYS TROTSKY INSISTED ON SENDING TERRORISTS TO MOSCOW TO KILL STALIN, MOLOTOV, VOROSHILOV, AND KAGANOVICH;
SAYS THEY PLANNED TO BRING IN TERRORISTS FROM THE UKRAINE; SAYS SEREBRYAKOV PLANNED TO BRING IN TERRORISTS TO KILL YEZHOV AND SEREBRYAKOV ADMITTED IT;
ADMITS MANY TERRORIST ACTS WERE BEING PLANNED BY HIM;
ADMITS HE DIRECTED A MOSCOW GROUP TO KILL STALIN AND KAGANOVICH;
SAYS TROTSKY DEMANDED THE EXECUTION OF A GROUP TERRORIST ACT;
SAYS SEREBRYAKOV WANTED THE MURDER OF BERIA APPROVED; SAYS HE GAVE NORKIN WRECKING INSTRUCTIONS ACCORDING TO TROTSKY’S DEMANDS;
ADMITS HE SPOKE FROM THE VIEW OF HIGH TREASON;
ADMITS HE TOOK PART IN PREPARATIONS TO KILL STALIN AND ADMITS LIVSHITZ LEARNED ABOUT IT FROM HIM;
RATAICHAK SAYS PYATAKOV CONFIRMED THE DIRECTIVES TRANSMITTED TO HIM BY LOGINOV;
DENIES HE TALKED TO RATAICHAK AND LOGINOV ABOUT ESPIONAGE BUT ADMITS HE WAS CONNECTED TO FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES;
ADMITS HE GAVE INSTRUCTIONS TO ESTABLISH CONNECTIONS WITH FASCIST FORCES;
SAYS HE LANDED IN AN AIRPORT NEAR OSLO TO MEET TROTSKY;
PYATAKOV:.. the first frank conversation with Smirnov took place in Berlin.
VYSHINSKY: And it was there that he put you in touch with Sedov?
PYATAKOV: Yes, Sedov said that Trotsky had not for a moment abandoned the idea of resuming the fight against Stalin's leadership, that there had been a temporary lull owing partly to Trotsky's repeated movements from one country to another, but that this struggle was now being resumed, of which he, Trotsky, was hereby informing me. Further, that there was being formed, or had already been formed--I cannot now recall--a Trotskyite center. It was a question of uniting all the forces capable of waging a fight against Stalin's leadership. The possibility was being sounded of restoring the united organization with the Zinovievites.
...Sedov also said that he knew for a fact that the Rights also, in the persons of Tomsky, Bukharin and Rykov, had not laid down their arms, that they had only quietened down temporarily, and that the necessary connections should be established with them too.
This was a prelude, one might say, a testing of the ground. After this Sedov asked me pointblank: "Trotsky asks, do you, Pyatakov, intend to take a hand in this fight?" I gave my consent. Sedov made no concealment of his great delight over this. He said that Trotsky had never doubted that despite our quarrel in the beginning of 1928, he would nevertheless find in me a reliable comrade-in-arms.
AFTER THIS SEDOV WENT ON TO OUTLINE THE NATURE OF THE NEW METHODS OF STRUGGLE: THERE COULD BE NO QUESTION OF DEVELOPING A MASS STRUGGLE IN ANY FORM, OR ORGANIZING A MASS MOVEMENT; if we adopted any kind of mass work we would come to grief immediately; TROTSKY WAS FIRMLY IN FAVOR OF THE FORCIBLE OVERTHROW OF THE STALIN LEADERSHIP BY METHODS OF TERRORISM AND WRECKING.
This, in fact, brought my first meeting with Sedov to a close, and, in fact, I ought to date my re-entry into the Trotskyite counter-revolution from this meeting....
VYSHINSKY: Did you meet Pyatakov in Berlin in 1931?
VYSHINSKY: Did the accused Pyatakov inform you of his meeting with Sedov?
SHESTOV: Yes, he did.
VYSHINSKY: DO YOU CONFIRM WHAT THE ACCUSED PYATAKOV JUST STATED AS REGARDS HIS CONVERSATION WITH SEDOV?
SHESTOV: YES, I DO.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 22-24
VYSHINSKY: What more can you tell us of your criminal Trotskyite, anti-Soviet activities?
PYATAKOV: I received a letter which looked like the one Shestov has just described, and on opening it I was extremely surprised: I had expected a note from Sedov, but it turned out that the envelope contained not a note from Sedov, but from Trotsky, and the letter was written in German and signed "LT."
VYSHINSKY: THAT IS TO SAY, YOU RECEIVED A LETTER FROM TROTSKY THROUGH SEDOV AND SHESTOV?
VYSHINSKY: What was in this letter?
PYATAKOV: In this letter, which was written in German....
VYSHINSKY: You know German fairly well?
VYSHINSKY: WHAT DID THE LETTER SAY?
PYATAKOV: The letter, as I now recall, began as follows: "Dear friend, I am very glad that you have followed my requests...." IT WENT ON TO SAY THAT FUNDAMENTAL TASKS WERE FACING US WHICH HE BRIEFLY FORMULATED. THE FIRST TASK WAS TO USE EVERY MEANS TO REMOVE STALIN AND HIS IMMEDIATE ASSISTANTS. OF COURSE, "EVERY MEANS" WAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD ABOVE ALL AS VIOLENT MEANS. SECONDLY, IN THIS SAME NOTE TROTSKY SPOKE OF THE NECESSITY OF UNITING ALL ANTI-STALIN FORCES FOR THE STRUGGLE. Thirdly, of the necessity of counteracting all the measures of the Soviet government and the party, especially in the economic field.
VYSHINSKY:... You received this letter at the end of November 1931?
PYATAKOV: Yes, at the end of November 1931.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 32
PYATAKOV: I visited Berlin a second time in the middle of 1932. Sedov learned of my arrival in Berlin and decided to see me in order to receive from me, as he said, necessary information for Trotsky....
Sedov expressed extreme dissatisfaction, not his own, as he said, but Trotsky's dissatisfaction with the fact that things were moving very slowly, particularly in regard to terrorist activities. He said, "You are engaged all the time in organizational preparations and conversations, but you have nothing concrete to show." And he also said to me: "You know the sort of man Lev Davidovich is, he is roaring and raving, burning with impatience to have his instructions carried out as quickly as possible, and nothing concrete is visible from your report."
...Kamenev came to visit me at the People's Commissariat on some pretext or other. He very clearly and distinctly informed me about the Trotskyite-Zinovievite center which had been formed. He said that the bloc had been restored; then he mentioned the names of a number of people who belonged to the center and informed me that they had discussed the question of including in the center people who in general had been prominent Trotskyites in the past, such as myself, Radek, Sokolnikov and Serebryakov, but they had come to the conclusion that this was inexpedient. As Kamenev said, they were of the opinion that the danger of the chief center being exposed was very great as its members were all "very besmirched" people. That is why it was desirable, in case the main center was exposed, to have a reserve Trotskyite-Zinovievite center. He had been authorized officially to ask me whether I would agree to join that center.... I gave Kamenev my consent to join the reserve center. This was in the autumn of 1932. KAMENEV INFORMED ME OF THE MAIN LINES OF THE WORK OF THE TROTSKYITE-ZINOVIEVITE CENTER. FIRST OF ALL, HE SAID, THE FUNDAMENTAL THING WAS THE QUESTION OF OVERTHROWING THE GOVERNMENT BY TERRORIST METHODS. AND THEN HE CONVEYED TO ME THE DIRECTIVES ON WRECKING. Continuing his information, he said that they had established closest connections, not merely contact, but connections, with the Rights: Bukharin, Tomsky, and Rykov, and immediately added: "As you, Yuri Leonidovich are on very good terms with Bukharin, it would do no harm if you, too, maintained the necessary contact with him." Which is what I subsequently did.
VYSHINSKY: Hence, you established contact with Bukharin?
PYATAKOV: Yes. In reply to my question: "But, how is it that we are establishing contact with the Rights?"--Kamenev bluntly said that I was just betraying a certain amount of childishness in politics, that yesterday's disagreements could not disunite us, as there was unity of aim: the overthrow of Stalin's leadership and abandonment of the building of socialism with a corresponding change in the economic policy. DURING THE SAME CONVERSATION KAMENEV ALSO SPOKE ABOUT "INTER-STATE" RELATIONS AND SAID THAT WITHOUT THE NECESSARY CONTACT WITH THE GOVERNMENTS OF CAPITALIST COUNTRIES WE WOULD NEVER COME INTO POWER AND THAT THESE CONTACTS HAD TO BE MAINTAINED.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 36
PYATAKOV: So that was the conversation with Kamenev in 1932.
VYSHINSKY: The end of 1932?
PYATAKOV: Yes, the end of 1932.
A little later (this was already in 1933), DURING ONE OF MY MEETINGS WITH RADEK, HE INFORMED ME THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A REPLY FROM TROTSKY, THAT TROTSKY CATEGORICALLY URGED THE NECESSITY OF PRESERVING COMPLETE UNITY AS WELL AS THE BLOC WITH THE ZINOVIEVITES SINCE THERE WERE NO DISAGREEMENTS WITH THEM WHATEVER INASMUCH AS THE TERRORIST AND WRECKING PLATFORM HAD BEEN ACCEPTED....
VYSHINSKY: Hence, we can take it that the "parallel center" had been operating since 1933?
VYSHINSKY: It was a parallel center precisely because it operated simultaneously with the main center?
VYSHINSKY: ACCUSED RADEK, WHAT HAVE YOU TO SAY ABOUT THIS PART OF PYATAKOV'S EVIDENCE?
RADEK: I FULLY CONFIRM IT.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 38-40
VYSHINSKY: WHAT INTERESTS ME IS, UNDER WHOSE LEADERSHIP DID THE " PARALLEL CENTER" OPERATE?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 42
VYSHINSKY: Thus, 1933 is the year in which the activities of the parallel center took shape?
PYATAKOV: Quite correct.
VYSHINSKY: What practical measures did the center carry out in the course of 1933-34?
PYATAKOV: It was precisely in 1933-34 that organizational and preparatory work was developed in the Ukraine and in Western Siberia; later the Moscow group was formed. Work was developed in the Urals, and all this work began to assume the form of the practical fulfillment of Trotsky's instructions, which I mentioned before, concerning the application of wrecking and diversive methods.... And they proceeded to carry out measures of a criminal character.... In the Ukraine the work was carried on mainly in the Coke industry by Loginov and a group of persons connected with him. THEIR WORK, IN THE MAIN, CONSISTED OF STARTING COKE OVENS WHICH WERE NOT YET REALLY READY FOR OPERATIONS, AND OF HOLDING UP THE CONSTRUCTION OF VERY VALUABLE AND VERY IMPORTANT PARTS OF THE COKE AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRY. THEY OPERATED COKE OVENS WITHOUT UTILIZING THOSE VERY VALUABLE BY-PRODUCTS WHICH ARE OBTAINED IN COKING AND THEREBY HUGE FUNDS WERE RENDERED VALUELESS.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 43
VYSHINSKY: AS FAR AS WRECKING WAS CONCERNED, WE CAN FORMULATE IT AS FOLLOWS: THAT DROBNIS WAS SENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTENSIFYING CRIMINAL WRECKING ACTIVITIES?
VYSHINSKY: In what capacity did you send Drobnis there?
PYATAKOV: DROBNIS WAS SENT AS ASSISTANT CHIEF OF CONSTRUCTION.
VYSHINSKY: YOU SENT HIM AS ASSISTANT CHIEF OF CONSTRUCTION AND AT THE SAME TIME FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESTROYING CONSTRUCTION?
PYATAKOV: YES. IN THE KUZBAS WRECKING WORK WAS BEING ACTIVELY CARRIED ON BY SHESTOV, WHO HAD RECEIVED DIRECT INSTRUCTIONS FROM SEDOV AND FROM MYSELF.
VYSHINSKY: All these groups were organized, took shape and carried out their criminal activities under your direct guidance?
PYATAKOV: Of course.
VYSHINSKY: So this was a sort of ladder system?
PYATAKOV: ... It was a very complicated, illegal organization, in very complicated and difficult conditions, for it was based on personal contacts as well as on illegal meetings. This work was carried on in great conspiracy.
VYSHINSKY: Hence, we can draw the following conclusion: this was the practical activity, not only of yourself, but of the whole parallel center?
PYATAKOV: Of course.
VYSHINSKY: WHAT WAS YOUR OFFICIAL POSITION IN 1933-34?
PYATAKOV: I WAS ASSISTANT PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR OF HEAVY INDUSTRY.
VYSHINSKY: HENCE, IT WAS EASIER FOR YOU TO UTILIZE YOUR CONTACTS FOR TROTSKYITE MACHINATIONS?
PYATAKOV: YES, I PLEAD GUILTY TO THIS.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 44-45
VYSHINSKY: Tell us of the specific wrecking work of the Trotskyite organizations you know about.
PYATAKOV: I have already testified that wrecking activities were developed in the Ukraine, chiefly in connection with the coke and chemical industry. The wrecking activities consisted in the fact that newly-built coke ovens were put into operation in a still unfinished condition, as a result of which they rapidly deteriorated, and, chiefly, the chemical sections of these plants were being delayed or almost not being built at all, thanks to which the vast means invested in the coke and chemical industry were rendered valueless to the extent of 1/2, if not two-thirds their worth. The most valuable part of the coal, its chemical content, was not utilized and was allowed to escape into the air. On the other hand, new coking batteries were damaged. THE WEST-SIBERIAN TROTSKYITE GROUP CARRIED ON ACTIVE WRECKING WORK IN THE COAL INDUSTRY. THIS ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED ON BY SHESTOV AND HIS GROUP. There was a fairly large group there which chiefly worked along lines of causing fires in the coking-coal mines. WRECKING WORK WAS CONDUCTED IN THE KEMEROVO COMBINED CHEMICAL WORKS. At first the work consisted in delaying the putting into operation of newly-built units, funds were diffused on secondary units, with the result that vast structures were in a perpetual state of construction and were not brought to a state where they could be put into operation. WITH REGARD TO ELECTRIC POWER STATIONS, WORK WAS PERFORMED AIMED AT REDUCING THE EFFECTIVE POWER RESOURCES OF THE WHOLE KUZNETSK AREA.
VYSHINSKY: DID NORKIN, KARTSEV AND DROBNIS KNOW OF THIS WORK?
PYATAKOV: YES, THEY DID. MURALOV AND BOGUSLAVSKY OF COURSE KNEW ABOUT IT.
In the Urals there were two main objects on which wrecking activities were concentrated. One was the copper industry and the other was the Urals Car Construction Works.
In the copper industry efforts were chiefly directed towards preventing the copper plants that were in operation from being utilized to their full capacity. The Krassno-Uralsk Copper Works and the Karabash copper Works did not fulfill their program of production; there was a tremendous waste of the copper delivered to the works and there were tremendous losses. The Karabash Works were in a perpetually feverish state. At the Kalatinsk Works the concentration plant worked badly all the time; wrecking activities were being carried on there too.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 46
VYSHINSKY: AND WHO SPECIFICALLY, PERSONALLY, CARRIED ON THE WORK OF WRECKING?
PYATAKOV: IN THE MAIN THIS WORK WAS CARRIED ON BY KOLEGAYEV--THE MANAGER OF THE CENTRAL URALS COPPER TRUST.
VYSHINSKY: DID HE CARRY IT ON ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE, OR ON INSTRUCTIONS?
PYATAKOV: IN GENERAL ALL THIS WAS NOT DONE ON THESE PEOPLE'S OWN INITIATIVE BUT ON TROTSKY'S INSTRUCTIONS, AND THEN ON MY OWN PERSONAL DIRECTIVES.
A big copper plant, the Central Urals Copper Works, was being built in the Urals, which was to increase the copper supply of the country very considerably. But at this plant, first Yulin --the chief of the Central Urals Copper Construction--and then Zharikov carried on wrecking activities which chiefly aimed at dissipating resources, not carrying construction work to completion and generally dragging it out.
It must be said that when I visited this construction site in the spring of 1935 I saw that the wrecking work was being carried on so unscrupulously crudely that even the most superficial observer could see that all was not right on the job. I was obliged to instruct Zharikov, chief of the construction, to be more cautious, to maneuver in some way or other, to show at least some energy on the construction job, to begin construction work, but at any rate so calculated as not to complete it.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R, p. 47
PYATAKOV: Now as regards the car construction works in the Urals, where the chief of construction was Maryasin, a Trotskyite and a member of the Urals group. The government devoted great attention to this plant and assigned it very considerable funds so as to get it completed as soon as possible, because this plant alone was to turn out more cars that all the other car construction works put together.
Maryasin carried on the wrecking work along the following lines. First of all he sank money in piling up unnecessary materials, equipment, and so on. I think that by the beginning of 1936 about 50 million rubles were frozen in the form of materials.
Then there is the quality of the building work. Building work was systematically delayed on the large-part construction department, the tool department, in the central car assembly department.
The wrecking activities in the last period assumed new forms. Despite the fact that, after a delay of two or three years, the plant began to enter on its operation stage, Maryasin created intolerable conditions, fomented intrigues, and in a word did everything to obstruct operation.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 48
PYATAKOV: AS TO THE SODA INDUSTRY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT OUR COUNTRY ABOUNDS IN SALT AND RAW MATERIALS FOR SODA, AND THAT THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING SODA IS VERY WELL-KNOWN, THERE IS A SHORTAGE OF SODA IN THE COUNTRY. THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SODA PLANTS WAS DELAYED.
VYSHINSKY: WHAT WAS THE CAUSE OF THAT?
PYATAKOV: MY ACTIVITIES AND THOSE OF RATAICHAK....
AS REGARDS THE NITROGEN INDUSTRY, HERE BOTH RATAICHAK AND PUSHIN, BUT CHIEFLY RATAICHAK, HAD A HAND IN THE WRECKING ACTIVITIES WITH MY DIRECT PARTICIPATION. Here plans were continually revised, continually delayed, and in this way construction work was delayed.
PYATAKOV: Well, of course. In spite of the decision of the government several plants were not being constructed at all.
VYSHINSKY: TELL US ABOUT YOUR DIVERSIVE ACTIVITIES?
PYATAKOV: AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT WAS ALL DONE ON OUR INSTRUCTIONS AND MINE IN PARTICULAR. The line was indicated, but I cannot say, that I gave instructions to perform this or that particular diversive act.
VYSHINSKY: But was not this the case with Kemerovo?
PYATAKOV: No, that also is putting it too definitely. I have confirmed Norkin's testimony, and I now confirm that, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIVES I RECEIVED FROM TROTSKY, I TOLD NORKIN THAT WHEN WAR BROKE OUT KEMEROVO WOULD APPARENTLY HAVE TO BE PUT OUT OF ACTION BY ONE MEANS OR ANOTHER.
VYSHINSKY: By one means or another, or did you speak of definite means?
PYATAKOV: I cannot exactly recall now.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 49
VYSHINSKY: Comrade President, allow me to put a question to Norkin.
THE PRESIDENT: Accused Norkin.
VYSHINSKY: ACCUSED NORKIN, DO YOU RECALL THE CONVERSATION WITH PYATAKOV ABOUT PUTTING THE CHEMICAL WORKS OUT OF ACTION IN CASE OF WAR?
NORKIN: IT WAS SAID QUITE CLEARLY THAT PREPARATIONS MUST BE MADE SO THAT THE ENTERPRISES IN THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY COULD BE PUT OUT OF ACTION BY MEANS OF INCENDIARISM AND EXPLOSIONS.
VYSHINSKY: And do you remember when he told you this?
NORKIN: In 1936, in Pyatakov's office in the People's Commissariat.
VYSHINSKY: Do you remember the details? Was there any talk of loss of human life?
NORKIN: I remember it being pointed out that in general loss of life was inevitable, and that in carrying out diversive acts you could not avoid workers being killed. Such an instruction was given.
VYSHINSKY: ACCUSED PYATAKOV, DO YOU REMEMBER WHETHER YOU SAID THIS TO NORKIN?
PYATAKOV: THAT IS CORRECT; I DO NOT REMEMBER WHAT WORDS WERE USED, BUT THIS WAS THE IDEA. THE IDEA WAS TO PUT THE KEMEROVO COMBINED WORKS OUT OF COMMISSION IN WAR TIME; PERHAPS WE TALKED ABOUT SPECIAL METHODS OF DOING THIS, AND, OF COURSE, THERE WAS ALSO TALK ABOUT LOSS OF LIFE. I SAID TO NORKIN THAT SINCE THIS WILL BE DONE, THERE WILL BE LOSS OF LIFE, AND WE WILL HAVE TO RECKON WITH THIS....
VYSHINSKY: SO THAT YOU REGARDED THIS AS SOMETHING INEVITABLE?
PYATAKOV: OF COURSE.
VYSHINSKY (TO NORKIN): DO YOU REMEMBER WHETHER DOING THE PREPARATIONS FOR THE EXPLOSIONS AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN ON THIS--THAT WORKERS MAY BE KILLED--WHETHER PYATAKOV SPOKE TO YOU ABOUT IT?
NORKIN: HE SAID SHARPLY SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT IT WAS NO USE BEING SQUEAMISH; THERE WOULD BE LOSS OF LIFE IN CARRYING OUT UNDERMINING WORK; WHAT IS THERE TO EMBARRASS YOU, WHAT ARE YOU WORRYING ABOUT!... IT IS IN GENERAL DIFFICULT TO RECALL THE EXACT FORMULATION, BUT IT WAS QUITE SHARP IN THE SENSE THAT WE MUST STOP AT NOTHING AND PITY NOBODY.... HE SAID THAT THE WORKING CLASS IN MOSCOW AND LENINGRAD NOT TO DESERVE PITY, LET ALONE THE WORKERS IN KEMEROVO.
VYSHINSKY: IS THAT EXACTLY THE WAY HE PUT IT: NOT SUCH AS TO DESERVE PITY, LET ALONE THE WORKERS IN KEMEROVO? DO YOU REMEMBER THIS CONVERSATION, PYATAKOV?
PYATAKOV: I DON'T KNOW, PERHAPS NORKIN'S MEMORY IS DECEIVING HIM, BUT I REMEMBER VERY WELL THAT I TALKED ABOUT LOSS OF LIFE BEING INEVITABLE, AND TALKED ABOUT IT QUITE SHARPLY.... SINCE OUR LINE WAS TO COMMIT ACTS OF DIVERSION WE COULD NOT BOTHER ABOUT ANY PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO MIGHT SUFFER.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 49-51
VYSHINSKY: WERE THE MEMBERS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION CONNECTED WITH FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS?
PYATAKOV: YES, THEY WERE. I MUST RETURN TO THE LINE TROTSKY LAID DOWN IN ORDER TO MAKE IT CLEAR....
VYSHINSKY: WHAT THEN DID TROTSKY DEMAND?
PYATAKOV: HE DEMANDED THAT DEFINITE ACTS SHOULD BE COMMITTED BOTH IN THE WAY OF TERRORISM AND WRECKING. I must say, that as the directive about wrecking activities encountered fairly serious resistance even among Trotsky's followers, it gave rise to perplexity and dissatisfaction and did not go smoothly. We informed Trotsky of the existence of this state of mind. But TROTSKY REPLIED IN A LETTER COUCHED IN RATHER DEFINITE TERMS THAT THE INSTRUCTION ABOUT WRECKING ACTIVITIES WAS NOT SOMETHING FORTUITOUS, NOT SIMPLY ONE OF THE SHARP METHODS OF STRUGGLE HE PROPOSED, BUT AN ESSENTIAL PART OF HIS POLICY AND OF HIS PRESENT LINE. In the same directive he raised the question--this was in the middle of 1934--that now that Hitler had come to power it was quite clear that his, Trotsky's line on the impossibility of building up socialism in one country alone had been completely justified, that war was inevitable, and that if we Trotskyites wished to preserve ourselves as a political force of some sort, WE MUST IN ADVANCE, HAVING ADOPTED A DEFEATIST POSITION, NOT MERELY PASSIVELY OBSERVE AND CONTEMPLATE, BUT ACTIVELY PREPARE THE WAY FOR THIS DEFEAT. BUT IN ORDER TO DO SO, CADRES MUST BE FORMED, AND CADRES COULD NOT BE FORMED BY TALK ALONE. THEREFORE THE NECESSARY WRECKING ACTIVITIES MUST BE CARRIED ON NOW.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R, p. 52
PYATAKOV: I RECALL THAT TROTSKY SAID IN THIS DIRECTIVE THAT WITHOUT THE NECESSARY SUPPORT FROM FOREIGN STATES, A GOVERNMENT OF THE BLOC COULD NEITHER COME TO POWER NOR HOLD POWER. IT WAS THEREFORE A QUESTION OF ARRIVING AT THE NECESSARY PRELIMINARY AGREEMENT WITH THE MOST AGGRESSIVE FOREIGN STATES, LIKE GERMANY AND JAPAN, AND THAT HE, TROTSKY, ON HIS PART HAD ALREADY TAKEN THE NECESSARY STEPS IN ESTABLISHING CONTACTS BOTH WITH THE JAPANESE AND THE GERMAN GOVERNMENTS.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 53
PYATAKOV:... IN CONVERSATION WITH ME, TOMSKY HAD TOLD ME THAT HE CONSIDERED IT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO ORGANIZE TERRORIST AND OTHER KINDS OF WORK, BUT THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO CONSULT HIS COMRADES, RYKOV AND BUKHARIN. This he did later, and then gave me a reply in the name of all three....
ABOUT THE END OF 1935 RADEK RECEIVED A LONG LETTER--INSTRUCTIONS FROM TROTSKY. IN THIS DIRECTIVE TROTSKY ADVANCED TWO POSSIBLE VARIANTS OF OUR COMING INTO POWER. THE FIRST VARIANT WAS THE POSSIBILITY OF OUR COMING INTO POWER BEFORE HE WAR, AND THE SECOND VARIANT, DURING A WAR. Trotsky visualized the first variant as resulting from a concentrated terrorist blow, as he said. What he had in mind was the simultaneous performance of terrorist acts against a number of leaders of the CPSU and the Soviet government, and of course in the first place against Stalin and his immediate assistants.
The second variant, which in Trotsky's opinion was the more probable, was a military defeat. Since, as he said, war was inevitable, and moreover in the very near future--a war in the first place with Germany, and possibly with Japan--the idea therefore was to reach the necessary agreement with the governments of these countries and thus ensure that they would regard the coming to power of the bloc favorably; and that meant obtaining the necessary support to maintain ourselves in power by making a number of concessions to these countries on terms to be agreed upon beforehand. But since the question of defeatism, of military wrecking activities, of inflicting telling blows during wartime both to the rear and to the army was here put pointblank, this very much disquieted Radek and myself. It seemed to us that the reason why Trotsky was staking on the inevitability of defeat was largely because of his isolation and ignorance of the real conditions, his ignorance of what was going on here, his ignorance of what the Red Army was like; and that was why he cherished such illusions. Both Radek and I therefore decided that it was necessary to endeavor to meet Trotsky.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 55
PYATAKOV: The conversation began, first of all, by my giving some information. I told him what the Trotskyite-Zinovievite center had already done. TROTSKY HAD ALREADY RECEIVED RADEK'S LETTER AND HE WAS PARTICULARLY EXCITED.... WHEN WE CAME TO THE SUBJECT OF WRECKING ACTIVITY, HE DELIVERED HIMSELF OF A VERITABLE PHILLIPIC, MAKING CUTTING REMARKS, SUCH AS: "YOU CAN'T BREAK AWAY FROM STALIN'S NAVAL CORD: you take Stalin's construction for socialist construction."
At the same time he formulated very sharply, I would say perhaps for the first time, so clearly and precisely, his position with regard to wrecking activities. That is why he made those scathing statements. He said that socialism could not be built in one country alone, and that the collapse of the Stalin state was absolutely inevitable. On the other hand, capitalism was recovering from the crisis, was beginning to grow stronger, and clearly could not tolerate the growing strength, especially of the war industry, of the defensive power of the Soviet state very much longer. A military clash was inevitable,...
... And so we should now go into the service of the Stalin state, not, however, to help to build the state, but to become its grave-diggers--therein lies our task. HE FURTHER SAID THAT MANY OF US TROTSKYITES WERE STILL SUFFERING FROM THE ILLUSION THAT MASS METHODS, THE ORGANIZATION OF THE MASSES WAS POSSIBLE. The organization of a mass struggle was impossible, in the first place because the worker masses and the peasant masses were in the main at present under the hypnotic influence of the huge constructive work that was going on in the country, constructive work which they took to be socialist construction. Any attempt on our part in this direction would be quite hopeless,... Therefore, something else was necessary--a coup d'etat in the fullest sense of the word,...
NATURALLY, HAVING ADOPTED THIS STAND WE CANNOT REJECT THE METHODS WHICH LOGICALLY FOLLOW... THAT IS TO SAY, TO OVERTHROW THE EXISTING GOVERNMENT BY MEANS OF A COUP D'ETAT AND TO ESTABLISH ANOTHER GOVERNMENT. HE REPEATEDLY RETURNED TO THE SUBJECT. I CAN ONLY GIVE YOU THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CONVERSATION, FOR IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME NOW TO CONVEY IT TO YOU VERBATIM.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 60-61
PYATAKOV: That was one task. THE OTHER TASK WAS A MORE PRACTICAL ONE: TO TRAIN CADRES FOR THE EVENT OF WAR, THAT IS TO SAY, TO TRAIN DIVERSIONISTS AND THOSE WHO WOULD ENGAGE IN DESTRUCTION, HELPERS FOR THE FASCIST ATTACK ON THE SOVIET UNION.... Only a very small, restricted group of people could be informed about this line. And, properly speaking, this was comprehensible because, as will be evident from what I'm going to say next, WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING WAS DOWNRIGHT, UNDISGUISED HIGH TREASON....
As to the international situation, TROTSKY SAID THAT THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT WAS BEING DESTROYED AND THAT FASCISM WAS TRIUMPHANT. IF WE INTEND TO COME TO POWER, THE REAL FORCES IN THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION WERE IN THE FIRST PLACE THE FASCISTS, AND WITH THESE FORCES WE MUST ESTABLISH CONTACT IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER, WE MUST MAINTAIN THIS CONTACT AND ENSURE THAT THE ATTITUDE TOWARDS US SHOULD BE FAVORABLE IF WE CAME TO POWER, WHETHER WITHOUT A WAR OR, AND IN PARTICULAR, IN THE EVENT OF A WAR and the defeat of the Soviet Union, which Trotsky considered inevitable....
VYSHINSKY: He said that you were talking and discussing a lot instead of engaging in practical diversive and wrecking work?
PYATAKOV: And terrorist.... We did not discuss this specially, but the conversation was packed with expressions of utter dissatisfaction and nasty and sarcastic remarks to the effect that we had done little in this direction, that is, in connection with practical wrecking, diversive and terrorist work.... HE REBUKED US FOR NOT ENGAGING ENERGETICALLY ENOUGH IN DIVERSIVE, WRECKING, AND TERRORIST ACTIVITIES.
HE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD COME TO AN ABSOLUTELY DEFINITE AGREEMENT WITH THE FASCIST GERMAN GOVERNMENT AND WITH THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT THAT THEY WOULD ADOPT A FAVORABLE ATTITUDE IN THE EVENT OF THE TROTSKYITE-ZINOVIEVITE BLOC COMING TO POWER.
...HE THEN TOLD ME THAT HE HAD CONDUCTED RATHER LENGTHY NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE GERMAN NATIONAL-SOCIALIST PARTY--HESS.' IT IS TRUE I CANNOT SAY WHETHER THERE IS AN AGREEMENT SIGNED BY HIM, OR WHETHER THERE IS ONLY AN UNDERSTANDING, BUT TROTSKY PUT IT TO ME AS THOUGH AN AGREEMENT EXISTED,...
What, properly speaking, does this agreement amount to if formulated briefly? First, the German fascists promise to adopt a favorable attitude towards the Trotskyite-Zinovievite bloc and to support it if it comes to power, either in time of war, or before a war, should it succeed in doing so. But in return the fascists are to receive the following compensation: a general favorable attitude towards German interests and towards the German government on all questions of international policy; certain territorial concessions which would have to be made, and these territorial concessions have been defined--in particular, mention was made of territorial concessions in a veiled form which were called "not resisting Ukrainian national-bourgeois forces in the event of their self-determination."
VYSHINSKY: What does that mean?
PYATAKOV: It means in a veiled form what Radek spoke about here: should the Germans set up their Ukrainian government, ruling the Ukraine not through their German Governor-General but perhaps through a hetman--at any rate, should the Germans "self-determine" the Ukraine--the Trotskyite-Zinovievite bloc will not oppose it. ACTUALLY THIS MEANT THE BEGINNING OF THE DISMEMBERMENT OF THE SOVIET UNION....
IN SHORT, IT WAS AGREED IN PRINCIPLE BETWEEN TROTSKY AND HESS THAT GERMAN CAPITAL WOULD BE ALLOWED TO COME IN AND OBTAIN A NECESSARY ECONOMIC COMPLEMENT but the definite forms which this was to assume would evidently be worked out later.
VYSHINSKY: And what about diversive acts in case of war?
PYATAKOV: That was the last point. That I remember very well. AND LASTLY, THE HARDEST POINT--WHICH, GENERALLY SPEAKING, REVEALS OUR FACE WITHOUT ANY CAMOUFLAGE OR ADORNMENT WHATEVER--WAS ALSO FORMULATED IN THIS AGREEMENT BETWEEN TROTSKY AND HESS.... IN THE EVENT OF MILITARY ATTACK THE DESTRUCTIVE FORCES OF THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATIONS WHICH WOULD ACT WITHIN THE COUNTRY MUST BE COORDINATED WITH THE FORCES FROM WITHOUT ACTING UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF GERMAN FASCISM. THE DIVERSIVE AND WRECKING ACTIVITY WHICH IS BEING CONDUCTED BY THE TROTSKYITE-ZINOVIEVITE ORGANIZATION WITHIN THE SOVIET UNION MUST BE CARRIED OUT UNDER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF TROTSKY, WHICH ARE TO BE AGREED UPON WITH THE GERMAN GENERAL STAFF.... In this connection also it would be necessary, for considerations of home policy, to effect a fairly big retreat, in addition to concessions to foreigners. Radek quite justly mentioned this retreat in town and country, such as permitting capitalist trade and so forth. TO PUT IT SIMPLY, TROTSKY EXPLAINED THAT IT WOULD BE A VERY SERIOUS RETREAT. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID: YOU AND RADEK ARE STILL UNDER THE SWAY OF THE OLD IDEAS OF 1925-26 AND YOU ARE UNABLE TO SEE THAT IN ESSENCE OUR COMING TO POWER WILL MEAN THAT WE WILL HAVE TO RETREAT VERY FAR IN THE DIRECTION OF CAPITALISM. IN THIS CONNECTION TROTSKY SAID THAT IN ESSENCE OUR PROGRAM WAS THE SAME AS THAT OF THE RIGHTS INSOFAR AS THE RIGHTS HAD ADOPTED A DIVERSIVE WRECKING PROGRAM AND CONSIDERED THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO RETREAT TOWARDS CAPITALISM....
PYATAKOV: What was new, if you like, was formulated distinctly enough: IN ESSENCE, THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION WAS BEING TRANSFORMED INTO AN APPENDAGE OF FASCISM.
VYSHINSKY: IN 1931, WHEN YOU RECEIVED THE LINE ON TERROR--WAS THAT A GRAVE CRIME AGAINST THE STATE?
PYATAKOV: YES, OF COURSE.
VYSHINSKY: IN 1932 THIS LINE WAS CONFIRMED AND YOU UNDERTOOK TO CARRY OUT THIS TASK. WAS THAT A GRAVE CRIME AGAINST THE STATE?
PYATAKOV: IT ALSO WAS.
VYSHINSKY: THAT IS TO SAY?
PYATAKOV: ALSO A GRAVE CRIME AGAINST THE STATE, THAT IS CLEAR.
VYSHINSKY: YOU WERE GIVEN A LINE, THROUGH RADEK OR DIRECTLY, ON WRECKING?
VYSHINSKY: YOU ACCEPTED?
VYSHINSKY: HOW DO YOU DESCRIBE THAT?
PYATAKOV: IN THE SAME WAY.
VYSHINSKY: THAT IS TO SAY?
PYATAKOV: AS A GRAVE CRIME AGAINST THE STATE.
VYSHINSKY: YOU RECEIVED A LINE ON DIVERSIVE ACTIVITIES?
VYSHINSKY: HOW DO YOU DESCRIBE THAT?
PYATAKOV: IN THE SAME WAY.
VYSHINSKY: YOU WERE GIVEN A LINE ON DEFEATISM?
VYSHINSKY: HOW DO YOU DESCRIBE THAT?
PYATAKOV: IN THE SAME WAY....
VYSHINSKY: YOU WERE GIVEN A LINE ON ESPIONAGE? HOW DO YOU DESCRIBE THAT?
PYATAKOV: IN THE SAME WAY.
VYSHINSKY:... IN ACCEPTING THE LINE ON TERRORISM, DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THIS MEANT KILLING THE LEADERS OF OUR PARTY?
PYATAKOV: OF COURSE, I UNDERSTOOD.
VYSHINSKY: AND IS THIS NOT A GRAVE CRIME AGAINST THE STATE?
PYATAKOV: OF COURSE, IT IS CLEAR.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 62-67
VYSHINSKY: The instructions which Trotsky gave you in December 1935, did you except them as his wishes, or as a directive?
PYATAKOV: IN SO FAR AS, IN GENERAL, THE MAIN DIRECTIVE WHICH THE PARALLEL CENTER FOLLOWED WAS WHAT CAME FROM TROTSKY, OF COURSE IT WAS A DIRECTIVE.
VYSHINSKY: The conversation you had with Trotsky in December 1935 and the line he gave, did you accept it as a directive or simply as something said in a conversation, but not binding for you?
PYATAKOV: Of course as a directive.
VYSHINSKY: AFTER YOUR CONFERENCE WITH TROTSKY YOU CONTINUED YOUR CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES IN THE SAME WAY AS BEFORE?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 69
VYSHINSKY: NOW I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT YOUR CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES IN THE SPHERE OF THE ORGANIZATION OF TERRORIST ACTS. Concretely, what was that expressed in?
PYATAKOV: First of all it was the organization of the terrorist groups in Western Siberia through the West-Siberian center.
VYSHINSKY: For what purpose were they organized in western Siberia?
PYATAKOV: IN WESTERN SIBERIA THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO KILL MOLOTOV.
PYATAKOV: IN THE UKRAINE, TO KILL KOSIOR AND POSTYSHEV. In the Ukraine there was talk with the Ukrainian Trotskyites to the effect that if it were necessary to transfer Trotskyite terrorist cadres to Moscow that would have to be done.
VYSHINSKY: WHO WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PLAN?
PYATAKOV: THE MOSCOW LEADERS.
VYSHINSKY: AGAINST WHOM?
PYATAKOV: AGAINST THE LEADERS OF THE PARTY AND THE GOVERNMENT: STALIN, MOLOTOV, KAGANOVICH, VOROSHILOV, ORDJONIKIDZE. IT WAS A QUESTION OF COMMITTING A NUMBER OF TERRORIST ACTS MORE OR LESS SIMULTANEOUSLY. TROTSKY INSISTED UPON THIS PARTICULARLY STRONGLY.
VYSHINSKY: THESE WERE THE LEADERS OF OUR PARTY AND THE GOVERNMENT WHOM YOU HAD IN MIND?
PYATAKOV: OF COURSE.
VYSHINSKY: SO IN YOUR PLAN YOU ARRANGED TO BRING IN TERRORISTS FROM THE UKRAINE?
PYATAKOV: YES, IF THAT WERE NEEDED.... WE DISCUSSED AMONG OURSELVES....
VYSHINSKY: WHO ARE "WE"?
PYATAKOV: SOKOLNIKOV, I, RADEK, AND SEREBRYAKOV, AND LATER IT WAS DISCUSSED WITH TOMSKY.
VYSHINSKY: What discussions, what did you discuss?
PYATAKOV: We discussed the question of carrying out Trotsky's directives to the effect that not scattered blows, but a concentrated terrorist blow was needed.
VYSHINSKY: What does a concentrated terrorist blow mean?
PYATAKOV: It means, as I have stated already, committing terrorist acts against a number of the leaders of the party and the government more are less simultaneously. For this purpose it would obviously be necessary to bring in terrorists from outside: from the Ukraine and other places.
VYSHINSKY: There was also talk about Transcaucasia?
PYATAKOV: Yes, there was also talk about the Transcaucasian terrorists.
VYSHINSKY: Who from Transcaucasia did you speak to?
PYATAKOV: TO MDIVANI; SEREBRYAKOV SPOKE TO MDIVANI ABOUT SENDING TRANSCAUCASIAN TROTSKYITE TERRORISTS TO MOSCOW IF IT WERE NECESSARY.
VYSHINSKY: ACCUSED SEREBRYAKOV, DO YOU CONFIRM PYATAKOV'S EVIDENCE CONCERNING YOUR CONVERSATION WITH MDIVANI?
SEREBRYAKOV: YES, THIS HAD IN VIEW A TERRORIST ACT AGAINST YEZHOV.
VYSHINSKY: ESPECIALLY AGAINST COMRADE YEZHOV?
VYSHINSKY: And it was about this particular case that you spoke to Mdivani?
VYSHINSKY: Did you mention Comrade Yezhov's name to him?
VYSHINSKY (to Pyatakov): HENCE, WE HAVE ALREADY COUNTED A NUMBER OF TERRORIST ACTS WHICH WERE ALREADY BEING PREPARED WITH YOUR PARTICIPATION.
PYATAKOV: QUITE TRUE.
VYSHINSKY: WHO OPERATED UNDER YOUR IMMEDIATE DIRECTION IN MOSCOW?
PYATAKOV: IN MOSCOW, OPERATING UNDER MY IMMEDIATE DIRECTION WAS THE GROUP OF YULIN, WHICH INCLUDED OSKOLDSKY, DOKUCHAYEV, KOLOSKOV.
VYSHINSKY: WHAT OBJECT DID IT PURSUE?
PYATAKOV: THE ASSASSINATION OF STALIN AND KAGANOVICH.
VYSHINSKY: AND YOU WERE IN IMMEDIATE CHARGE OF THIS?
PYATAKOV: YES, IMMEDIATE, AS A MEMBER OF THE CENTER.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 70-72
PYATAKOV:... I MUST SAY THAT ALL THIS WAS DONE IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING OUT THE MAIN DIRECTIVE OF TROTSKY, WHO DEMANDED THE EXECUTION OF A GROUP TERRORIST ACT. Whether this was to take place all on one day, or within a short period of time, was another matter. Trotsky did not raise this question.
PYATAKOV:... SEREBRYAKOV HAD A TALK WITH MDIVANI. THERE WAS A REPROACH MADE THAT COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY WORK WAS NOT BEING DEVELOPED WITH SUFFICIENT ENERGY. HE SAID THAT THE MURDER OF BERIA SHOULD BE APPROVED. I, from a more criminal point of view, said that such isolated actions would be senseless.
VYSHINSKY: You said that there must be more serious preparation?
PYATAKOV: Of course.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 73-74
VYSHINSKY: Yesterday we disclosed what Pyatakov said to Sokolnikov about setting fire to the Kemerovo Combined Chemical Works in the event of war. Were these instructions of Pyatakov's to Norkin in line with this letter?
RADEK: I do not know what compelled Pyatakov to have that conversation, but there can be no doubt that such instructions were given even earlier by those directing wrecking activities, that they fully conformed with the spirit of this letter and the demands it contained.
VYSHINSKY (to Pyatakov): ACCUSED PYATAKOV, WHEN YOU GAVE NORKIN INSTRUCTIONS ON SETTING FIRE TO THE KEMEROVO CHEMICAL WORKS IN THE EVENT OF WAR, WERE YOU GUIDED BY ANY GENERAL POLICY?
PYATAKOV: I WAS GUIDED BY THAT LINE OF "CONCRETIZATION" WHICH WAS GIVEN BY TROTSKY.
VYSHINSKY: AND YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH SOKOLNIKOV TOOK PLACE AFTER YOUR RETURN FROM BERLIN IN 1935, AFTER YOUR PERSONAL MEETING WITH TROTSKY?
VYSHINSKY: AND WERE THESE DEMANDS FORMULATED DURING YOUR PERSONAL MEETING WITH TROTSKY?
VYSHINSKY: (to Radek): Was there no talk about railway transport?
RADEK: The whole point of "concretization" concerned war, so that transport could not be an exception.
VYSHINSKY: Accused Serebryakov, you remember your talk with Radek about Trotsky's letter in 1935?
At that time we assumed that it would be possible to overload, to block up the most important junctions with a view to interrupting freight traffic.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 117-118
VYSHINSKY (to Loginov): I want to ascertain, was there at that time any talk of duplicity, or not? Loginov, you affirm that there was?
VYSHINSKY: Pyatakov, you deny it?
PYATAKOV: I SPOKE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF HIGH TREASON--THE CRIME WHICH I COMMITTED. WHAT IS THE SENSE FOR ME TO DENY WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 178
VYSHINSKY:... WERE PREPARATIONS BEING MADE FOR A TERRORIST ACT AGAINST STALIN?
VYSHINSKY: YOU TOOK PART IN THESE PREPARATIONS?
VYSHINSKY: SO IT IS A FACT, AS LIVSHITZ SAYS, THAT PREPARATIONS WERE BEING CONDUCTED FOR A TERRORIST ACT AGAINST STALIN? THIS IS TRUE?
VYSHINSKY: Consequently, it follows that Livshitz might have learned about this from someone else?
VYSHINSKY: BUT YOU CONFIRM THE FACT THAT PREPARATIONS WERE BEING MADE FOR A TERRORIST ACT?
VYSHINSKY (to Livshitz): Serebryakov and Pyatakov insist that they did not have this conversation with you. Perhaps you did not have the conversation with Pyatakov and Serebryakov, but perhaps with someone else--perhaps with Sokolnikov, or perhaps with Radek?
LIVSHITZ: I did not speak with Sokolnikov, and I made Radek's acquaintance for the first time here, in the dock.
VYSHINSKY: If Pyatakov and Serebryakov deny this, then, looking at the question objectively, who of the accused now seated here--or perhaps of those who will sit here in the future--who may know, who knew about this and could have told you?
LIVSHITZ: I can answer that both have forgotten about it, because I did not talk to other people on this matter, so that if I knew I could only have learned it from them.
VYSHINSKY (to Pyatakov): ...CONSEQUENTLY, YOU CONFIRM THAT LIVSHITZ KNEW ABOUT THE PREPARATIONS OF TERRORIST ACTS AGAINST LEADERS OF OUR PARTY AND GOVERNMENT, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, AGAINST STALIN.
PYATAKOV: I CONFIRM THAT THIS WAS DIRECTED AGAINST CERTAIN PERSONS, AMONG THEM BEING STALIN.
VYSHINSKY: HOW DID LIVSHITZ LEARN THIS?
PYATAKOV: FROM ME, AMONG OTHERS.
VYSHINSKY: ...SO THERE WAS SUCH A CONVERSATION WITH LIVSHITZ?
PYATAKOV: OF COURSE.
VYSHINSKY: So Livshitz could conceive that when speaking about the terrorist act, you informed him that this terrorist act was being prepared against Stalin as well?
PYATAKOV: That is just what I am talking about.
VYSHINSKY: In my opinion the question is clear.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 355-357
RATAICHAK: .AFTER THIS I HAD A TALK WITH PYATAKOV, IN THE COURSE OF WHICH HE CONFIRMED THE DIRECTIVES.
RATAICHAK: YES, HE CONFIRMED TROTSKY'S DIRECTIVES TRANSMITTED TO ME BY LOGINOV....
VYSHINSKY (to Pyatakov): DO YOU NOW RECALL THE CONVERSATION WITH RATAICHAK ABOUT ESPIONAGE?
PYATAKOV: NO, I DENY IT.***
VYSHINSKY: AND WITH LOGINOV?
PYATAKOV: I ALSO DENY IT.***
VYSHINSKY: AND THAT MEMBERS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION WERE CONNECTED WITH FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES?
PYATAKOV: AS TO THE FACT THAT THERE WERE SUCH CONNECTIONS, I DO NOT DENY;...
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU GIVE INSTRUCTIONS TO ESTABLISH CONNECTIONS WITH FASCIST FORCES?
PYATAKOV: YES, I COMMUNICATED THE INSTRUCTIONS WE HAD RECEIVED REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CONNECTIONS WITH FASCIST FORCES.
VYSHINSKY:... It must be assumed that the intelligence service is part of the fascist forces.
PYATAKOV: That must be assumed.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 413
VYSHINSKY: I HAVE A QUESTION TO PUT TO PYATAKOV. ACCUSED PYATAKOV, PLEASE TELL ME, YOU TRAVELED IN AN AIRPLANE TO NORWAY TO MEET TROTSKY. DO YOU KNOW IN WHICH AIRDROME YOU LANDED?
PYATAKOV: NEAR OSLO.
VYSHINSKY: YOU CONFIRM THAT YOU LANDED IN AN AIRDROME NEAR OSLO?
PYATAKOV: NEAR OSLO, THAT I REMEMBER.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 442
KEY PARTS OF RADEK’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
SAYS HE GOT 2 MORE LETTERS FROM TROTSKY AND THE 2 ND ADVOCATED THE RETURN OF CAPITALISM;
IN THE 2 ND LETTER TROTSKY SPOKE OF GIVING THE GERMANS THE UKRAINE AND GIVING JAPAN THE MARITIME PROVINCES;
ADMITS HE ADVOCATED MASS KILLING AS MORE EFFECTIVE RATHER THAN INDIVIDUAL KILLINGS;
ADMITS RECEIVING TERRORIST DIRECTIVES FROM TROTSKY;
SAYS LOGINOV WAS MAKING PREPARATIONS FOR TERRORIST ACTS AGAINST KOSSIOR AND POSTYSHEV;
ADMITS THERE WAS A GROUP IN MOSCOW UNDER HIS CONTROL PREPARING TERRORIST ACTS;
ADMITS HE KNEW MDIVANI WAS PREPARING TERRORIST ACTS;
SAYS THE BLOC KNEW WHO THEY WERE TO ATTACK FROM THE BEGINNING.IN 1931;
ADMITS HE WAS IN FAVOR OF TERRORISM;
ADMITS HE WAS WORKING WITH A GROUP PREPARING A GROUP TERRORIST ACT;
SAYS HIS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE KIROV MURDER BEGAN WHEN SAFAROV CAME TO HIM IN 1930;
SAYS MRACHKOVSKY SAID THE STRUGGLE HAD ENTERED THE TERRORIST STAGE AND TO DO IT THEY UNITED WITH THE ZINOVIEVISTS;
MRACHKOVSKY NAMED DREITZER AS THE DIRECT LEADER OF THE TERRORIST ORGANIZATION ON OUR SIDE, AND BAKAYEV AS THE LEADER ON THE ZINOVIEVITES SIDE;
ADMITS HE KNEW AHEAD OF TIME THAT THE ZINOVIEVITES PLANNED TO KILL KIROV BECAUSE MRACHKOVSKY TOLD HIM;
ADMITS BEING IN A TERRORIST GROUP FROM THE BEGINNING PLANNING TO KILL KIROV;
ADMITS LEARNING ABOUT TERRORISM FROM MRACHKOVSKY;
ADMITS GETTING A 1932 LETTER FROM TROTSKY ADVOCATING TERRRISM;
ADMITS KNOWING ABOUT A LOT OF GROUPS ENGAGED IN AND PLANNING TERRORISM;
SAYS BUKHARIN TOLD HIM HE HAD TAKEN THE PATH OF TERRORISM; ADMITS HE STOOD FOR A SYSTEM OF SYSTEMATIC TERRORIST STRUGGLE;
ADMITS HE KNEW ABOUT THE PLANS OF MANY GROUPS;
ADMITS ORGANIZING THE TERRORIST STRUGGLE;
SAID HE GOT 3 LETTERS FROM TROTSKY IN WHICH TROTSKY WAS BANKING ON THE SU’S DEFEAT AND TROTSKY SAID HE HAD MADE DEALS AND CONESSIONS TO JAPAN AND GERMANY;
ADMITS NEGOTIATING WITH THE NAZIS AND MAKING CONCESSIONS WHICH IS ILLEGAL;
ADMITS WORKING FOR THE SU DEFEAT BECAUSE IT WOULD HASTEN THE BLOC COMING TO POWER;
SAYS PYATAKOV, SEREBRYAKOV, AND SOKOLNIKOV KNEW OF TROTSKY’S LETTER;
PYATAKOV, SOKOLNIKOV, AND SEREBRYAKOV ADMIT KNOWING ABOUT THE LETTER ADVOCATING SU DEFEAT;
SAID TROTSKY’S POSITION IN HIS LETTER OF DEC. 1935 WAS THAT SU MUST CEDE THE UKRAINE, GRANT CAPITALISTS ECONOMIC CONCESSIONS, DISBAND COLLECTIVE FARMS AND CONTINUE WRECKING FOR THE FASCISTS;
SAYS TROTSKY’S PROGRAM MEANT THE ENSLAVEMENT OF THE SU; SAYS DEFEAT UNDER FOREIGN INSTRUCTIONS WAS THE GIST OF TROTSKY’S PROGRAM;
SAYS PYATAKOV TOLD HIM HE HAD TO MEET TROTSKY IN OSLO TO TELL HIM HIS PROGRAM WAS UNREALISTIC AND WOULD DESTROY THE BLOC;
SAYS TROTSKY WAS WILLING TO RETREAT BACK TO CAPITALISM ACCORDING TO FOREIGN DEMANDS;
SAYS HE SAW IN 1935 THAT RETURNING TO CAPITALISM WHEN VICTORY WAS POSSIBLE WAS A MAD IDEA;
SAYS HE COULD SEE THE BLOC WAS BECOMING NOTHING BUT AN AGENT OF THE FASCIST STATES;
SAYS FOR THE SAKE OF POWER TROTSKY WAS READY TO SACRIFICE THE LAST MAN CAPABLE OF DYING FOR HIM;
SAYS TROTSKY’S DIRECTIVE WAS TO COMMIT TREASON FOR NO GOOD REASON;
ADMITS HE ACCEPTED ALL OF TROTSKY’S PROGRAM ADVOCATING DEFEAT;
ADMITS HE DISCUSSED WITH A NAZI COMMITTING TREASON AGAINST THE SU UNDER TROTSKY’S DIRECTIVE BROUGHT BY PYATAKOV; ADMITS THAT MAKING TERRITORIAL CONCESSIONS IS TREASON; ADMITS TROTSKY’S DIRECTIONS WERE DEFEATIST;
ADMITS THE TROT GROUP BECAME SPIES AND DIVERSIONISTS FOR THE GERMANS;
SAYS TROTSKY TALKED TO HIM AFTER RETURNING FROM OSLO; PYATAKOV TOLD HIM TROTSKY HAD MET WITH HESS AND OTHER OFFICIALS IN GERMANY;
PYATAKOV CONFIRMS EVERYTHING RADEK IS SAYING REGARDING TROTSKY’S AGREEMENTS WITH THE NAZIS;
VYSHINSKY: ACCUSED RADEK, DID YOU IN 1935 OR SOMEWHAT EARLIER RECEIVE TWO, OR PERHAPS MORE, LETTERS FROM TROTSKY?
RADEK: ONE LETTER IN APRIL 1934 AND ANOTHER IN DECEMBER 1935.
VYSHINSKY: DO THEIR CONTENTS TALLY WITH WHAT PYATAKOV HAS STATED HERE?
RADEK: IN THE MAIN, YES. The first letter in substance spoke of expediting war as a desirable condition for the coming to power of the Trotskyites. The second letter elaborated on these so-called two variants—coming to power in time of peace and coming to power in the event of war.
The first letter did not deal with the social consequences of the concessions which Trotsky proposed. If a deal was to be made with Germany and Japan, then of course it would not be made purely for the sake of Trotsky’s beautiful eyes. But he did not set forth the program of concessions in this letter. THE SECOND LETTER SPOKE OF THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY, WHICH TROTSKY CONSIDERED AN ESSENTIAL PART OF SUCH A DEAL FOR THE COMING TO POWER OF THE TROTSKYITES.
VYSHINSKY: WHAT WAS THIS POLICY?
RADEK: PUTTING IT IN THE SHAPE OF A FORMULA, IT WAS THE RETURN TO CAPITALISM, THE RESTORATION OF CAPITALISM. THIS WAS VEILED. The first variant would strengthen the capitalist elements; it meant handing over considerable economic interests to the Germans and Japanese in the form of concessions and assuming obligations regarding deliveries of raw materials, foodstuffs, and fats to Germany at less than world prices. The internal consequences of this were clear. The interests of private capital in Russia would concentrate around the German and Japanese concessionaires. Furthermore, this whole policy was connected with a program of restoring the individual sector, if not in the whole of agriculture, at least in a considerable part of it. But while the first variant involved the restoration of capitalist elements to a considerable degree, the second variant involved indemnities and their consequences, handing over to the Germans, if they demanded it, those factories which would be particularly valuable to their economy.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 56
VYSHINSKY: IN THIS SECOND LETTER, WHICH HAS BEEN CALLED A DETAILED PROGRAM OF DEFEATISM, WAS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE CONDITIONS WHICH, ON COMING TO POWER, THE GROUP OF THE PARALLEL CENTER WERE TO FULFILL FOR THE BENEFIT OF FOREIGN STATES?
RADEK: THE WHOLE PROGRAM WAS DIRECTED TOWARDS THIS.
VYSHINSKY: TROTSKY DID NOT OUTLINE THE CONDITIONS THEMSELVES?
RADEK: HE DID.
VYSHINSKY: ...DID HE SPEAK CONCRETELY OF TERRITORIAL CONCESSIONS?
RADEK: IT WAS STATED THAT THIS WOULD PROBABLY BE NECESSARY....
VYSHINSKY: TO HAND OVER THE UKRAINE?
RADEK: When we read the letter we had no doubt of this. Whatever it would be called, a Hetman Ukraine or something else, IT WAS A QUESTION OF SATISFYING GERMAN EXPANSION IN THE UKRAINE.
AS REGARDS JAPAN, TROTSKY SPOKE OF CEDING THE AMUR REGION AND THE MARITIME PROVINCE.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 57-58
VYSHINSKY: Accused Radek, tell me, did you have a talk about Dreitzer?
RADEK: There was a talk in July 1935.
When we first gathered together after the murder of Kirov there arose the question that it was senseless killing single individuals. This would produce no political results but would only lead to the destruction of the organization. It was therefore necessary to ascertain precisely whether forces were available for serious action or whether there were no such forces.
VYSHINSKY: DO I UNDERSTAND YOU RIGHTLY: IT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO HAVE KILLED COMRADE KIROV, OTHERS MUST BE KILLED ALSO?
RADEK: EITHER ABANDON TERRORISM ALTOGETHER, OR START SERIOUSLY ORGANIZING MASS TERRORIST ACTS WHICH WOULD GIVE RISE TO A SITUATION BRINGING US NEARER TO POWER.
VYSHINSKY: HENCE, IT IS AS I SAY: IT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO LIMIT IT TO ONE MURDER BUT, EITHER MURDER A NUMBER OF LEADERS, OR GIVE IT UP ENTIRELY?
RADEK: It is not a question of number, because if three were to be killed one after the other in the course of seven years nothing would come of it; the question stood as follows: if terrorist acts were to serve as a means to seizing power, then THE QUESTION HAD TO BE SERIOUSLY RAISED OF DESTROYING THE LEADERSHIP OF THE GOVERNMENT.
VYSHINSKY: AS A WHOLE?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 72
RADEK: There is a disagreement between what is recorded in the investigation material.
VYSHINSKY: The facts in the investigation material were received from you.
VYSHINSKY: Our investigation material is also your material.
RADEK: I assert that not one of us is refuting the investigating material. It was testified that Trotsky’s directive concerning a group terrorist act arrived in January 1936.
VYSHINSKY: TROTSKY’S DIRECTIVES CONCERNING TERRORIST ACTS, GROUP ACTS, WERE RECEIVED BY YOU?
RADEK: THEY WERE.
VYSHINSKY: IS THAT A FACT?
RADEK: YES, IT IS A FACT.
VYSHINSKY: THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THAT?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 74
VYSHINSKY: I WANT TO SAY THIS: DO YOU DENY, ACCUSED RADEK, THAT LOGINOV WAS MAKING PREPARATIONS IN THE UKRAINE FOR TERRORIST ACTS AGAINST THE PARTY LEADERS, COMRADES KOSSIOR, POSTYSHEV?
RADEK: I DO NOT DENY IT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT LOGINOV WAS ENGAGED IN PREPARING TERRORIST ACTS AGAINST THE LEADERS OF THE PARTY.
VYSHINSKY: YOU KNEW ABOUT THIS?
RADEK: I LEARNED ABOUT IT IN JANUARY 1935.
VYSHINSKY: THAT IS TO SAY, TWO YEARS AGO YOU KNEW THAT LOGINOV WAS ENGAGED IN PREPARING TERRORIST ACTS AGAINST THE LEADERS OF THE PARTY AND THE GOVERNMENT?
RADEK: FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.
VYSHINSKY: YOU KNEW THAT IN MOSCOW THERE WERE GROUPS ENGAGED IN PREPARING TERRORIST ACTS?
RADEK: ONE GROUP WAS UNDER MY DIRECTION.
VYSHINSKY: A GROUP WAS UNDER YOUR DIRECTION?
RADEK: IN MOSCOW THERE WAS ONE GROUP WHICH WAS SUBORDINATED TO ME PERSONALLY.
VYSHINSKY: What was it engaged in?
RADEK: This group, subordinated to me personally, was engaged in comparing cadres for the event of an order arriving, to commit a terrorist act.
VYSHINSKY: Hence, this was a terrorist group? DO YOU KNOW THAT MDIVANI WAS PREPARING CADRES AND HAD SET HIMSELF THE TASK OF COMMITTING TERRORIST ACTS?
VYSHINSKY:... You say that the objects of the terrorist acts were decided on. What does that mean from your professional criminal point of view? That there were marked out certain leaders of the Party and the government against whom terrorist acts were being prepared?
RADEK: FROM THE MOMENT THE BLOC WAS FORMED THE CIRCLE OF PERSONS AGAINST WHOM IT WAS INTENDED TO CARRY OUT TERRORIST ACTS WAS KNOWN.
VYSHINSKY: AND THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?
VYSHINSKY: Further, I ask you: group preparation—is this a new stage?
VYSHINSKY: ... And to decide whether it was possible to commit terrorist acts against groups or whether to stand on the old position?... Hence, had there been cadres you would have adopted one decision; had there been no cadres, owing to technical conditions, you would have adopted another decision?
RADEK: Correct. WE DID NOT ABANDON THE POSITION OF TERRORISM.
VYSHINSKY: THUS YOU DID NOT ABANDON THE POSITION OF TERRORISM. IN PRINCIPLE YOU WERE IN FAVOR OF TERRORISM?
VYSHINSKY: But you did not know whether, in the given concrete conditions, you would succeed in carrying out mass terror?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 75
RADEK: We tried to ascertain what already existed, and on the other hand, we tried to collect new cadres.
VYSHINSKY: Can this be qualified as preparing to organize group terror?
RADEK: Preparations were going on all the time; in 1935 these preparations entered the stage of preparing for a group terrorist act, as a new, expanded tactic.
VYSHINSKY: You call it a “new expanded tactic,” but in the language of the Criminal Code, it is called murder....
RADEK: In the second half of 1935 the first steps were taken to ascertain the possibilities for this act. In 1936, after instructions had been received from Trotsky, and after Pyatakov’s arrival from Berlin, I had no more dealings with regard to this matter.
VYSHINSKY: You are still avoiding a direct answer to the question. I shall permit myself to repeat my question and ask you to give a straight answer: IN THE SECOND HALF OF 1935 UP TO PYATAKOV’S RETURN FROM BERLIN IN 1936, WERE PREPARATIONS BEING MADE IN YOUR MIDST FOR A GROUP TERRORIST ACT?
RADEK: YES, THERE WERE.
VYSHINSKY: YOU CONFIRM THIS?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 77
RADEK:...a large number of Trotskyites who had returned to the party were working in key positions in various parts of the country at a time when the fight for the Five-Year Plan had become acute, when it had assumed the very acute form of clashes with kulaks in some parts of the country and with those elements among the middle peasants who followed the lead of the kulaks,...
FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU WERE TO ASK ME ABOUT MY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MURDER OF KIROV, I MUST SAY THAT THIS RESPONSIBILITY BEGAN NOT FROM THE MOMENT I JOINED THE LEADERSHIP OF THE BLOC, BUT FROM THAT MOMENT IN 1930 WHEN A MAN WITH WHOM I HAD CLOSE RELATIONS—SAFAROV—CAME TO ME looking black in the face and tried to convince me that the country was on the verge of ruin, and I did not report this—and what were the consequences? Safarov was connected with Kotolynov. If I had told the party about Safarov’s frame of mind, the party would have got at the group of the former leaders of the Leningrad Young Communist League who later became the leaders of the assassination of Kirov. And so I declare that my responsibility dates not only from the time I joined the bloc, but that the roots of this crime lie in the Trotskyite views with which I returned in which I had not thoroughly abandoned, and in the relations I had retained with the Trotskyite-Zinovievite cadres.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 83
VYSHINSKY: With which of the Trotskyites did you retain connections?
RADEK: I was connected by ties of friendship with Mrachkovsky. I was connected by old friendship with Smirnov. I was connected with Dreitzer...not to mention the old personal friends with whom I was connected—Pyatakov, Preobrazhensky, Smilga, and Serebryakov.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 84
VYSHINSKY: Mrachkovsky put questions to you and you put questions to him?
RADEK: He asked me: have you received a letter from the old man?
VYSHINSKY: Who is the old man?
RADEK: He meant Trotsky....
VYSHINSKY: WHAT DID MRACHKOVSKY REPLY?
RADEK: HE REPLIED QUITE DEFINITELY THAT THE STRUGGLE HAD ENTERED THE TERRORIST PHASE AND THAT IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THESE TACTICS THEY HAD NOW UNITED WITH THE ZINOVIEVITES AND WOULD SET ABOUT THE PREPARATORY WORK.
VYSHINSKY: What preparatory work?
RADEK: It was clear that since terrorism was the new position, the preparatory work must consist in assembling and forming terrorist cadres.
VYSHINSKY: After the new meeting in 1932 did you have other meetings with Mrachkovsky?
RADEK: I met him in the spring and autumn, when he came to Moscow on the pretext of official business....
VYSHINSKY: Did he tell you anything about Bakayev and Reingold?
RADEK: When he later outlined the scheme of organization of the bloc, HE NAMED DREITZER AS THE DIRECT LEADER OF THE TERRORIST ORGANIZATION ON OUR SIDE, AND BAKAYEV AS THE LEADER ON THE ZINOVIEVITES SIDE.
VYSHINSKY: The direct leader of the terrorist organization?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 87-89
VYSHINSKY: And when was Kirov killed?
RADEK: Kirov was killed in December 1934.
VYSHINSKY: CONSEQUENTLY, MANY MONTHS BEFORE THIS VILLAINOUS CRIME, YOU, RADEK, KNEW THAT THE TROTSKYITES WERE PREPARING TO MURDER KIROV?
RADEK: I CAN SAY EVEN MORE. I KNEW THAT IT WAS BEING PREPARED IN GENERAL, AND BY THE ZINOVIEVITES, because since it had been decided to strike at the leaders—Kirov was one of the most prominent leaders, and the Zinovievites had their main center in Petrograd —it was clear that their terrorist organization intended to strike it Kirov. Moreover, Mrachkovsky told me then that we had nothing in Leningrad; the Zinovievites were preparing there and of course we ought to have our group. That much in this connection he told me; but he did not tell me when and what would be. He only told me that the Zinovievites in Leningrad were preparing for an assassination. He told me that, and I very clearly, without any ambiguity, knew that this concerned Kirov.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 90
VYSHINSKY: When you say here that Mrachkovsky informed you of the role of Bakayev, what do you mean by that?
RADEK: He did not tell me that Bakayev personally directed the assassination of Kirov, but he named him as the leader of all the terrorist groups of the Zinovievites. I did not know whether Bakayev would commit this assassination or entrust it to somebody else, but it was clear to me that the preparations for the assassination could not proceed without Bakayev.
VYSHINSKY: And in Moscow?
RADEK: It was also from Dreitzer that I learned about the Zinovievites, about the fact that in Moscow Reingold was the leader.... He [Dreitzer] described to me what the Trotskyites already had, and said that matters were in the stage of the formation of cadres. They were organizing a number of groups and were making it their aim to wage a common struggle with the Zinovievites,... I asked him who would lead this preparatory work in Moscow on the Zinovievites’ side. He said that on the Zinovievites’ side the general leadership was in the hands of Bakayev, just as it was in the hands of Mrachkovsky on our side, while Reingold was in charge in Moscow.
VYSHINSKY: THUS YOU WERE FULLY INFORMED OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THESE TERRORIST GROUPS?
RADEK: OF COURSE, AS A MEMBER OF THE CENTER I WAS FULLY INFORMED.
VYSHINSKY: AND YOU WERE INFORMED OF THE FACT THAT PRACTICAL PREPARATIONS FOR ASSASSINATION WERE BEING MADE?
RADEK: I KNEW ABOUT THE PRACTICAL PREPARATIONS, THE ASSEMBLAGE OF CADRES, THE ORGANIZATION OF THESE CADRES, THE TRAINING OF THESE CADRES, AS A PARTICIPANT OF THE TROTSKYITE-ZINOVIEVITE BLOC FROM ITS VERY BEGINNING.
VYSHINSKY: AND ALSO AS A PARTICIPANT IN THE TERRORIST ACTS, ONE OF WHICH WAS THE ASSASSINATION OF KIROV?
RADEK: AND ALSO IN THE TERRORIST ACTS, ONE OF WHICH WAS THE ASSASSINATION OF KIROV.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 91
RADEK:... of the members of the Zinovievite center, until 1932 I met Zinoviev and Kamenev casually. After I joined the movement, in 1933, I did not see them at all. They were at that time in exile because of their part in and connection with the opposition platform.
VYSHINSKY: AND SO IT MAY BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED THAT YOU LEARNED ABOUT TERRORISM FROM MRACHKOVSKY?
VYSHINSKY: this was before you received the letter from Trotsky?
RADEK: This was after I received the letter from Trotsky. The letter from Trotsky was received in February or March 1932.
VYSHINSKY: THAT IS, IN FEBRUARY 1932 YOU RECEIVED A LETTER FROM TROTSKY IN WHICH HE ALREADY SPOKE OF THE NECESSITY OF GETTING RID OF....
VYSHINSKY:... OF THE NECESSITY OF REMOVING; CONSEQUENTLY, YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT TERRORISM WAS MEANT?
RADEK: OF COURSE.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 92
RADEK:... I had unspecified information in the period of 1933-34 about the existence of groups, of the organization of a number of groups in Moscow. They were led by Dreitzer, but I did not know their personnel....
VYSHINSKY: A whole lot of groups?
RADEK: Yes. I did not know about all of them, I was not in immediate charge of this act. But if we are to speak of political, juridical and moral responsibility, you may hold me responsible for all the groups, even for those of which I did not know.
That means that I must bear responsibility for all the center did through the medium of its organs.
VYSHINSKY: DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE TERRORIST GROUP WHICH OPERATED IN TULA?
RADEK: I KNEW OF ITS EXISTENCE.
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU KNOW THAT IT EXISTED AS A TERRORIST GROUP?
RADEK: OF COURSE.
VYSHINSKY: THAT IT WAS PREPARING AN ATTEMPT ON THE LIVES OF THE LEADERS OF OUR PARTY AND GOVERNMENT.
RADEK: WHY, CLEARLY.
VYSHINSKY: THAT WAS CLEAR TO YOU?
RADEK: THAT IS ALL A TERRORIST GROUP IS ENGAGED IN.
VYSHINSKY: AND YOU KNEW THAT?
RADEK: OF COURSE.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 93-95
VYSHINSKY: WHAT CONVERSATIONS DID YOU HAVE WITH BUKHARIN?
RADEK: IF YOU MEAN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT TERRORISM I CAN ENUMERATE THEM CONCRETELY. THE FIRST CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE IN JUNE OR JULY 1934, AFTER BUKHARIN CAME TO WORK FOR IZVESTIA. AT THAT TIME HE AND I CONVERSED AS MEMBERS OF TWO CENTERS WHICH WERE IN CONTACT WITH EACH OTHER. I ASKED HIM: “YOU HAVE TAKEN THE PATH OF TERRORISM?” HE SAID: “YES.” WHEN I ASKED HIM WHO WAS DIRECTING THIS ACTIVITY HE MENTIONED UGLANOV AND HIMSELF, BUKHARIN. During the conversation he said to me that it was necessary to prepare cadres from among the academic youth....
VYSHINSKY: What other conversations did you have?
RADEK: That was one conversation about terrorism. That was all he told me on that occasion. The next conversation regarding terrorism... took place at the end of December 1934 after the assassination of Kirov....
We became convinced that this murder had not produced the results the organizers had expected. It was not justified by the results; it was not a blow at the Central Committee; it did not rouse sympathy among the masses of the people as the Trotskyites-Zinovievites had expected it would; on the contrary, it resulted in the masses of the people uniting around the Central Committee; it led to the arrest of a large number of Zinovievites and Trotskyites.
Already at that time we said to ourselves: either this act, the result of the tactics of individual terrorism, demands the cessation of terrorist actions or it demands that we go further and commit a terrorist act against a whole group....
I have no practical experience whatsoever in the sphere of terrorist struggle, but I know from history, from books...and so I had to ask myself whether it was possible for the bloc to achieve the aims it had set itself by firing at individual people, and firing, moreover, at long intervals. Moreover—in answer to this question—I knew something about the difference of our organs of state security from other such organs in other countries and in the old days. I knew that, as distinct from the latter, our organs of state security had the tremendous support of the broadest masses of the people, who will inform them about any suspicious case....
VYSHINSKY:... I ask you: were there, then, two systems of terrorist struggle? One, which you call the guerrilla system, and another, which you have called planned and serious work?
RADEK: Yes. Therefore I did not consider the path of individual terrorism a serious one.
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU STAND FOR THE FIRST OR THE SECOND SYSTEM OF TERRORIST STRUGGLE?
RADEK: I STOOD FOR THE OLD SYSTEM UNTIL I BECAME CONVINCED THAT THIS STRUGGLE WAS JUST A GUERRILLA STRUGGLE. THEN I STOOD FOR A SYSTEMATIC TERRORIST STRUGGLE.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 99-101
VYSHINSKY: WHEN YOU WERE INFORMED ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TIVEL GROUP, ABOUT THE ZAKS-GLADNYEV GROUP, ABOUT THE PRIGOZHIN GROUP OR ABOUT HIS ACTIVITIES, ABOUT THE ZEIDEL GROUP, ABOUT THE BYELOBORODOV GROUP, ABOUT THE MURALOV GROUP—WHAT WAS YOUR POINT OF VIEW THEN?
RADEK: THESE WERE GROUPS WHICH AROSE AT VARIOUS TIMES.
VYSHINSKY: IN THAT. ALL THE GROUPS EXISTED, ALL WERE MAKING PREPARATIONS?
VYSHINSKY: HENCE, YOUR POSITION AT THAT TIME WAS THAT YOU RECOGNIZED THE NECESSITY OF A SYSTEMATIC, REGULAR, ORGANIZED GROUP STRUGGLE?
VYSHINSKY: HAVING COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO PASS TO COMMITTING TERRORIST ACTS AGAINST GROUPS, DID YOU TAKE ANY MEASURES TO ORGANIZE THIS STRUGGLE?
RADEK: I DID.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 102-103
RADEK: I RECEIVED THREE LETTERS FROM TROTSKY; IN APRIL 1934, IN DECEMBER 1935, AND IN JANUARY 1936. In the letter of 1934 Trotsky put the question in this way: the accession of fascism to power in Germany had fundamentally changed the whole situation. It implied war in the near future, inevitable war, the more so that the situation was simultaneously becoming acute in the Far East. TROTSKY HAD NO DOUBT THAT THIS WAR WOULD RESULT IN THE DEFEAT OF THE SOVIET UNION. THIS DEFEAT, HE WROTE, WILL CREATE FAVORABLE CONDITIONS FOR THE ACCESSION TO POWER OF THE BLOC. And from this he drew the conclusion that the bloc was interested in sharpening the conflicts. He reproached Sokolnikov and myself for committing ourselves in too personal a way in the struggle for peace,... IN THIS LETTER TROTSKY STATED THAT HE HAD ESTABLISHED CONTACTS WITH A CERTAIN FAR EASTERN STATE AND A CERTAIN CENTRAL EUROPEAN STATE, AND THAT HE HAD OPENLY TOLD SEMI-OFFICIAL CIRCLES OF THESE STATES THAT THE BLOC STOOD FOR A BARGAIN WITH THEM AND WAS PREPARED TO MAKE CONSIDERABLE CONCESSIONS BOTH OF AN ECONOMIC AND TERRITORIAL CHARACTER.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 106
RADEK:... I told him [a diplomatic representative of a Central European country] that realist politicians in the USSR understand the significance of a German-Soviet rapprochement and are prepared to make the necessary concessions to achieve this rapprochement. This representative understood that since I was speaking about realist politicians it meant that there were realist politicians and unrealist politicians in the USSR: the unrealist politicians were the Soviet government, while the realist politicians were the Trotskyite-Zinovievite bloc. And he also understood that what I meant was: if the bloc comes into power it will make concessions in order to bring about a rapprochement with your government and the country which it represents. IN MAKING THAT REPLY I UNDERSTOOD THAT I WAS COMMITTING AN ACT INADMISSIBLE FOR A CITIZEN OF THE SOVIET UNION.
VYSHINSKY: Did you also tell them about the contents of Trotsky’s letter?
RADEK: I spoke very distinctly about the contents of Trotsky’s letter.
VYSHINSKY: What questions were raised in it?
RADEK: The victory of fascism in Germany. The growth of Japanese aggression. The inevitability of these countries waging war against the USSR. The necessity for the bloc, if it came into power, to make concessions.... The attitude towards defeat was entirely positive because it was stated that this would create the conditions for the accession to power of the bloc, and it even stated more, that it was in our interest to hasten war.
VYSHINSKY: HENCE YOU WERE INTERESTED IN HASTENING WAR AND IT WAS TO YOUR INTEREST THAT THE USSR SHOULD BE DEFEATED IN THIS WAR? HOW WAS THIS PUT IN TROTSKY’S LETTER?
RADEK: DEFEAT IS INEVITABLE AND IT WILL CREATE THE CONDITIONS FOR OUR ACCESSION TO POWER, THEREFORE, WE WERE INTERESTED IN HASTENING THE WAR. THE CONCLUSION IS: WE ARE INTERESTED IN DEFEAT.
VYSHINSKY:...the letter which you received from Trotsky in April 1934—this letter spoke about war, about this war being inevitable, that in this war the USSR, in Trotsky’s opinion, would suffer defeat, that as a result of this war and defeat the bloc would come to power. AND NOW I ASK YOU: IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE YOU FOR THE DEFEAT OF THE USSR OR FOR THE VICTORY OF THE USSR?...
RADEK: ALL MY ACTIONS DURING THESE YEARS TESTIFIED TO THE FACT THAT I AIDED DEFEAT.
VYSHINSKY: THESE ACTIONS OF YOURS WERE DELIBERATE?
RADEK: APART FROM SLEEPING, I HAVE NEVER IN MY LIFE COMMITTED ANY UNDELIBERATE ACTIONS.
VYSHINSKY: AND THIS, UNFORTUNATELY, WAS NOT A DREAM?
RADEK: UNFORTUNATELY THIS WAS NOT A DREAM.
VYSHINSKY: IT WAS REALITY?
RADEK: IT WAS SAD REALITY.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 109-111
VYSHINSKY:... WERE PYATAKOV, SEREBRYAKOV, AND SOKOLNIKOV INFORMED ABOUT TROTSKY’S LETTER?
VYSHINSKY: I will be very brief. (TO PYATAKOV.) DO YOU CONFIRM THAT YOU WERE INFORMED ABOUT TROTSKY’S LETTER TO RADEK?
PYATAKOV: I TESTIFIED TO THIS EFFECT YESTERDAY AND HEREBY CONFIRM THAT THIS IS IN FULL ACCORDANCE WITH THE FACTS.
VYSHINSKY (TO SOKOLNIKOV): I PUT THE SAME QUESTION TO YOU.
SOKOLNIKOV: I AM ALSO INFORMED ABOUT IT.
VYSHINSKY: YOU ALSO SHARED THIS STANDPOINT?
VYSHINSKY (TO SEREBRYAKOV): YOU ALSO SHARED THIS STANDPOINT OF DEFEATISM?
SEREBRYAKOV: I DID NOT OBJECT.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 112-113
VYSHINSKY: You said there was a second letter in December 1935. Tell us about it.
RADEK:...a radical change was indicated in this letter. FOR, IN THE FIRST PLACE, TROTSKY CONSIDERED THAT AS A RESULT OF THE DEFEAT THERE WOULD ARISE THE INEVITABILITY OF MAKING TERRITORIAL CONCESSIONS, AND HE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THE UKRAINE. In the second place, it was a question of the partition of the USSR. In the third place, from the economic standpoint, he foresaw the following consequences of the defeat: NOT ONLY THE GRANTING OF CONCESSIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES OF IMPORTANCE TO CAPITALIST STATES, BUT ALSO THE TRANSFER, THE SALE TO PRIVATE CAPITALIST OWNERS, OF IMPORTANT ECONOMIC ENTERPRISES TO BE SPECIFIED BY THEM. Trotsky contemplated the issue of debenture loans, i.e., the admission of foreign capital for the exploitation of those factories which would formally remain in the hands of the Soviet state.
IN THE SPHERE OF AGRARIAN POLICY, HE QUITE CLEARLY STATED THAT THE COLLECTIVE FARMS WOULD HAVE TO BE DISBANDED, and advanced the idea of giving tractors and other complex agricultural machinery to individual peasants in order to revive a new kulak stratum. Lastly, it was quite openly stated that private capital would have to be revived in the cities. It was clear that it meant the restoration of capitalism.
In the sphere of politics, a new note in this letter was the way it posed the question of power. In this letter Trotsky said: There can be no talk of any kind of democracy. The working class has lived through 18 years of revolution, and it has vast appetites; and this working class will have to be sent back partly to privately-owned factories and partly to state-owned factories which will have to compete with foreign capital under most difficult conditions. That means that the living standard of the working class will be drastically lowered. In the countryside the struggle of the poor and middle peasants against the kulaks will be renewed. And then, in order to hold power, we shall need a strong government, irrespective of what forms are employed to veil it.
...He realized that the master of the situation, with whose aid the bloc could come to power, would be fascism—on the one hand German fascism and on the other hand the military fascism of another, Far Eastern country.
And as regards practical conclusions, the new factor here was that this activity—meaning wrecking activity—would have to be specially agreed upon with that partner with whose help alone the bloc could come to power.
Finally, the new feature was—although this, far from being the essence of the matter, was only camouflage—that we were confronted with the prospect of having to accept everything, but if we remained alive and in power, then owing to the victory of these two countries, and as a result of their plunder and profit a conflict would arise between them and the others, and this would lead to our new development, our “revanche.” But this was a prospect from the realm of fiction. Such is the substance of this first directive.
There was one other very important point in these directives, namely, the formula that we would inevitably have to bring the social structure of the USSR into line with the victorious fascist countries if we wanted to keep in power at all. It was this idea of bringing into line—a pseudonym for the restoration of capitalism which immediately struck us as something specifically knew when we received these directives.
VYSHINSKY: SO IF WE BRIEFLY SUM UP THE CONTENTS OF THIS LETTER, WHAT ARE THE MAIN POINTS?
RADEK: WE CONTINUED TO MAINTAIN OUR STAND OF 1934 THAT DEFEAT WAS INEVITABLE.... THE CONCLUSION TO BE DRAWN FROM THIS INEVITABLE DEFEAT WAS THAT NOW THE PROBLEM OF RESTORING CAPITALISM WAS OPENLY SET BEFORE US.... THE THIRD CONDITION WAS THE MOST NOVEL OF ALL FOR US—THAT OF REPLACING THE SOVIET POWER BY WHAT HE CALLED A BONAPARTIST GOVERNMENT. AND IT WAS CLEAR TO US THAT THIS MEANT FASCISM WITHOUT ITS OWN FINANCE CAPITAL, SERVING FOREIGN FINANCE CAPITAL.... THE FOURTH WAS THE PARTITION OF THE COUNTRY. IT WAS PLANNED TO SURRENDER THE UKRAINE TO GERMANY AND THE MARITIME PROVINCE AND THE AMUR REGION TO JAPAN.... THE PAYMENT OF INDEMNITIES IN THE FORM OF SUPPLIES OF FOOD, RAW MATERIALS AND FATS EXTENDING OVER A LONG PERIOD OF YEARS. THEN—AT FIRST HE [TROTSKY] SAID THIS WITHOUT GIVING FIGURES BUT AFTERWARDS IN MORE DEFINITE FORM—A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF PARTICIPATION IN SOVIET IMPORTS TO BE GUARANTEED TO THE VICTORIOUS COUNTRIES. ALL THIS TOGETHER MEANT THE COMPLETE ENSLAVEMENT OF THE COUNTRY.
VYSHINSKY: Was there talk about Sakhalin oil?
RADEK: As regards Japan, we were told she must not only be given Sakhalin oil but be guaranteed oil in the event of a war with the USA. It was stated that no obstacles must be raised to the conquest of China by Japanese imperialism.
VYSHINSKY: ...As regards the Danube and Balkan countries.
RADEK: As regards the Danube and Balkan countries, Trotsky said in his letter that German fascism was expanding and we should do nothing to prevent this.
VYSHINSKY: Did these six conditions cover the whole contents of this letter of 1935?
RADEK: Yes.... THIS LETTER CONTAINED INSTRUCTIONS ON THE NECESSITY OF SPREADING AND INTENSIFYING WRECKING, TERRORIST AND DIVERSIVE ACTIVITIES.
These activities were in line with the whole program, and they were referred to as one of the main levers in coming to power. In connection with war it was pointed out that the Trotskyites must undermine the organization and discipline of the army.
...THE DIVERSIVE ACTIVITIES OF THE TROTSKYITES IN THE WAR INDUSTRY WERE TO BE AGREED UPON WITH THOSE PARTNERS WITH WHOM WE WOULD SUCCEED IN REACHING AN AGREEMENT—THAT IS TO SAY, WITH THE GENERAL STAFFS OF THE FOREIGN STATES INVOLVED.
VYSHINSKY: TO AGREE WITH THE GENERAL STAFFS OF THE COUNTRIES CONCERNED UPON A PLAN OF ACTS OF DIVERSION?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 113-116
VYSHINSKY (TO RADEK): WHAT WAS THE GIST OF TROTSKY’S PROGRAM IN 1935?
RADEK: IN 1935 THE QUESTION WAS RAISED OF GOING BACK TO CAPITALISM.
VYSHINSKY: TO WHAT LIMITS?
RADEK: WHAT TROTSKY PROPOSED, WAS WITHOUT ANY LIMITS. TO SUCH LIMITS AS THE ENEMY MIGHT REQUIRE.
VYSHINSKY: SO, AGAIN, DEFEAT WAS ON THE ORDER OF THE DAY?
RADEK: YES, THE NEW FEATURE NOW WAS THAT DEFEAT WAS LINKED UP WITH FOREIGN INSTRUCTIONS.
VYSHINSKY: THAT IS TO SAY, THERE WAS NOW A DIRECT ARRANGEMENT WITH FOREIGN GENERAL STAFFS—AND THIS WAS NOT THE CASE BEFORE?
RADEK: THIS WAS NOT THE CASE BEFORE.
VYSHINSKY: PYATAKOV TOLD YOU ABOUT HIS VISIT TO OSLO?
RADEK: PYATAKOV’S VISIT WAS DECIDED ON AFTER WE HAD CONFERRED TOGETHER.... WHY DID I PROPOSE THIS AND WHY DID HE IMMEDIATELY AGREE THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO VISIT TROTSKY? HE SUPPORTED IT BY SAYING THAT THE MAN HAD COMPLETELY LOST ALL SENSE OF REALITY AND WAS SETTING US TASKS WHICH WE WERE UNABLE TO CARRY OUT, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT OUR ATTITUDE TO THEM WAS, AND IT HAD BECOME NECESSARY TO GO TO SEE HIM AT ALL COSTS AND TALK THINGS OVER WITH HIM.... But I must admit that I did not for one moment believe those motives which Pyatakov put forward.
RADEK: For the simple reason that Pyatakov knows Trotsky far too well to think for one moment that Trotsky would ever admit, under the influence of his arguments, that he did not know the basic elements of the situation;...
...I closed my eyes and thought about the people in question, that a number of the most important persons, those who had sinned most deeply from the point of view of the Criminal Code, would not only fail to understand these directives but that they would respond to them by severing their connection. I did not think for a minute that Muralov would agree to a policy of supporting the partition of the USSR. Nor could I conceive this to be true of a dozen other persons with whom I was personally acquainted.... for me, as a politician, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THIS PROGRAM WAS BREAKING UP THE BLOC; IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS PROGRAM THEY WERE INDULGING IN WRECKING ACTIVITIES, TERRORISM AND SIMILAR THINGS WHICH UNDERMINED THE POWER OF THE SOVIET UNION. But to come and to say that this had to be done in order to obtain power and to become police sergeant, as a result and to establish capitalism in the country—this, I was firmly convinced, meant the collapse and death of the bloc.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 119-120
RADEK: But I nonetheless maintain that there is a new factor here about which I shall perhaps have to give you specific answers later on, and that this factor existed not only for me but for all the others who knew these directives: these directives were the limit.
VYSHINSKY: Three facts: the April letter of 1934, the December letter of 1935 and Pyatakov’s meeting with Trotsky in December 1935. How was the question put in Trotsky’s letter in 1934? War, working for defeat?
VYSHINSKY: A return to capitalism in substance?
RADEK: No, a return to capitalism is not raised in the letter of 1934.***
VYSHINSKY: No? What then?
RADEK: A retreat which we then thought....
VYSHINSKY: To where?
RADEK: To the positions of the NEP, with industry strengthened in comparison with what it had been before 1928.
VYSHINSKY: A retreat towards strengthening what elements?
RADEK: A retreat which was to restore a part of the capitalist elements as well, but this retreat, if compared with the state of things in 1927—there would be a possibility during this retreat, on the one hand, of admitting capitalist restoration, but at the same time of strengthening industry, thanks to the First Five-Year Plan, the state farms, and part of the collective farms—that is to say, we would have an economic base on which in my opinion a proletarian government could have maintained itself.
VYSHINSKY: So a proletarian government could still have maintained itself? But the tendency was to go backward?
RADEK: The tendency was to go backward.
VYSHINSKY: in 1935 this stood out more clearly in comparison with 1934?
RADEK: IN 1935 THE QUESTION WAS RAISED OF GOING BACK TO CAPITALISM.
VYSHINSKY: TO WHAT LIMITS?
RADEK: WHAT TROTSKY PROPOSED WAS WITHOUT ANY LIMITS. TO SUCH LIMITS AS THE ENEMY MIGHT REQUIRE.
VYSHINSKY: SO, AGAIN, DEFEAT WAS ON THE ORDER OF THE DAY?
RADEK: YES. THE NEW FEATURE NOW WAS THAT DEFEAT WAS LINKED UP WITH FOREIGN INSTRUCTIONS.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 122
VYSHINSKY: I will now pass on to your attitude towards the letter in 1934 and the conversation in 1935. Was there any difference?
RADEK: There was no difference whatever. There was one new point: concentration.
VYSHINSKY: On the question of partitioning the USSR there was also no difference between the conversation and the letter?
RADEK: No, no difference.
VYSHINSKY: On the question of territorial concessions—just the same?
RADEK: Just the same.
VYSHINSKY: On the question of terrorist activities—no difference here either?
VYSHINSKY: What then was the new feature?
RADEK: The new feature was that it was now linked up with foreign instructions.
VYSHINSKY: So that is the difference? That is to say, we have here a direct arrangement with foreign general staffs—and was not this the case before?
RADEK: That was not the case before.
VYSHINSKY: That made you stop and think?
RADEK: It was not that which made me stop and think as much as the situation that existed in the country before, in 1934, and after. It was this that made me stop and think. After all, we were not born in order to help the fascists defeat the Soviet Union. In 1934 we considered that defeat was inevitable....
We proceeded from an overestimation of the difficulties in the countryside.... The position on the railways was at that time considered to be catastrophic. If but now, towards the end of 1935, could we consider that the situation on the railways was catastrophic?... we all knew of the tremendous work which the railways had accomplished under Kaganovich’s direction. I personally, in connection with my official business, knew of the opinion held of our railways by foreign intelligence services, who considered that our railways were prepared for war.... I also knew that everything required for the prosecution of war would be supplied.... Collective farms, which I had been observing from year to year, in 1935 represented something incomparable, something absolutely different from what they were in 1933. And so, if in 1933 or 1934 we proceeded from the assumption that defeat was inevitable, and considered it necessary to assist this fact, so as to get something out of it, we now saw that the idea of the destruction of the USSR by Western fascism and by the military-fascist circles in the East, which Trotsky took as his starting point—was now, from the standpoint of objective reality a fantasy, that all the conditions for victory existed.... In 1934 we took defeat as our starting point, as a necessary fact, but in 1935 every one of us was bound to say to himself—if you are ready to do that you are thwarting a possible victory, which is already assured, even if against you. While in 1933 and 1934 we considered economic retreat as something necessitated by circumstances, as something essential for the country, and not only in order that we might come to power, we now saw that the country had emerged from its chief difficulties and that the Five-Year Plan had succeeded, not only in the fact that it had built factories, but because it had become a live reality.
VYSHINSKY: And what was the conclusion?...
RADEK: And therefore the conclusion: restoration of capitalism in the circumstances of 1935. FOR NOTHING AT ALL, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF TROTSKY’S BEAUTIFUL EYES—THE COUNTRY WAS TO RETURN TO CAPITALISM. WHEN I READ THIS I FELT AS IF IT WERE A MADHOUSE. And, lastly, and this is no unimportant fact, formerly the position was that we were fighting for power because we were convinced that we could secure something to the country. Now we were to fight in order that foreign capital might rule, which would put us completely under its control before it allowed us to come to power. What did the directive to agree upon wrecking activities with foreign circles mean? For me this directive meant something very simple, something very comprehensible to me as a political organizer, namely that agents of foreign powers were becoming wedged in our organization, that OUR ORGANIZATION WAS BECOMING THE DIRECT REPRESENTATIVE OF FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES. WE CEASED TO BE IN THE SLIGHTEST DEGREE THE MASTERS OF OUR ACTIONS. WE HAD PUT UP WITH TROTSKY WHEN HE GAVE US DIRECTIVES FROM ABROAD, BUT IN THIS CASE WE WERE TO BECOME THE AGENCY OF FOREIGN FASCIST STATES.
This denoted in practice that if such men as Livshitz or Serebryakov, with decades of revolutionary work behind them, could descend to wrecking, now their moral fiber would have to be utterly broken, and they would act on the instructions of the class enemy. Either they would lose their bearings, or they would become spies. If they lost their bearings, I can do nothing with them; if they became agents of foreign states, others would give them their orders. As a result, if foreign fascism came in, this fascism, far from letting Trotskyites get into power—they are of no use to it—would destroy the organization because it had no need to trouble itself with this crowd of anarchist intellectuals. So that even if my attitude to the country did not weigh with me, there was pure egotism. The leader of the organization told me that FOR THE SAKE OF POWER, FOR THE PHANTOM OF POWER, TROTSKY WAS READY TO SACRIFICE THE LAST MAN CAPABLE OF DYING FOR HIM, and I could not demand this of people who had been my associates for 15 years.
VYSHINSKY:...You are now describing all those mental perplexities and vacillations which made you think it necessary to summon a conference. What was the cause of this perplexity and these vacillations?
RADEK: THE REALIZATION THAT THIS DIRECTIVE WAS A DIRECTIVE TO COMMIT TREASON AGAINST THE SOCIALIST FATHERLAND, WHICH MIGHT BE VICTORIOUS IN A WAR, AND TO ASSIST FOREIGN CAPITAL IN RESTORING CAPITALISM IN RUSSIA, WHICH RESTORATION WAS NOT DICTATED BY ANY OBJECTIVE NECESSITY.
VYSHINSKY: That means that the following conclusion may be drawn: as long as you assumed that socialism in our country was feeble, you considered treachery permissible, that it was permissible to work for war, that it was permissible to work for the defeat of the Soviet Union, and so on. But when you saw that socialism was sufficiently powerful and strong, you decided that neither war nor defeat were possible.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 123-126
VYSHINSKY: WERE YOU IN FAVOR OF DEFEAT IN 1934?
RADEK: I CONSIDERED DEFEAT INEVITABLE.
VYSHINSKY: WERE YOU IN FAVOR OF DEFEAT?
RADEK: I CONSIDERED IT AN INEVITABLE FACT.
VYSHINSKY: YOU ARE ANSWERING MY QUESTION INCORRECTLY. DID YOU ACCEPT THE WHOLE OF TROTSKY’S LINE GIVEN TO YOU IN 1934?
RADEK: I ACCEPTED THE WHOLE OF TROTSKY’S LINE IN 1934.
VYSHINSKY: WAS DEFEAT PART OF IT?
RADEK: YES, IT WAS A LINE OF DEFEAT.
VYSHINSKY: TROTSKY’S LINE INCLUDED DEFEAT?
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU ACCEPT IT?
RADEK: I DID....
VYSHINSKY: Is it correct to say that in 1935 you were opposed to a program of defeat because you considered it unreal?
VYSHINSKY:... In 1935, after Pyatakov’s meeting with Trotsky, about which you learned in January 1936, you were disturbed by the too frank way in which the question of becoming an appendage of fascism was put?
RADEK: Not by the too frank way in which it was put, but by the fact itself.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 127-128
VYSHINSKY: YOU SAID THAT THE WAY THE QUESTION WAS PUT BY TROTSKY IN DECEMBER 1935 IN THE CONVERSATION WITH PYATAKOV AND IN THE LETTER AMOUNTED TO A PROPOSAL FOR TREASON AGAINST THE COUNTRY?
VYSHINSKY: YOUR CONVERSATION IN NOVEMBER 1934 WITH THIS MR.----OF ONE OF THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN STATES IF I’M NOT MISTAKEN WAS...?
RADEK: ABOUT TREASON AGAINST THE COUNTRY.
VYSHINSKY: YOU ACCEPTED THIS? AND YOU HELD THIS CONVERSATION?
RADEK: YOU HAVE LEARNED IT FROM ME, THAT MEANS THAT I DID HOLD IT.
VYSHINSKY: WHAT WAS THIS, TREASON AGAINST THE COUNTRY?
VYSHINSKY: AND DID IT NOT DISTURB YOU?
RADEK: IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING. OF COURSE, IT DISTURBED ME. DO YOU THINK I HAVE TRAINED MYSELF FOR TREASON AGAINST THE COUNTRY? IT DISTURBED ME VERY PROFOUNDLY.
VYSHINSKY: BUT YOU CONTINUED TO ADHERE TO THE POSITION OF DEFEAT?
RADEK: YES, MY POSITION WAS ONE OF CARRYING OUT TROTSKY’S DIRECTIVE.
VYSHINSKY: EVEN THOUGH THIS DIRECTIVE MEANT TREASON AGAINST THE COUNTRY?
VYSHINSKY: YOU ADMIT THAT THE FACT OF THE CONVERSATION WITH MR.----IN NOVEMBER 1934 WAS TREASON AGAINST THE COUNTRY?
RADEK: I REALIZED THIS AT THE TIME OF THE CONVERSATION AND CHARACTERIZE IT NOW AS I DID THEN.
VYSHINSKY: AS TREASON?
VYSHINSKY: AND THE FACT THAT PYATAKOV BROUGHT YOU THE DIRECTIVE, WAS THAT TREASON TOO AGAINST THE COUNTRY?
RADEK: THAT WAS ALSO TREASON AGAINST THE COUNTRY....
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 129-130
RADEK: I thought of the fact that I did not know at what stage there would be war, when there would be war, why, what concessions would have to be made, what particular concessions, what the plan would be.
VYSHINSKY: Nevertheless, THESE WERE TO BE CONCESSIONS OF SOMETHING REAL? DOES THAT INCLUDE TERRITORY?
RADEK: IT MAY INCLUDE, BUT NOT NECESSARILY INCLUDES.
VYSHINSKY: IS THAT TREASON?
VYSHINSKY: IS THAT TREASON?
RADEK: IT IS TREASON, OF COURSE.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 130-131
VYSHINSKY: VERY WELL, WILL YOU CONFIRM THE DESCRIPTION OF YOUR ACTIVITIES YOU GAVE WHEN EXAMINED IN THE PROCURATOR’S OFFICE BEFORE JANUARY 17, 1937?
PERMIT ME TO READ VOL. V, PAGE 119:
“THE NEW AND MORE FAR-REACHING INSTRUCTIONS TROTSKY ISSUED IN DECEMBER 1935 CARRIED HIS DEFEATIST AND RESTORATION POLICY TO EXTREME LIMITS....”
DO YOU CONFIRM THIS?
VYSHINSKY: “... AND THE DIMINUTION OF THE PROSPECTS OF THE BLOC COMING TO POWER CONVERTED THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION INTO A NETWORK OF SPIES AND DIVERSIONISTS FOR THE GERMAN GENERAL STAFF....”
RADEK: YES, I FULLY CONFIRM IT.
VYSHINSKY: And further:
“And therefore it is not surprising that the center of the bloc grew nervous, I emphasize it, was afraid....”
RADEK: Yes, yes.
VYSHINSKY:... of taking responsibility for this platform arrived at by Trotsky himself with Hess and decided to summon a conference of the active members of the organization. That is, the chief motive was fright?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 132
VYSHINSKY (to Radek): Did you ever speak to Pyatakov, or with someone else, about the date when the possible war would approach?
RADEK: WHEN PYATAKOV RETURNED FROM OSLO I PUT A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS TO HIM CONCERNING FOREIGN POLICY. HE INFORMED ME THAT, FIRST, TROTSKY HAD TOLD HIM that it was not a matter of a five-year period, not a matter of five years, but of one year, or, at most, of two years. It was a matter of war in 1937. Then I asked Pyatakov: “Did Trotsky tell you this as his own assumption?” PYATAKOV REPLIED: “NO, TROTSKY SAID THAT HE HAD GOT THIS IN HIS CONVERSATION WITH HESS AND OTHER SEMI-OFFICIAL PERSONS IN GERMANY WITH WHOM HE HAD DEALINGS.” Hence it was a directive giving an orientation for a very definite date.
I asked him: “So it is a matter of a separate war against the USSR?” To this Pyatakov replied that Trotsky had spoken about war in 1937 in general without separating the attack on the USSR from the general developments. And when I asked Pyatakov how did Trotsky exactly picture to himself the development of events, Pyatakov replied that Trotsky had said: “Military preparations had been completed and now it was a matter of securing to Germany the diplomatic means. That would take a year. And he said that the object of these diplomatic strivings were, first, to secure British neutrality. Secondly, either Germany would come to an arrangement with France, or, relying upon the growing fascist movement which would weaken the democratic government of France, she would be able, under favorable circumstances, to put France out of action for a long time by a swift blow, and strike at the USSR with concentrated forces. This was the second fact communicated by Pyatakov.
The third point that emerged from Trotsky’s conversation with Pyatakov was that Germany demanded complete freedom of action for the advance of Germany to the Balkan and Danube countries. This is also a very important fact.
VYSHINSKY (to Pyatakov): DID YOU SAY THAT? DO YOU CONFIRM THAT?
PYATAKOV: YES. RADEK IS RELATING IT VERY EXACTLY. IT IS ALL QUITE TRUE.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre—1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 445
KEY PARTS OF LIVSHITZ’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
SAYS PYATOKOV TOLD HIM TERROR AND SABOTAGE HAD TO BE ADOPTED;
ADMITS ORGANIZING TO COMMIT WRECKING DURING WARTIME;
ADMITS DOING WRECKING WORK UNDER PYATAKOV’S DIRECTIONS; SAYS ALL OF SEREBRYAKOV TESTIMONY IS CORRECT;
SAYS PYATAKOV HAD MET WITH SMIRNOV AND SEDOV AND LEARNED THAT TROTSKY HAD DECIDED TO ADOPT TERRORIST METHODS; SAYS PYATAKOV SPOKE TO HIM ABOUT TERRORISM AND DESTRUCTIVE WORK AND HE AGREED TO HELP;
ADMITS WRECKING THE COAL DELIVERY PROGRAM;
SAYS SEREBRYAKOV TOLD HIM ARNOLDOV WAS DOING WRECKING ON HIS ORDERS;
SAYS ARNOLDOV DELIBERATELY DELAYED BUILDING FOUR NEW CAR- REPAIR WORKS;
SAYS SEREBRYAKOV TALKED ABOUT DISRUPTING OIL SHIPMENTS; ADMITS HE CONTINUED HIS WRECKING ACTIVITIES WHILE ASSISTANT PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR OF RAILWAYS;
SAYS PYATAKOV WANTED WRECKING DONE MORE ENERGETICALLY; ADMITS HIS AIM WAS TO DO DISRUPTIVE WORK ON THE RAILWAYS; ADMITS BETRAYING HIS DUTY TO THE STATE;
ADMITS HE I KNEW ABOUT THE CONNECTION OF KNYAZEV AND TUROK WITH AGENTS OF A FOREIGN POWER;
SAYS KNYAZEV TOLD HIM OF TRAIN WRECKS HE HAD ORGANIZED; ADMITS HE AND KNYAZEV ORGANISED TRAIN WRECTKS AND HE ORDERED KNYAZEV TO DO THEM;
SAYS HE WAS DELIBERATELY PREPARED TO HAVE LOSS OF LIFE IN TRAIN WRECKS;
SAYS KNYAZEV TOLD HIM THAT HE WAS CONNECTED WITH THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE OF A CERTAIN FOREIGN STATE;
HE CONFIRMS WHAT KNYAZEV AND TUROK SAID;
SAYS HE GAVE KNYAZEV MATERIALS FOR JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE; TUROK ADMITS HE RECEIVED MONEY FROM THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES SOME OF WHICH HE GAVE TO KNYAZEV WHO CONFIRMS IT;
ADMITS HE KNEW ABOUT PREPARATIONS TO KILL STALIN, KOSSIOR, AND POSTYSHEV.AND SAYS HE LEARNED IT FROM PYATAKOV, SEREBRYAKOV, AND LOGINOV;
SAYS LOGINOV TOLD HIM HE WAS PREPARING TO KILL KOSSIOR AND POSTYSHEV;
ADMITS HE DIRECTED KNYAZEV, YEMSHANOV, ARNOLDOV, TUROK, FUFRYANSKY, AND ROSENZWEIG TO ORGANIZE TRAIN WRECKS; SAYS HE DOES NOT KNOW HOW THE WRECKS WERE DONE BUT HE DOES KNOW THERE WERE WRECKS;
SAYS SEREBRYAKOV TALKED TO HIM ABOUT DIVERSIVE ACTIVITIES IN A PRE-MOBILIZATION PERIOD, WITH A VIEW TO OBSTRUCTING THE MOVEMENT OF TROOPS;
SAYS PYATAKOV GAVE HIM ORDERS ON WRECKING TRAINS, LOCOMOTIVES AND TRACKS;
SAYS HE GAVE KNYAZEV GENERAL BUT NOT PARTICULAR INSTRUCTIONS ON WRECKING TRAINS;
SAYS KNYAZEV TOLD HIM THAT HE HAD CAUSED A TRAIN WRECK KILLING 29 SOLDIERS;
SAYS GLEBOV-AVILOV TOLD HIM HE AND BYELOBORODOV WERE PLANNING TO KILL STALIN AND LOGINOV WAS PLANNING TO KILL POSTYSHEV AND KAGANOVICH;
SAYS HE ALSO HEARD FROM PYATAKOV AND SEREBRYAKOV THAT ANOTHER TERRORIST ACT WAS BEING PREPARED AGAINST COMRADE STALIN;
ADMITS HE ENGAGED IN SABOTAGE IN REGARD TO NOT PAYING WAGES TO CREATE DISCONTENT
LIVSHITZ: I went to verify the correctness of the instructions Loginov had conveyed to me from Pyatakov.
VYSHINSKY: Hence, Loginov conveyed to you, from Pyatakov, Trotsky's instructions?
LIVSHITZ: In Kharkov.
VYSHINSKY: And you, when in Moscow, decided to verify this?
VYSHINSKY: And for this purpose, what did you decide to do?
LIVSHITZ: I came to Pyatakov to hear it from him. PYATAKOV TOLD ME THE SAME THING THAT LOGINOV TOLD ME: THAT THE METHODS OF STRUGGLE THAT WE HAD EMPLOYED BEFORE HAD BEEN INEFFECTIVE AND THAT WE MUST NOW ADOPT NEW METHODS, THAT IS, TERRORISM AND WORK OF DESTRUCTION.
VYSHINSKY: WHO TOLD YOU THAT?
LIVSHITZ: PYATAKOV TOLD ME THAT.
VYSHINSKY: In 1931?
LIVSHITZ: No. In 1932.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 35
VYSHINSKY: ACCUSED LIVSHITZ, WHAT HAVE YOU TO SAY ABOUT THIS?
LIVSHITZ: I CONFIRM THAT WE TALKED ABOUT SPEEDING UP THE RECRUITING OF MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZATION FOR ACTS OF DIVERSION AND FOR CARRYING OUT ACTS OF WRECKING DURING WARTIME.
VYSHINSKY: YOU WERE ASSISTANT PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR OF RAILWAYS AND YET AT THE SAME TIME DISCUSSED THE QUESTION OF HOW TO OBSTRUCT TRAFFIC ON THE RAILWAYS IN THE EVENT OF WAR?
LIVSHITZ: YES. I CONSIDERED THAT SINCE WE WERE CARRYING ON A STRUGGLE FOR THE COMING TO POWER OF THE TROTSKYITE-ZINOVIEVITE BLOC, IT WAS NECESSARY TO DO THIS....
VYSHINSKY: What did you talk about with Pyatakov?
LIVSHITZ: About the work which the Trotskyites were doing in the transport system, i.e., about sabotaging those orders which would ensure an improvement in the work of railways.
VYSHINSKY: DID PYATAKOV GIVE YOU DIRECT INSTRUCTIONS AND DIRECTIVES TO INTENSIFY WRECKING AND DIVERSIVE WORK ON THE RAILWAYS?
LIVSHITZ: HE DID.
VYSHINSKY: YOU ACCEPTED THEM?
VYSHINSKY: CARRIED THEM OUT?
LIVSHITZ: YES, WHAT I COULD I CARRIED OUT.
VYSHINSKY: YOU CARRIED ON WRECKING ACTIVITIES?
VYSHINSKY: DISRUPTED THE WORK?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 118-119
VYSHINSKY: DOES SEREBRYAKOV'S EVIDENCE CONCERNING CONNECTIONS WITH YOU, ACCUSED LIVSHITZ CALL FOR ANY REMARK? ALL THAT SEREBRYAKOV HAS SAID--WAS IT REALLY SO?
LIVSHITZ: YES, IT WAS SO.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 172
VYSHINSKY: Accused Livshitz, tell us when you resumed your underground, Trotskyite, criminal activities?
LIVSHITZ: Actually, from 1933.... I learned about the first meetings and the first conversations on the resumption of Trotskyite work from Loginov at the beginning in 1932.... Loginov told me the following: that he was in Berlin in 1931 at the time the orders were being placed for industry, and that there he met Pyatakov. Pyatakov had known us for a longtime.
VYSHINSKY: Whom do you mean by us?
LIVSHITZ: Myself, Loginov, Golubenko, Kotsyubinsky. HE TOLD US ABOUT THE MEETINGS HE HAD HAD WITH SMIRNOV AND SEDOV, THAT THE STRUGGLE WHICH WAS WAGED IN THE PERIOD 1923-28 HAD NOT YIELDED ANY RESULTS, AND THAT IN VIEW OF THIS TROTSKY HAD NOW GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS TO ADOPT OTHER METHODS OF STRUGGLE, THE METHODS OF TERRORISM AND DESTRUCTIVE ACTIVITIES IN THE ECONOMIC SPHERE.
VYSHINSKY: Is that what Loginov told you?
VYSHINSKY: Quoting whom?
LIVSHITZ: Quoting Pyatakov.
VYSHINSKY: Do you mean that Pyatakov instructed Loginov to convey this to you?
LIVSHITZ: Yes.... In the second half of 1932 I MET PYATAKOV AND HE REPEATED IN EFFECT WHAT LOGINOV HAD TOLD ME.
VYSHINSKY: AND DID HE SPEAK ABOUT TERRORISM?
LIVSHITZ: ABOUT TERRORISM AND DESTRUCTIVE WORK. AFTER MY CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM, I AGREED TO RESUME THE ACTIVE STRUGGLE.
VYSHINSKY: You say that this was in 1932?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 333-334
VYSHINSKY: Did Pyatakov tell you where he had received Trotsky's new instructions?
LIVSHITZ: He did.
LIVSHITZ: Namely, that he had met Smirnov in Berlin. There had been conversations with Smirnov and Sedov about this directive of Trotsky's, which he had accepted and had undertaken to transmit and to enlist people whom he knew and with whom he was connected by personal friendship and by Trotskyite counter-revolutionary activities in the past.
VYSHINSKY: WHAT POST WERE YOU THEN HOLDING?
LIVSHITZ: CHIEF OF THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY.
VYSHINSKY: Did you give your consent?
VYSHINSKY: And what happened next?
LIVSHITZ: When I arrived in Kharkov, I talked it over with my assistant, Zorin.
I knew him to be secretly a Trotskyite, and that was why I spoke to him. In my conversations with Pyatakov it was agreed to begin by hindering the loading of coal.
VYSHINSKY: THAT IS, YOU BEGAN BY DISRUPTING THE PROGRAM?
LIVSHITZ: YES. WE HAD TOO FEW CARS, NOT ENOUGH FOR THE WHOLE FREIGHT. AND, IN ADDITION, I DID NOT LOAD ALL THE COAL AND UTILIZED THE CARS FOR FREIGHT OF SECONDARY IMPORTANCE.
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU DO THIS DELIBERATELY AS PART OF THE PLAN FOR CARRYING OUT THIS AIM?
VYSHINSKY: What did you achieve by it?
LIVSHITZ: As a result of this, coal accumulated at the pitheads. From time to time commissions from Moscow would come to me and compel us to get the coal away. We would do so, but we would then allow coal to accumulate again.
VYSHINSKY: THAT IS, YOU CONSCIOUSLY AND DELIBERATELY DISRUPTED THE TRANSPORTATION OF COAL?
VYSHINSKY: When did you begin to do this?
LIVSHITZ: During the winter of 1933....
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 334-335
VYSHINSKY: What next? You came to an arrangement with Serebryakov?
LIVSHITZ: At this meeting Serebryakov told me of the work performed by Arnoldov, who was employed in the People's Commissariat of Railways.
VYSHINSKY: What was his position at the time?
LIVSHITZ: He was chief of the Car Administration.
VYSHINSKY: Very well. Proceed.
LIVSHITZ: HE [SEREBRYAKOV] ALSO SAID THAT ON SEREBRYAKOV'S INSTRUCTIONS ARNOLDOV WAS CARRYING ON WRECKING WORK IN THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT, and that Serebryakov had discussed with him the question of disrupting the freight traffic plan. Then Arnoldov worked to disrupt the exploitation of cars.
JUST AT THIS TIME IT WAS DECIDED TO BUILD FOUR NEW CAR-REPAIR WORKS. Arnoldov gave the opinion that each of these works would cost from 15 to 20 million rubles and that they could be built and put into operation in 1 1/2 years. It turned out in the end that each of these works cost over 50 million rubles and took about three years to build.
VYSHINSKY: WERE THEY DELIBERATELY DELAYED?
... Another job we performed on the North Caucasian Railway was to retain empty cars needed by the Don Railway and the South Eastern Railway, and for coal loadings.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 336-337
LIVSHITZ: During the second meeting with Serebryakov he mentioned people with whom he was connected.
VYSHINSKY: VERY WELL. DURING THIS SECOND MEETING, DID HE [SEREBRYAKOV] SPEAK ABOUT DISRUPTING THE OIL CONSIGNMENTS IN 1934?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 337
VYSHINSKY: WHILE ASSISTANT PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR OF RAILWAYS DID YOU CONTINUE YOUR CONNECTION WITH THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION AND YOUR WRECKING ACTIVITIES?
LIVSHITZ: YES.... PYATAKOV PROPOSED THAT THE WRECKING ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE CONDUCTED MORE ENERGETICALLY, because although Kaganovich had been only a few months at the People's Commissariat of Railways, the railways had already made pronounced progress.... Serebryakov declared that the chief task was to frustrate the fulfillment of Kaganovich's order setting forth the methods of improving the work of the railways.... I repeated the instructions to frustrate Order No. 183, which enumerated the principal measures to be taken to improve the work of the railways.
VYSHINSKY: You repeated them. And did all these people, members of the Trotskyite organization on the railways, take measures to carry out your instructions to disrupt the order, or did they not?
LIVSHITZ: On a number of railways this order was carried out very badly....
VYSHINSKY: Was it in connection with your instructions, or independently of you?
LIVSHITZ: Both independently and in connection with.
VYSHINSKY: That is, you helped to prevent the carrying out of the order?
LIVSHITZ: Yes. The Tomsk Railway carried it out very badly.
VYSHINSKY: And in your capacity of Assistant People's Commissar of Railways, you ought to have done the very opposite?
LIVSHITZ: Not quite. It must not be thought that as Assistant People's Commissar I was engaged only in wrecking work, in that only.***
VYSHINSKY: No, of course, not in that only.
LIVSHITZ: I also performed useful work... and not everything I did in connection with order No. 183 was to disrupt it.
VYSHINSKY: What induced you to do something good? After all, YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION AND DID THAT ORGANIZATION SET ITSELF THE AIM OF DOING GOOD WORK ON THE RAILWAYS, OR DISRUPTIVE WORK?
LIVSHITZ: DISRUPTIVE WORK.... The aim was not to destroy the railway system to such an extent as to bring it to a standstill.
VYSHINSKY: WHAT AIM DID YOU SET YOURSELVES?
LIVSHITZ: TO COMPLICATE AND HAMPER THE WORK OF THE RAILWAYS.
VYSHINSKY: Did you do that? Did not your position as Assistant People's Commissar hinder you doing that?
LIVSHITZ: It did hinder, but I did it.
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU BETRAY YOUR DUTY TO THE STATE?
LIVSHITZ: IF I HAD NOT BETRAYED IT, I SHOULD NOT NOW BE HERE IN THE DOCK.
VYSHINSKY: It happens that people betray for a time and escape getting into the dock.
LIVSHITZ: As you see, I did not escape.
VYSHINSKY:...I ASK YOU, DID YOU ENDEAVOR TO FRUSTRATE ORDER NO. 183 OF THE PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR?
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU TAKE MEASURES TO CARRY IT INTO EFFECT, OR NOT TO CARRY IT INTO EFFECT?
LIVSHITZ: SINCE I SAY THAT I ENDEAVORED TO FRUSTRATE IT, THAT MEANS THAT I WORKED TO FRUSTRATE IT.
VYSHINSKY: AND THEREBY YOU BETRAYED THE DUTY YOU OWED TO YOUR POSITION. IS THAT RIGHT?
VYSHINSKY: Who helped you in frustrating the order, who were your immediate assistants?
LIVSHITZ: I have already said, I named Mironov, Knyazev.... At the preliminary investigation I ... denied one very tedious thing.... The question of espionage.
VYSHINSKY: True, you did deny it.
LIVSHITZ: A hideous thing, a vile thing.... For those same reasons I denied at the preliminary investigation my connections with the accused Turok. I want to make a clean breast of it to the Court, although it is a heinous crime, the crime which is called treason to the country. I want to tell the Court that I KNEW ABOUT THIS CONNECTION OF KNYAZEV AND TUROK WITH THE AGENTS OF A CERTAIN FOREIGN POWER....
VYSHINSKY: YOU KNEW ABOUT IT?
VYSHINSKY: How long have you known about it?
LIVSHITZ: From 1935 until my arrest.
...I already knew about Knyazev from Serebryakov. I knew that he was a secret Trotskyite and belonged to an organization in the Urals.... We then discussed his activities on the South Urals Railway.
VYSHINSKY: What did they consist in?
LIVSHITZ: They consisted in destructive, wrecking, diversive work on the railways. HE TOLD ME OF THE TRAIN WRECKS HE HAD ORGANIZED.
VYSHINSKY: AND DID OTHER MEMBERS OF THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION ON THE RAILWAYS ALSO ORGANIZE TRAIN WRECKS?
LIVSHITZ: APPARENTLY, THEY DID.
VYSHINSKY: Why "apparently"? DID YOU YOURSELF GIVE INSTRUCTIONS TO ORGANIZE TRAIN WRECKS?
LIVSHITZ: I DID.
VYSHINSKY: SO NOT "APPARENTLY ORGANIZED," BUT ORGANIZED ON YOUR INSTRUCTIONS.... DID KNYAZEV ORGANIZE TRAIN WRECKS ON THE RAILWAYS?
LIVSHITZ: HE DID.
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU GIVE KNYAZEV INSTRUCTIONS TO ORGANIZE TRAIN WRECKS?
LIVSHITZ: I DID.... WHILE I WAS ASSISTANT PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR.
VYSHINSKY: You gave instructions to organize wrecks on the railways. And did you talk with Knyazev about loss of life, which is bound to happen in railway accidents?
LIVSHITZ: I do not specifically recall any such talk, but since wrecks are caused on the railways--and there are passenger, military trains, and freight trains on the railways--naturally there will be loss of life.
VYSHINSKY: YOU WERE PREPARED TO INCUR LOSS OF LIFE?
LIVSHITZ: I WAS PREPARED.
VYSHINSKY: YOU WERE PREPARED FOR IT. DELIBERATELY?
LIVSHITZ: SINCE I GAVE INSTRUCTIONS TO CAUSE TRAIN WRECKS, THAT MEANS I KNEW WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES WOULD BE.
VYSHINSKY: WHEN YOU SPOKE ABOUT ORGANIZING TRAIN WRECKS IN THIS SAME TALK WITH KNYAZEV, DID KNYAZEV TELL YOU THAT HE WAS CONNECTED WITH THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE OF A CERTAIN FOREIGN STATE?
VYSHINSKY: Did he say that this intelligence service was demanding that he, Knyazev, should organize train wrecks?
LIVSHITZ: I cannot now recall. Possibly he did.***
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 338-342
VYSHINSKY: ACCUSED LIVSHITZ, DO YOU CONFIRM THE STATEMENTS MADE ON THIS HEAD BY KNYAZEV AND TUROK?
LIVSHITZ: THEY ARE CORRECT IN THE MAIN.
VYSHINSKY: Although at the preliminary investigation you denied them?
LIVSHITZ: I have told the Court why.... I formerly denied it, but now I have declared to the Court, I have testified to it.
VYSHINSKY: YOU ARE NOW GIVING A TRUTHFUL STATEMENT AND CONFIRMING WHAT KNYAZEV AND TUROK SAY?
VYSHINSKY: Tell me: after learning about Knyazev's connections from him, did you have any talks with him, give instructions concerning connections with the intelligence service?
LIVSHITZ:... IN 1936 HE ASKED ME FOR SOME MATERIAL FOR THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, AND I GAVE HIM THE MATERIAL.
VYSHINSKY:... did you know that the Japanese intelligence service paid money for the receipt of this information?
VYSHINSKY: Accused Turok, are you aware that the Japanese intelligence service paid money for this information?
TUROK: No, they did not pay us money for this information, but in general FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF TROTSKYITE DIVERSIVE ACTIVITIES WE RECEIVED MONEY.
VYSHINSKY: FROM WHOM?
TUROK: FROM THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE.
VYSHINSKY: SO THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE MET THEIR NOTES, AND IN ADDITION PAID YOU IN CASH?... DID YOU RECEIVE MONEY?
TUROK: YES, I DID.
VYSHINSKY: FROM THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE?
VYSHINSKY: When did you receive money?
TUROK: In January 1935--35,000 rubles.
VYSHINSKY: What did you do with it?
TUROK: I KEPT 20,000 RUBLES FOR MY OWN ORGANIZATION AND GAVE 15,000 FOR KNYAZEV'S ORGANIZATION.
VYSHINSKY: TO WHOM DID YOU HAND IT OVER?
TUROK: TO KNYAZEV IN PERSON, IN MAY 1935.
VYSHINSKY: ACCUSED KNYAZEV, IS THIS CORRECT?
KNYAZEV: YES, I RECEIVED IT.
VYSHINSKY: TELL ME, ACCUSED LIVSHITZ, WHAT DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THE TERRORIST ACTIVITIES OF THE TROTSKYITES?
LIVSHITZ: I KNEW ABOUT THE PREPARATIONS FOR ATTEMPTS ON THE LIVES OF STALIN, KOSSIOR, AND POSTYSHEV. NOTHING ELSE.***
VYSHINSKY: FROM WHOM DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS?
LIVSHITZ: FROM PYATAKOV, SEREBRYAKOV, AND LOGINOV.
VYSHINSKY: When did you know about this?
LIVSHITZ: In 1933 in 1935. I knew in 1933 that preparations were being made for an attempt on the lives of Postyshev and Kossior, and in 1935 for an attempt on the life of Stalin.
VYSHINSKY: Did you know what preparations were being made for these attempts and who was making them?
VYSHINSKY: AND DID LOGINOV SPEAK YOU IN GENERAL ABOUT PREPARATIONS,...?
LIVSHITZ: HE SAID HE WAS PREPARING.... HE AND GOLUBENKO-- WERE MAKING THE PREPARATIONS.... ORGANIZING IT.
VYSHINSKY: YES, ORGANIZING IT. IN REGARD TO KOSSIOR AND POSTYSHEV YOU KNEW ABOUT THIS DIRECTLY?
VYSHINSKY: In regard to Comrade Stalin, who was making the preparations?
LIVSHITZ: I did not know who was making the preparations. I knew about the preparations from Pyatakov and Serebryakov.
VYSHINSKY: DID PYATAKOV AND SEREBRYAKOV TELL YOU WHAT ORGANIZATION WAS MAKING THE PREPARATIONS?
LIVSHITZ: THE ORGANIZATION OF THE PARALLEL CENTER.
VYSHINSKY: WHO WERE THE MEMBERS OF THE PARALLEL CENTER?
LIVSHITZ: PYATAKOV, SEREBRYAKOV, RADEK, AND SOKOLNIKOV.
VYSHINSKY: WHO WERE MAKING THE PREPARATIONS THEN?
LIVSHITZ: THE PARALLEL CENTER--PYATAKOV, SEREBRYAKOV, RADEK AND SOKOLNIKOV.... I did not know who were to carry out the attempts in person, but I knew those who organized them.
THE PRESIDENT: TELL US, ACCUSED LIVSHITZ: TO WHICH OF THE MEMBERS OF THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION ENUMERATED BY YOU DID YOU GIVE DIRECT INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING THE ORGANIZATION OF TRAIN WRECKS?
LIVSHITZ: TO KNYAZEV, YEMSHANOV, ARNOLDOV, TUROK, FUFRYANSKY, ROSENZWEIG.
THE PRESIDENT: HOW WAS YOUR DIRECTIVE REGARDING THE ORGANIZATION OF TRAIN WRECKS CARRIED OUT BY ALL THE PERSONS YOU HAVE ENUMERATED?
LIVSHITZ: I CANNOT SAY AT THE MOMENT... BUT I KNOW THAT THERE WERE WRECKS.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 346-348
THE PRESIDENT: DO YOU CONFIRM THAT SEREBRYAKOV TALKED WITH YOU ON THE SUBJECT OF DIVERSIVE ACTIVITIES IN A PRE-MOBILIZATION PERIOD, WITH A VIEW TO OBSTRUCTING THE MOVEMENT OF TROOPS?
THE PRESIDENT: When did this conversation take place?
LIVSHITZ: In 1933.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 349
THE PRESIDENT:... Did you report to your leader Pyatakov about Knyazev being a Japanese spy and Turok also being a Japanese spy, or did you not?
LIVSHITZ: In my opinion Pyatakov knew.
THE PRESIDENT: Did he know about it from you?
LIVSHITZ: I did not tell him.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 349
THE PRESIDENT: ABOUT DIVERSIVE ACTIVITIES IN THE FIELD OF RAILWAY TRANSPORT. WHAT WERE PYATAKOV'S INSTRUCTIONS?
LIVSHITZ: HE GAVE INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT TRAIN WRECKS.
THE PRESIDENT: TRAIN WRECKS--THAT'S NUMBER ONE. WHAT ELSE?
LIVSHITZ: TRAIN WRECKS, WRECKING OF THE LOCOMOTIVES.
THE PRESIDENT: WRECKING OF THE LOCOMOTIVES. WHAT ELSE?
LIVSHITZ: WRECKING OF THE TRACK.
THE PRESIDENT: Wrecking of the track--and what else? What methods?...
DID YOU GIVE DEFINITE INSTRUCTIONS TO KNYAZEV THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO ORGANIZE WRECKS, IN PARTICULAR OF MILITARY TRAINS AND TROOP TRAINS?
LIVSHITZ: IN PARTICULAR, I DID NOT GIVE SUCH INSTRUCTIONS--IN PARTICULAR; IN GENERAL I DID.**
THE PRESIDENT: DID KNYAZEV REPORT TO YOU THAT HE HAD SUCCEEDED IN EFFECTING A WRECK AT ONE STATION, AS A RESULT OF WHICH 29 RED ARMY MEN WERE KILLED AND 29 RED ARMY MEN INJURED?
LIVSHITZ: YES, I KNEW ABOUT THAT.... I NEITHER PRAISED NOR CENSURED HIM.
THE PRESIDENT: YOU MERELY TOOK COGNIZANCE OF IT AS AN ACCOUNT OF ACTIVITIES?
VYSHINSKY: Accused Livshitz, seeing that you have further frankly confessed in court today that you are guilty of espionage, that is to say, have acknowledged yourself guilty to the full extent of all the charges made against you, perhaps you wish today to give more detailed statements in regard to terrorism as well.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 350-351
VYSHINSKY: NOW AS REGARDS GLEBOV-AVILOV, DID YOU NOT KNOW THAT HE WAS ENGAGED IN TERRORIST ACTIVITIES?
LIVSHITZ: GLEBOV-AVILOV TOLD ME ABOUT THIS.
VYSHINSKY: SO THIS FACT WAS ALSO KNOWN TO YOU FROM GLEBOV-AVILOV?
LIVSHITZ: YES, YES.
VYSHINSKY:... SO IT MAY BE CONCLUDED THAT GLEBOV-AVILOV AND THE BYELOBORODOV WERE MAKING PREPARATIONS FOR TERRORIST ACTS IN ROSTOV?
LIVSHITZ: I KNEW FROM GLEBOV-AVILOV THAT BYELOBORODOV WAS MAKING PREPARATIONS FOR A TERRORIST ACT.
VYSHINSKY: AGAINST WHOM WAS HE MAKING PREPARATIONS FOR A TERRORIST ACT?
LIVSHITZ: AGAINST STALIN.
VYSHINSKY: YOU KNEW THIS?
VYSHINSKY: SO GLEBOV-AVILOV TOGETHER WITH BYELOBORODOV WERE MAKING PREPARATIONS FOR A TERRORIST ACT AGAINST COMRADE STALIN, AND LOGINOV AGAINST....?
LIVSHITZ: AGAINST KAGANOVICH AND POSTYSHEV.
VYSHINSKY: AND THEN YOU HEARD FROM PYATAKOV AND SEREBRYAKOV THAT ANOTHER TERRORIST ACT WAS BEING PREPARED AGAINST COMRADE STALIN, BUT THEY DID NOT TELL YOU WHO WAS TO DO IT AND HOW?
LIVSHITZ: THAT'S SO.
VYSHINSKY: And you did not try to ascertain yourself?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 352-353
RYCHKOV: ACCUSED LIVSHITZ, WHEN YOU WERE CHIEF OF THE NORTH CAUCASUS RAILWAY, DID YOU ENGAGE IN SABOTAGE IN REGARD TO WAGES, IN REGARD TO THE FINANCIAL POLICY?
RYCHKOV: Through whom did you do this?
LIVSHITZ: Through the head of the finance department.
RYCHKOV: His name?
RYCHKOV: In what did your sabotage consist, regarding the wage policy?
LIVSHITZ: Not remitting the money in time.
RYCHKOV: SO YOU DELIBERATELY HELD UP THE WORKERS' WAGES. CORRECT?
RYCHKOV: WHAT WERE YOU TRYING TO ACHIEVE BY THIS?
RYCHKOV: The discontent of the workers?... How did you explain to the workers that you did not pay wages for two or three months at a time?
LIVSHITZ: No explanation was made.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 372
KEY PARTS OF ROMM’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
ADMITS HE GAVE RADEK A LETTER FROM TROTSKY;
SAYS RADEK TOLD HIM THE LETTER FROM TROTSKY WANTED UNITY WITH THE ZINOVIEVITES AND KILLING STALIN AND VOROSHILOV; SAYS TROTSKY TOLD HIM THAT WRECKING INDUSTRY WAS WORKING AND THEY COULD NOT BE DETERRED BY THE LOSS OF LIFE; ADMITS HE ENGAGED IN ANTI-SOVIET WORK;
ADMITS HE WAS RADEK’S SECRET LIASION MAN;
THE PRESIDENT: What was your official position?
ROMM: I was the correspondent of Izvestia in the United States.
VYSHINSKY: What were your ties with Radek in the past?
ROMM:... I was connected with him in joint Trotskyite anti-Party work.
VYSHINSKY: Hence, you were a Trotskyite?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 136
VYSHINSKY: HENCE, WHEN YOU HANDED THE LETTER TO RADEK IT WAS CLEAR TO YOU THAT THE LETTER WAS FROM TROTSKY?
VYSHINSKY: Did you know what Trotsky had written in that letter to Radek?
ROMM: Only in general outline.
VYSHINSKY: WHAT DID RADEK TELL YOU ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THAT LETTER?
ROMM: THAT IT CONTAINED INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT UNITING WITH THE ZINOVIEVITES, ABOUT ADOPTING TERRORIST METHODS OF STRUGGLE AGAINST THE LEADERS OF THE CPSU, IN THE FIRST PLACE AGAINST STALIN AND VOROSHILOV.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 138-139
VYSHINSKY: FOR WHAT PURPOSE DID TROTSKY MEET YOU?
ROMM: AS FAR AS I COULD UNDERSTAND, IN ORDER VERBALLY TO CONFIRM THE INSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED IN THE LETTER I WAS TAKING TO MOSCOW. HE STARTED THE CONVERSATION WITH THE QUESTION OF CREATING THE PARALLEL CENTER. He said there was a danger in the predominance of the Zinovievites, but that the danger would be great only if the Trotskyites were not sufficiently active. He agreed with the idea of the parallel center, but only on the imperative condition that the bloc with the Zinovievites was preserved... . THEN HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT NOT ONLY TERRORISM, BUT WRECKING ACTIVITIES IN INDUSTRY, AND IN THE NATIONAL ECONOMY IN GENERAL, WERE ASSUMING SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE. HE SAID THAT, APPARENTLY, THERE WAS STILL WAVERING ON THIS POINT, BUT IT HAD TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT LOSS OF LIFE WAS INEVITABLE IN CARRYING OUT ACTS OF WRECKING, and that the main object was, by means of a number of wrecking operations, to undermine confidence in Stalin's Five-Year Plan, in the new technique, and in that way, to undermine confidence in the Party leadership. Emphasizing the necessity of extreme measures, Trotsky quoted the Latin proverb to the effect: "What medicine cannot heal, iron will heal, and what iron cannot heal, fire will heal." I remember that, somewhat perplexed, I suggested that this would undermine the defense capacity of the country at a time when, with the accession of Hitler to power, the danger of war, and particularly the danger of an attack on the USSR by Germany, was becoming particularly acute. To this question I did not get a comprehensive reply, but Trotsky hinted that it was precisely the growing activeness of the war danger that may place defeatism on the order of the day.
Then he gave me a book, and said that a letter to Radek was concealed in the cover. I took this book with me to Moscow and on arrival handed it to Radek in his apartment.
VYSHINSKY: When was that?
ROMM: That was in August 1933.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 141
VYSHINSKY: When you met Sedov, you conveyed to him the information given you by Radek. When you met Radek, you conveyed Sedov's information, and you handed over a number of documents from one to the other?
ROMM: The main point in the conversations was an outline of the general attitude.
VYSHINSKY: In any case this policy concerned your anti-Soviet work?
ROMM: In this sense, undoubtedly.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 143
VYSHINSKY: WAS RADEK JUSTIFIED IN TELLING THE COURT THAT ROMM WAS HIS SECRET LIAISON MAN?
ROMM: I THINK THAT IS CORRECT INASMUCH AS I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYONE SAVE RADEK;...
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 145
KEY PARTS OF SOKOLNIKOV’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
ADMITS HE KNEW THE UNITED CENTER WAS PLANNING TO KILL STALIN AND KIROV;
SAYS HE LEARNED FROM KAMENEV IN 1932 THAT THE MOSCOW TERRORIST CENTER WAS RUN BY REINGOLD;
SAYS HE LEARNED FROM KAMENEV THAT THERE WERE PLANS TO KILL STALIN AND KIROV;
ADMITS HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH KAMENEV ABOUT KAMENEV’S DEFEATIST VIEWS AND THOSE OF TROTSKY;
SAYS HE WAS APPROACHED BY A NAZI ASKING IF TROTSKY’S VIEWS
AND PROPOSALS WERE THOSE OF AN ACTUAL ORGANIZATION IN THE SU;
SAYS ALL 3 MAJOR GROUPS EARLY-ON AGREED ON THE RYUTIN PLATFORM;
SAYS PYATAKOV TOLD HIM TROTSKY HAD BEEN NEGOTIATING WITH HESS;
SAYS TROTSKY OFFERED HESS A DEFEATIST POSITION IN RETURN FOR NAZI SUPPORT;
ADMITS THEY WERE UTILIZING A SERIES OF HEINOUS CRIMES INVOLVING TREASON;
ADMITS THEY WERE RELYING ON FOREIGN AGGRESSORS;
ADMITS THE INDICTMENT IS CORRECT WHEN IT SAYS TROTSKY AIMED TO RESTORE CAPITALIST RELATIONS;
SAYS IN 1935 TIVEL TOLD HIM HE WAS CONNECTED WITH THE ZAKS- GLADNYEV TERRORIST GROUP WHICH WAS PLANNING TO KILL STALIN;
SAYS HE KNEW THAT TROT TERRORIST DREIZER WAS PLANNING TO KILL STALIN AND VOROSHILOV;
SAYS HE KNEW FROM PYATAKOV ABOUT THE ZAKS-GLADNYEV TERRORIST GROUP;
ADMITS HE KNEW ABOUT GROUPS PREPARING TO KILL ZHDANOV AND A GROUP HEADED BY MURALOV PREPARING TO KILL EICHE;
SAYS REINGOLD DIRECTED THE TERRORIST GROUP IN MOSCOW
VYSHINSKY: Accused Sokolnikov, please tell about your relations with the united Trotskyite-Zinovievite terrorist center.
SOKOLNIKOV: I KNEW THE PERSONNEL OF THE UNITED CENTER, I KNEW ITS TERRORIST AIMS, I KNEW THAT AS EARLY AS THE AUTUMN OF 1932 THE UNITED CENTER WAS PLANNING PREPARATIONS FOR TERRORIST ACTS AGAINST STALIN AND KIROV. I KNEW THAT BAKAYEV WAS CHARGED WITH THE WORK OF CONCENTRATING ALL THE CONNECTIONS WITH THE TERRORIST GROUPS OF THE UNITED CENTER. I KNEW THAT THE MOSCOW TERRORIST GROUPS WERE UNDER THE CHARGE OF REINGOLD.
VYSHINSKY: FROM WHOM DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS?
SOKOLNIKOV: FROM KAMENEV.
VYSHINSKY: As regards the preparations for terrorist acts, you have told the court that you knew that the united terrorist center was conducting preparations for terrorist acts against comrades Stalin and Kirov. In what year did you learn of this?
SOKOLNIKOV: As a general task I knew about it in 1932.
VYSHINSKY: And about the preparations, about concrete steps?
SOKOLNIKOV: I THINK IT WAS IN THE AUTUMN OF 1934 THAT KAMENEV TOLD ME ABOUT THIS, WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAILS. BUT HE SAID THAT THE CENTER HAD BEEN ORGANIZING AN ATTEMPT ON STALIN'S LIFE IN MOSCOW.
VYSHINSKY: BUT THAT THIS ATTEMPT HAD ENDED IN FAILURE?
SOKOLNIKOV: YES. AND HE SAID THAT AN ATTEMPT ON KIROV'S LIFE WAS BEING PREPARED IN LENINGRAD.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 147
VYSHINSKY: AND IN 1934 DID YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH ANYONE REGARDING THE DEFEATIST POSITION OF THE BLOC?
SOKOLNIKOV: I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH KAMENEV IN THE BEGINNING OF 1934. DURING THIS CONVERSATION KAMENEV INFORMED ME ABOUT THE DEFEATIST POSITION TAKEN BY TROTSKY AND ABOUT HIS OWN DEFEATIST VIEWS. Incidentally, one definite result of this conversation was that Kamenev warned me that someone might approach me with inquiries.
VYSHINSKY: Who might do this?
SOKOLNIKOV: The diplomatic representative of a certain country.
VYSHINSKY: Kamenev warned you about this?
SOKOLNIKOV: Yes, Kamenev warned me about this.
VYSHINSKY: Did Kamenev tell you what inquiries would be addressed to you?
SOKOLNIKOV: Yes, he told me that I would be asked for confirmation of the fact that the negotiations which were being carried on by Trotsky abroad were not being carried on by him in his own name, but that behind Trotsky there really was an organization of which he was the representative.
VYSHINSKY: You were to confirm this if inquiries in this sense were addressed to you?
VYSHINSKY: Such a question was addressed to you?
SOKOLNIKOV: Yes, in the middle of April after one of my official talks with the representative of a certain country with whom I had frequent meetings in connection with my official duties. The conversation took place after the official talk was over, when the interpreters had withdrawn to the neighboring room. While I was showing my visitor to the door he asked me whether I knew that Trotsky had addressed certain proposals to his government. I confirmed that this fact was known to me. He asked further whether these proposals were serious. I confirmed this too. He asked whether this was my own personal opinion. I said that this was not only my opinion but that of my friends as well. I understood this question of his as a confirmation of the fact that the government of that country had really received Trotsky's proposals, and wanted to make sure that Trotsky's proposals were really known to the organization and that Trotsky's right to conduct these negotiations was not disputed.
VYSHINSKY: WHAT OFFICIAL POST DID DO YOU HOLD AT THAT TIME?
SOKOLNIKOV: ASSISTANT PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 148-149
SOKOLNIKOV: AS REGARDS THE PRINCIPLES OF THE PROGRAM, AS EARLY AS 1932 THE TROTSKYITES, THE ZINOVIEVITES, AND THE RIGHTS HAD ALL COME TO AGREE IN THE MAIN ON THE PROGRAM WHICH PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN DESCRIBED AS THE PROGRAM OF THE RIGHTS.
THIS WAS THE SO-CALLED RYUTIN PLATFORM. AS EARLY AS 1932 IT EXPRESSED TO A LARGE EXTENT JUST THESE PRINCIPLES OR PROGRAM WHICH WERE COMMON TO ALL THREE GROUPS.
As regards the further development of this program, the leading members of the center considered that, as an isolated revolution, our revolution could not remain a socialist revolution,...
We considered that fascism was the most organized form of capitalism, that it would triumph, would seize Europe and stifle us. It was therefore better to come to terms with it, it was better to consent to a compromise in the sense of retreating from socialism to capitalism. All this was explained by the following argument: better make certain sacrifices, even very severe ones, than lose everything.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 150-151
VYSHINSKY: YOU SPOKE TO PYATAKOV AFTER HE HAD RETURNED FROM ABROAD?
SOKOLNIKOV: YES. THAT WAS IN JANUARY 1936. PYATAKOV TOLD ME THAT TROTSKY HAD BEEN NEGOTIATING WITH HESS. IN THESE NEGOTIATIONS HESS WAS EMPOWERED TO PUT FORWARD DEMANDS WHICH CONCERNED NOT ONLY GERMAN INTERESTS BUT ALSO THE INTERESTS OF ANOTHER COUNTRY. PYATAKOV TOLD ME THAT HE HAD UNDERSTOOD TROTSKY TO SAY THAT THESE WERE NEGOTIATIONS ON A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS, AND THAT AGREEMENT HAD BEEN REACHED ON THEM.... The other side undertook to give the government of the bloc its friendly support. As regards the bloc, it undertook a number of obligations of an economic character which secured economic advantages to the other side.
VYSHINSKY: Is it this that Radek and Pyatakov spoke about?
SOKOLNIKOV: Yes. The second alternative envisioned that the bloc would come to power as a result of a war and as a result of the defeat of the Soviet Union. In this event the parties to the agreement pledged themselves to establish relations with the government of the bloc, thus, strictly speaking, I think, ensuring their advent to power, and hence withholding support from rival groups. The bloc undertook to conclude peace immediately and recognize territorial concessions.
SOKOLNIKOV: In this agreement they were stated as follows: that Japan, in the event of her taking part in the war, would receive territorial concessions in the Far East in the Amur Region and the Maritime Province; as regards Germany, it was contemplated to "satisfy the national interests of the Ukraine." Beneath this transparent veil was understood the establishment of German control over the Ukraine coupled with the secession of the latter from the USSR.... THE BASIS OF THESE NEGOTIATIONS OF TROTSKY WITH HESS WAS--AND THIS OF COURSE MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED WITH COMPLETE CLARITY--TROTSKY'S UNDERTAKING TO ENSURE THAT THE BLOC PURSUED A DEFEATIST LINE OF ACTION. THIS WAS WHAT TROTSKY ON HIS SIDE HAD TO OFFER ON BEHALF OF THE BLOC IN THOSE NEGOTIATIONS --OTHERWISE IT IS CLEAR THAT THEY WOULD NEVER EVEN HAVE TALKED WITH HIM. Pyatakov told me that when he heard this project for the agreement in its finished and fully developed form, very grave doubts arose in his mind as to whether it was necessary to make such an agreement. He warned Trotsky that he thought it necessary on his return to Moscow to convene a conference, or several conferences, limited to the most trusted members of the bloc, in order to inform them about this project for the agreement and to give Trotsky a final answer after this exchange of opinions.
VYSHINSKY: What was Pyatakov's attitude to this proposal and to Trotsky's agreement?
SOKOLNIKOV: Pyatakov was strongly opposed to a number of points in the agreement just as I and Radek were; but Pyatakov, as far as I know, did not object to Trotsky continuing the negotiations pending the center's reply--that is, he was in favor of negotiations being continued....
VYSHINSKY: Negotiations on what basis?
SOKOLNIKOV: The negotiations which Trotsky had conducted with Hess were continued on the same basis as before.
SOKOLNIKOV:... We understood that it was not a question of our feelings, good or bad; we reasoned as politicians, and, consequently, WE HAD TO DECIDE A POLITICAL PROBLEM WHICH CONSISTED OF ONLY ONE POINT: COULD WE BY ADOPTING THIS MOST PAINFUL COURSE, WHICH IN REGARD TO THE EXISTING PARTY LEADERSHIP, IN REGARD TO THE SOVIET POWER, IN REGARD TO THE SOVIET UNION REPRESENTED, AS WE UNDERSTOOD FULL WELL, A SERIES OF THE MOST HEINOUS CRIMES, OF THE MOST SHAMEFUL CRIMES, REPRESENTED TREASON AND SO FORTH--WE HAD TO DECIDE WHETHER AFTER PAYING THIS PRICE WE WOULD BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THIS HOSTILE FORCE.
VYSHINSKY: Or they would utilize you?
SOKOLNIKOV: Or they would utilize us, if we became simply an appendage of German fascism, which would utilize us and then throw us away like a dirty rag, we would be condemned, disgraced, and proved to be utter nonentities.
VYSHINSKY: And did you expect any other fate than to be utilized by fascism and then thrown away like a useless bag?
SOKOLNIKOV: Of course. If we had counted only on such an end we ought to have liquidated the bloc completely.
VYSHINSKY: You thought you could retain some independence?
SOKOLNIKOV:... We considered that within the country we could rely upon certain strata....
VYSHINSKY: Specifically on what forces within the country did you calculate? On the working-class?
VYSHINSKY: On the collective farm peasantry?
SOKOLNIKOV: Of course not.
VYSHINSKY: On whom then?
SOKOLNIKOV: To speak quite frankly, I must say that we reckoned on being able to rely on the elements of the peasant bourgeoisie....
VYSHINSKY: On the kulaks, on the few remnants of the kulaks?
SOKOLNIKOV: That is so. The bloc was to lead to the growth of these few remnants. I repeat that, of course, our program of a deal with German fascism that would ensure the bloc coming to power would also involve big social changes in the Soviet Union and the appearance of forces which would support the government of the bloc.
VYSHINSKY: Changes in what direction?
SOKOLNIKOV: Changes in the direction of the restoration of capitalism. The elements which would be interested in this and would accept it as a blessing would be satisfied with such a policy and would support the bloc....
SOKOLNIKOV: The path to power lay through the gradual restoration of capitalist elements, which would squeeze out and to a certain extent replace the socialist elements.
VYSHINSKY:...YOU WERE DIRECTLY STAKING ON THE ASSISTANCE OF FOREIGN AGGRESSORS, ON THE ASSISTANCE OF FOREIGN INTERVENTIONISTS. IS MY ASSERTION CORRECT?
SOKOLNIKOV: IT IS CORRECT THAT WE CALCULATED ON THE HELP OF FOREIGN AGGRESSORS.
VYSHINSKY: That is true, they have their own aims, and you had yours. But you counted on achieving your aims by helping them to achieve theirs. Is that right?
SOKOLNIKOV: It is right.
VYSHINSKY: THEREFORE, WAS I RIGHT WHEN I FORMULATED IT IN THE INDICTMENT AS FOLLOWS: "THE MAIN TASK WHICH THE PARALLEL CENTER SET ITSELF WAS THE FORCIBLE OVERTHROW OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT WITH THE OBJECT OF CHANGING THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SYSTEM EXISTING IN THE USSR...." IS THAT FORMULATION CORRECT?
SOKOLNIKOV: YES, CORRECT.
VYSHINSKY: FURTHER ON IN THE INDICTMENT I SAY: "L. D. TROTSKY, AND ON HIS INSTRUCTIONS THE PARALLEL TROTSKYITE CENTER, AIMED AT SEIZING POWER WITH THE AID OF FOREIGN STATES WITH THE OBJECT OF RESTORING CAPITALIST SOCIAL RELATIONS IN THE USSR...." IS THAT FORMULATION CORRECT?
VYSHINSKY: Well then, for the sake of complete clarity, we establish the following: you conceive the ensemble of these measures to constitute a program of capitalist restoration?
SOKOLNIKOV: This program is an inevitable and necessary inference from the program of the Rights, or to put it plainly, from the program of retreat or the restoration of capitalism.... I was told that when speaking of a bloc with the Rights, Trotsky emphasized the idea that there were no differences with the Rights.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 152-158
VYSHINSKY: Were you aware of the enlistment in your Trotskyite, anti-Soviet criminal activities of non-members of the Trotskyite organization, of other people with an anti-Soviet attitude of mind?
SOKOLNIKOV: Pyatakov told me that the directive given by Trotsky about the development of wrecking activities pointed out that the group of the bloc which conducted wrecking activities must establish connections with other counter-revolutionary groups.
VYSHINSKY: With which groups?... Among the former wreckers of the period of the Industrial Party and the Shakhty trial? Well then, what was your line?
SOKOLNIKOV: Trotsky's line, which permitted the wrecking groups of the bloc to establish contact with these groups.
VYSHINSKY: Did you know that one or another of your Trotskyite groups had established contact with some of the wreckers among the old Shakhty crowd or among the former adherents of the Industrial Party, and so forth?
SOKOLNIKOV: No, I did not know that....
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 159
THE PRESIDENT: TELL ME, ACCUSED SOKOLNIKOV, WHICH TERRORIST GROUPS WERE YOU CONNECTED WITH IN 1935-36?
SOKOLNIKOV: IN 1935 TIVEL CAME TO ME AND INFORMED ME THAT HE WAS CONNECTED WITH THE ZAKS-GLADNYEV TERRORIST GROUP. TIVEL ASKED FOR INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT THE FURTHER ACTIVITIES OF THIS GROUP....
THE PRESIDENT: ON WHOSE LIFE WAS THIS GROUP PREPARING TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT?
SOKOLNIKOV: TIVEL TOLD ME THEN THAT THEY HAD INSTRUCTIONS TO PREPARE FOR A TERRORIST ACT AGAINST STALIN.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 162
THE PRESIDENT: WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE TERRORIST ACTIVITIES OF THE GROUP HEADED BY DREITZER, AND GENERALL___’Y, ABOUT THE TERRORIST ACTIVITIES OF DREITZER IN THE PERIOD 1935-36?
SOKOLNIKOV: I KNEW THAT DREITZER WAS THE PERSON IN THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION WHO HAD GENERAL DIRECTION OF THE TERRORIST GROUPS.
THE PRESIDENT: DID YOU KNOW THAT DREITZER WAS HIMSELF DIRECTING THE PREPARATIONS FOR AN ATTEMPT ON THE LIVES OF COMRADES STALIN AND VOROSHILOV IN 1934?
SOKOLNIKOV: YES. AT THAT TIME KAMENEV MENTIONED DREITZER'S NAME TO ME....
THE PRESIDENT: In your testimony you say as follows:... "Dreitzer held in his hands the preparations for an attempt on the lives of Stalin and Voroshilov, but I do not know the details of these activities."
SOKOLNIKOV: I confirm this.
THE PRESIDENT: DID YOU KNOW THAT A TERRORIST GROUP EXISTED IN 1935 HEADED BY ZAKS-GLADNYEV?
SOKOLNIKOV:... A NUMBER OF PROVINCIAL GROUPS WERE MENTIONED TO ME. AS FAR AS I RECALL, PYATAKOV TOLD ME ABOUT THEM. SUCH A GROUP WAS MENTIONED AND IT WAS SAID THAT THERE WAS A TERRORIST GROUP IN LENINGRAD HEADED BY ZAKS-GLADNYEV.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 164
THE PRESIDENT: THE GROUP WHICH WAS PREPARING AN ATTEMPT ON THE LIFE--OF WHOM?
SOKOLNIKOV: THE GROUP WHICH WAS PREPARING AN ATTEMPT ON THE LIFE OF ZHDANOV. THEN THERE WAS A GROUP IN SIBERIA HEADED BY MURALOV, WHICH WAS PREPARING AN ATTEMPT, HAD INSTRUCTIONS TO PREPARE AN ATTEMPT ON THE LIFE OF EICHE. Besides that, I also heard at that time of the existence of the Byeloborodov group in Rostov. I do not remember what task it had.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 165
THE PRESIDENT: TO WHAT EXTENT WERE YOU CONNECTED WITH REINGOLD AND HIS ACTIVITIES?
SOKOLNIKOV: REINGOLD DIRECTED THE TERRORIST GROUPS IN MOSCOW.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 166
VYSHINSKY:... When you were confronted with Kamenev, how was the question of your participation in the bloc put?
SOKOLNIKOV: Kamenev stated that he had had conversations with me in the summer of 1932, that they did not want to put me on the united center because they thought it was necessary to preserve me, since I enjoyed the confidence of the Party and the government, held a responsible post, had not been exposed, so that I could be utilized in the event of the united center being exposed.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 167
KEY PARTS OF SHESTOV’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
SAYS HE KNEW THE TROTS WERE ENLISTING ALL ANTI-SOVIET GROUPS LIKE MEMBERS OF THE INDUSTRIAL PARTY AND SHAKHTY WRECKERS;
SEDOV TOLD HIM TROTSKY WANTED THEM TO DESTROY INDUSTRIAL PROGRESS BY WRECKING;
ADMITS THEY WERE ENLISTING ANTI-SOVIET FORCES FROM THE ENGINEERS;
SAYS MURALOV GAVE HIM INSTRUCTIONS ON TERROR ACTS AND TOLD HIM TO KILL ORDJONIKIDZE AND MOLOTOV;
SAYS HE TOLD CHEREPUKHIN TO TELL ARNOLD TO KILL MOLOTOV; ARNOLD CONFIRMS SHESTOV’S TESTIMONY ABOUT THE ATTEMPT TO KILL MOLOTOV;
MURALOV ADMITS SHESTOV IS TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE ATTEMPT TO KILL MOLOTOV;
ADMITS HIS CRIMINAL ACTS BEGAN IN 1923 AS A TROT AND THAT HE DECEIVED THE PARTY WHEN HE SAID HE HAD ABANDONED TROTSKYISM;
SAYS SEDOV TOLD HIM TROTSKY FELT THE ONLY WAY TO REMOVE STALIN AND HIS ALLIES WAS BY TERRORISM;
SAID SEDOV ASKED HIM TO BECOME A SPY;
SAYS SMIRNOV TOLD HIM THAT IT HAD BEEN DECIDED TO ENLIST ALL HOSTILE FORCES, ESPECIALLY ENGINEERS, AND KILLINGS WERE TO BE USED AGAINST STALIN AND HIS ALLIES;
ADMITS HE AGREED TO BE A SPY AND DIVERSIONIST;
ADMITS HE MET WITH PYATAKOV IN BERLIN WHO SAID INDUSTRIALIZATION MUST BE STOPPED AND WHO DIRECTED HIM TO KILL EICHE;
ADMITS HE MET THE HEAD OF A GERMAN FIRM AND AGREED TO SPY FOR HIM IF HE WOULD HELP THE TROTS COME TO POWER;
GIVES A LONG LIST OF SABOTAGE AND WRECKING TO BE COMMITTED BY STROILOV;
SAYS STROILOV TOLD HIM A LARGE NUMBER OF GERMAN WRECKERS HAD ARRIVED DISGUISED AS SPECIALISTS;
ADMITS HE AND KAHN STOLE DYNAMITE TO BLOW UP MINES;
ADMITS HE ORDERED A MAN TO BLOW UP MINES ON THE ORDERS OF GERMAN INTELLIGENCE;
STROILOV SAYS SHESTOV IS TELLING THE TRUTH;
ADMITS HE CAUSED UNDERGROUND FIRES AND STROILOV HELPED HIM; ADMITS HE ORDERED MURDERS;
ADMITS HE ORDERED A BANK ROBBERY;
ADMITS HE IS A TROT WHO PERSUADED A MAN TO BECOME A TERRORIST;
ADMITS HE ORDERED THE KILLING OF MOLOTOV;
SAYS HE WAS TOLD BY MURALOV TO TELL ARNOLD TO KILL MOLOTOV
VYSHINSKY: ACCUSED SHESTOV,...I WOULD ASK YOU TO REPLY TO THE SAME QUESTION. WHAT HAVE YOU TO SAY ABOUT USING VARIOUS WRECKERS--NON-TROTSKYITES-- FOR YOUR UNDERMINING TROTSKYITE WORK? DID THAT TAKE PLACE?
SHESTOV: YES, THAT TOOK PLACE. I REMEMBER QUITE WELL MY CONVERSATIONS IN BERLIN IN MAY 1931.
VYSHINSKY: WITH WHOM?
SHESTOV: WITH SEDOV, WITH SMIRNOV, WITH PYATAKOV.
VYSHINSKY: TELL ME BRIEFLY WHAT YOU DISCUSSED WITH SEDOV.
SHESTOV: SEDOV THEN FORMULATED THE POINT THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO ENLIST ALL THE FORCES HOSTILE TO THE STALIN LEADERSHIP.
...Before that I had given Sedov a brief report on the situation in the Kuzbas. My work is in the Kuzbas. I TOLD HIM THAT I KNEW THAT AMONG THE OLD ENGINEERS THERE WERE REMNANTS OF THE SHAKHTY WRECKERS, MEMBERS OF THE INDUSTRIAL PARTY, WHO WERE CARRYING ON WRECKING, COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY ACTIVITIES.
When Sedov talked about enlisting the so-called forces hostile to the Stalin regime, he said: "There you have the human material." Later on Pyatakov said the same thing to me.
...I RECALL QUITE WELL THAT WHEN SEDOV RAISED THE QUESTION OF COUNTERACTING STALIN'S INDUSTRIALIZATION I ASKED HIM: "WHAT DO YOU MEAN, COUNTERACTING?... HE SAID: "DON'T YOU REALLY UNDERSTAND? THE QUESTION IS BEING PUT MORE FIRMLY, MORE SHARPLY, AND MY FATHER BLUNTLY SPEAKS ABOUT CARRYING OUT A NUMBER OF MEASURES OF THIS KIND WHICH, IN THEIR TOTALITY, WILL PUT A NUMBER OF ENTERPRISES OUT OF ACTION." "IN OTHER WORDS," I SAID TO HIM, "WORK OF DESTRUCTION, IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN, SEDOV?" HE REPLIED: "WHY I, OF COURSE, WHAT ELSE CAN IT MEAN?"... Sedov told me that, and later on Smirnov said that in the struggle against the Stalin government all means are justified, and in the present case it was necessary to enlist all the hostile forces in the country. All those who were against Stalin were with us.
VYSHINSKY: Hence, this line was given to you in 1931.
VYSHINSKY: And in this connection did you do anything in the way of carrying out this directive? Did you yourself have occasion to recruit any of these forces?
SHESTOV: Not only that but when I returned to the Kuzbas I started my destructive work there, because I had then told Sedov, Smirnov, and Pyatakov that we had no support whatever among the workers and peasants, and to hope that I would be able to recruit active wreckers among them--on that score I had no illusions whatever. I could only recruit kulaks, that I could see; but as for workers and peasants, I could not conceive of it, and I did not have it in my thoughts to bring up such a question.
VYSHINSKY: Accused Pyatakov, do you confirm Shestov's explanation?
PYATAKOV: Yes. I recall that there was a conversation on this subject; I remember it was with Sedov and Shestov.
VYSHINSKY: HENCE, YOU WERE THEN DISCUSSING THE ENLISTING OF ANTI-SOVIET FORCES?
PYATAKOV: YES, WE WERE DISCUSSING THE ENLISTING OF ANTI-SOVIET FORCES FROM AMONG THE ENGINEERS.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 159-162
SHESTOV: MURALOV GAVE ME WIDER INSTRUCTIONS FOR TERRORIST ACTS....
I ALSO RECALL THAT IN THE BEGINNING OF JUNE 1933 I TOLD MURALOV THAT ORDJONIKIDZE WAS EXPECTED IN THE KUZNETSK BASIN AND MURALOV GAVE ME INSTRUCTIONS TO COMMIT A TERRORIST ACT AGAINST ORDJONIKIDZE.
VYSHINSKY: MURALOV GAVE YOU INSTRUCTIONS?
SHESTOV: YES.... When I heard that Molotov was coming I ORDERED CHEREPUKHIN TO GO IMMEDIATELY TO PROKOPYEVSK PERSONALLY TO DIRECT THE TERRORIST ACT AGAINST MOLOTOV. THIS HE DID. AS HE INFORMED ME LATER, HE INSTRUCTED ARNOLD TO COMMIT THIS TERRORIST ACT. The preliminary plan provided for the act to be committed by means of a car accident, and two suitable spots were selected for it. One spot--for those who know Prokopyevsk--was near Pit No. 5 on the way to the Mine Management office, and the second spot was between the workers' settlement and Pit No. 3. There is a gully there, not a ditch, as Muralov said, a gully, about 15 meters deep.
VYSHINSKY: A "ditch" 15 meters deep! Who chose this spot?
SHESTOV: I myself, and Cherepukhin.
VYSHINSKY: You yourself selected the spot?
SHESTOV: At that time I was working in Prokopyevsk and knew the topography of the place very well.
VYSHINSKY: You chose two spots, and those were the instructions you gave to the executors--either one place or the other?
SHESTOV: Only those spots, other places were out of the question.
VYSHINSKY: Who told the executors about the spots?
SHESTOV: Cherepukhin told the executors. He told me that he had succeeded in putting Arnold at the wheel.
VYSHINSKY: What was Arnold at the time?
SHESTOV: ARNOLD WAS MANAGER OF THE GARAGE. HE WAS AN EXPERIENCED CHAUFFEUR. Moreover, as Cherepukhin had told me, he had even provided for additional guarantees. These were that, in the event of Arnold funking it for any reason, a truck was to drive up and collide with the passenger car, hitting it in the side so that both car and truck would crash into the gully.
Arnold did indeed drive Molotov, but he turned the wheel and so misled the truck driver, who, thinking that Arnold had fallen into the gully, drove past. As a matter of fact, although he turned towards the gully, he did not turn sharply enough, and the guards in the car that followed literally caught the machine with their hands. Molotov and the others in the car, including Arnold, got out of the already overturned car. This is what Cherepukhin reported to me at the time.
Analyzing this situation with Cherepukhin, we arrived at the conclusion that Arnold had not put enough speed on, and had not turned sharply enough.
VYSHINSKY: At what speed was he to have made the turn?
SHESTOV: At high speed, but he did it at a low speed.
VYSHINSKY: And slowly slid down?
SHESTOV: No, not slowly, but he did not turn sharply enough, with the result that the car lost momentum and did not fall with the speed it would have had he turned more sharply. Had he done that the rear car would not have been able to catch it
VYSHINSKY: The rear car managed to come to the assistance of the front car. Who related this?
VYSHINSKY: And Arnold?
SHESTOV: Arnold told the story on the same lines later.
VYSHINSKY: And did it coincide?
VYSHINSKY: Permit me to ask Arnold.
VYSHINSKY: ACCUSED ARNOLD, YOU HEARD SHESTOV'S TESTIMONY? IS HIS TESTIMONY CORRECT?
ARNOLD : THE TECHNICAL DETAILS ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEPICTED.
VYSHINSKY: BUT THE FACT AS SUCH, DID IT OCCUR?
ARNOLD : YES, IT OCCURRED.
VYSHINSKY: DO YOU CONFIRM THAT?
ARNOLD : YES.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 220-222
VYSHINSKY: DO YOU CONFIRM THAT IN REGARD TO MOLOTOV, MURALOV GAVE YOU DIRECT INSTRUCTIONS?
SHESTOV: YES, AND HE GAVE DIRECT INSTRUCTIONS IN JUNE 1933 ABOUT CARRYING OUT A TERRORIST ACT AGAINST ORDJONIKIDZE AS WELL.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 222
VYSHINSKY: ACCUSED MURALOV, DO YOU CONFIRM THE REFERENCES TO THE ATTEMPT ON THE LIFE OF COMRADE MOLOTOV?
VYSHINSKY: ON THIS POINT THERE IS NO DIVERGENCE BETWEEN YOU AND SHESTOV, YOU CONFIRM THIS?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 223
VYSHINSKY: Accused Shestov, will you tell the court of your criminal activities as briefly as possible?
SHESTOV: MY CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES BEGAN AT THE END OF 1923. AS A STUDENT OF THE WORKERS' FACULTY OF THE MOSCOW MINING ACADEMY I WAS AN ACTIVE ADVOCATE OF THE TROTSKYITE PLATFORM.
IN 1924 I DECEIVED THE PARTY FOR THE FIRST TIME, WHEN IN THE AUTUMN I DECLARED AT A PARTY MEETING THAT I HAD ABANDONED TROTSKYISM. At the end of 1925 I again began to fight the Party actively.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 233
SHESTOV: ...During my meeting with Sedov I asked him what our leader, Trotsky, thought, what were the specific tasks he placed before us Trotskyites. Sedov began by saying that it was no use sitting and whistling for fair weather; we must proceed with all forces and means at our disposal to an active policy of discrediting Stalin's leadership and Stalin's policy.
FURTHER, SEDOV SAID THAT HIS FATHER HELD THAT THE ONLY CORRECT WAY, A DIFFICULT ONE BUT A SURE ONE, WAS FORCIBLY TO REMOVE STALIN AND THE LEADERS OF THE GOVERNMENT BY MEANS OF TERRORISM.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 234
...He [Sedov] asked me whether I knew any of the directors of German firms, Dehlmann in particular....
I asked him why I should get in touch with him. He said that this firm was of help in sending mail to the Soviet Union. I then said: "Are you advising me to make a deal with the firm?" He said: "What's terrible about that? You must understand that if they are doing us a favor why should not we do them a favor and furnish them with certain information."
I SAID: "YOU ARE SIMPLY PROPOSING THAT I SHOULD BECOME A SPY." HE SHRUGGED HIS SHOULDERS AND SAID: "IT IS ABSURD TO USE WORDS LIKE THAT. IN A FIGHT IT IS UNREASONABLE TO BE AS SQUEAMISH AS THAT. IF YOU ACCEPT TERRORISM, IF YOU ACCEPT DESTRUCTIVE UNDERMINING ACTIVITY IN INDUSTRY, I ABSOLUTELY FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHY YOU CANNOT AGREE WITH THIS."
... In the beginning of June 1931, after I had assimilated all that I had heard from Smirnov and Sedov, I arrived at the conclusion that it was too late to retreat. Smirnov and the others knew me as a convinced Trotskyite....
I met Smirnov about the middle of July.... SMIRNOV THEN SAID THAT THE NEGOTIATIONS HAD COME TO AN END, THAT DEFINITE DECISIONS HAD BEEN ADOPTED WHICH COULD BE SUMMED UP AS FOLLOWS: first, that Pyatakov had proved that the industrialization carried out by the Stalin government had failed,...that WE ARE MORALLY FULLY JUSTIFIED IN CARRYING ON DESTRUCTIVE UNDERMINING WORK AND IN ENLISTING FOR THIS PURPOSE ALL THE HOSTILE FORCES, PARTICULARLY THE COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY MINDED SECTION OF THE ENGINEERS. THEN HE PASSED ON TO THE QUESTION OF TERRORISM. HE SAID THAT A DECISION HAD BEEN ADOPTED TO GET INTO POWER BY ORGANIZING ASSASSINATIONS, BY ACTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST STALIN, HIS POLITICAL BUREAU AND HIS GOVERNMENT.... In that case, I SAID, I WILL BE A SPY AND A DIVERSIONIST. To this he replied: Stop slinging words like "spy" and "diversionist" about. He then went on to say that every convinced Trotskyite understood the meaning of the word "terrorism,".... He said: What do you find terrible in enlisting German diversionists for this work,...
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 234-235
SHESTOV: We agreed then that I would receive these letters concealed in the soles of shoes....
VYSHINSKY: That you have already told. You received two shoes in which letters were concealed and brought them to Moscow. You have already told this here.
SHESTOV: No, I have not yet told the following: I HAD A MEETING WITH PYATAKOV IN THE MIDDLE OF JUNE 1931....
VYSHINSKY: WHERE WAS THIS MEETING?
SHESTOV: IN BERLIN.
VYSHINSKY: WHAT DID HE SPECIFY?
SHESTOV: HE ALSO SPOKE OF THE NECESSITY OF ADOPTING MEASURES TO STOP THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF THE COUNTRY--TO STOP, IS WHAT HE SAID. HE ALSO SAID: "YOU PERSONALLY ARE ENTRUSTED WITH THE EXECUTION OF A TERRORIST ACT AGAINST EICHE.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 237
SHESTOV: BEFORE MY DEPARTURE I MET THE DIRECTOR OF THIS FIRM, DEHLMANN, AND HIS ASSISTANT KOCH.
VYSHINSKY: WHAT WAS THE ESSENCE OF YOUR CONVERSATION?
SHESTOV: THE ESSENCE OF THE CONVERSATION WITH THE HEADS OF THE FIRM WAS AS FOLLOWS: FIRST, ON SUPPLYING SECRET INFORMATION THROUGH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THIS FIRM WORKING IN THE KUZNETSK BASIN AND ON THE ORGANIZATION OF WRECKING AND DIVERSIVE WORK TOGETHER WITH THE TROTSKYITES. IT WAS ALSO SAID THAT THE FIRM IN ITS TURN WOULD HELP US.
VYSHINSKY: WHO ADVANCED THIS PROPOSITION?
SHESTOV: THIS PROPOSITION WAS ADVANCED DURING THE CONVERSATION BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE FIRM, DEHLMANN, SEDOV'S FRIEND.
VYSHINSKY: YOU TALKED TO HIM ABOUT DIVERSIVE AND CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES IN THE KUZBAS?
VYSHINSKY: Did Dehlmann say by what means they would help you?
SHESTOV: He said that they already had their people....
SHESTOV: In the Kuznetsk Basin. And that they could send more people upon the demand of our organization, while the Trotskyite organization would render every possible assistance to these diversionists. In its turn, the firm undertook to maintain communications with the organizations of the Trotskyites in the Soviet Union, including me.... The firm undertook punctually to deliver to the letters marked "Alyosha," as well as return letters. THEY WOULD IN EVERY WAY HELP THE TROTSKYITES TO COME TO POWER,...
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 238
SHESTOV: Next I commenced concrete practical work. I began by recruiting the engineer Stroilov.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 239
SHESTOV:... The next day Stroilov said that he agreed to take part in our organization.... Stroilov was to draw up a plan along the following lines.
1) To disrupt new mine construction and the reconstruction of old mines that was being carried on.
2) To strive to organize construction work on new mines and on mines under reconstruction in such a way that the new units would commence operation piecemeal. We had in mind to delay production reaching the designed capacities.
3) To introduce such systems of coal cutting as would result in maximum losses and were calculated to cause underground fires.
4) Deliberately to disrupt the preparation of new levels and new mining fields, for the purpose of dealing a crushing blow not only to the collieries and iron mines of the Kuznetsk Basin, but to the iron and steel industry of the Urals and Western Siberia as well.
5) Deliberately to disrupt preparatory work for the purpose of creating a lapse of time between clearing work and preparatory operations.
6) To intensify the destruction of machinery by more effective measures, especially the machinery directly employed for delivery, hauling, and hoisting of coal. By these acts we not only intended to disrupt the plan of coal output, but to arouse the anger of the workers.
7) Finally, the last point was to sabotage shock brigade work....
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 244
SHESTOV: AT THE END OF 1932 I SAW STROILOV IN NOVOSIBIRSK, AND HE TOLD ME THAT A NEW AND FAIRLY LARGE GROUP OF GERMAN SPECIALISTS WHO WERE TO ENGAGE IN DIVERSIVE ACTIVITIES HAD ARRIVED.
VYSHINSKY: THAT IS TO SAY, THEY HAD COME IN THE GUISE OF SPECIALISTS?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 253
VYSHINSKY (to Shestov): So you had a fairly numerous crowd?
SHESTOV: Schebesto asked me to give him a plan with the key structures marked on it, so that he could commence a campaign of diversive work. I gave him this plan. He made use of it for diversive work in the Prokopyevsk district. For example, he made an attempt to blow up the shaft and the headframe at Pit No. 5. He laid a charge of dynamite. A fuse was attached, and it only remained to ignite this fuse.
But the explosion did not take place for the sole reason that when the charge was being laid beneath the headframe and in the shaft, someone came along. On the following night a worker who was clearing away rubbish near the headframe discovered the charge, and it was removed.
VYSHINSKY: Proceed. What happened next?
SHESTOV: AT MY INSTRUCTIONS AND WITH THE HELP OF THE TECHNICIAN KAHN, WE STOLE DYNAMITE FROM THE STOREHOUSE AND MADE OUR OWN SECRET DYNAMITE DUMP.
VYSHINSKY: YOU PROVIDED A PLACE TO KEEP THE STOLEN DYNAMITE?
VYSHINSKY: YOU TOOK PART IN THE STEALING?
VYSHINSKY: THAT MEANS THAT YOU AND HE STOLE IT TOGETHER?
SHESTOV: I KNEW ABOUT IT.
VYSHINSKY: NO, EXCUSE ME, NOT KNEW, BUT HELPED?
VYSHINSKY: YOU WERE HIS ACCOMPLICE?
VYSHINSKY: THAT MEANS YOU WERE STEALING TOGETHER?
SHESTOV: YES, TOGETHER.
VYSHINSKY: That is what I said.
SHESTOV: In 1934 this dump blew up. Some miners' children were playing not far from the spot, and they probably started digging and struck this dynamite. The result was a dreadful explosion.
VYSHINSKY: And what happened to the children?
SHESTOV: They were killed.
VYSHINSKY: Many of them?
VYSHINSKY: AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE WAS THE DYNAMITE STOLEN? You have not told us that. For causing similar explosions?... IN ORDER TO PREPARE FOR BLOWING UP THE MINES?
SHESTOV: QUITE RIGHT. IN MAY 1933 THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF SCHEBESTO TO SET FIRE TO THE KUZNETSK POWER STATION AT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE GERMAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE AND AT MY INSTRUCTIONS.
VYSHINSKY: WHO GAVE INSTRUCTIONS TO BLOW UP THIS POWER STATION?
SHESTOV: THE INSTRUCTIONS WERE MINE.... He simply told me he was taking steps to set fire to the place. I knew of this fact.
VYSHINSKY: What form did the attempt to set fire to the station take?
SHESTOV: I knew quite well from Schebesto that the station had been set on fire.
VYSHINSKY: So it was not an attempt but an act of incendiarism?
SHESTOV: Yes, actual incendiarism. Further, I know from Floren that in the autumn of 1934 he set fire to the bunkers of Pit No. 9.... Similarly there was an attempt to set fire to the coal dumps at Pit No. 5-7.
SHESTOV: In the autumn of 1934. And only due to the fact that the manager of the pit, who was not a member of the Trotskyite organization, quickly appeared on the scene, and because the fire brigade arrived in quick time, the fire was localized.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 255-256
VYSHINSKY: ACCUSED STROILOV, DID YOU HEAR THIS LAST PART OF SHESTOV'S TESTIMONY?
VYSHINSKY: DO YOU CONFIRM THAT YOU WERE INFORMED ABOUT THE DIVERSIVE WORK OF SCHEBESTO, FLOREN AND OTHERS?
STROILOV: YES, I CONFIRM IT.
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU HAPPEN TO TALK TO SHESTOV ABOUT THIS?
STROILOV: SEVERAL TIMES.
VYSHINSKY: SO YOU HAD TALKS IN ORDER TO CHECK UP ON THE FULFILLMENT OF THE PLANS?
STROILOV: IN ORDER TO KEEP EACH OTHER INFORMED ABOUT THE WORK THAT HAD BEEN DONE.
VYSHINSKY: ABOUT THE CRIMES THAT HAD BEEN JOINTLY COMMITTED?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 257
SHESTOV: Stroilov told me about the Lenin Mines, but there, as far as I recall, disruptive activities were not being conducted by the German spies; disruptive work there was done by Andreyev, the chief mechanic of this mine, and he made an attempt to set fire to the Yemelyanov Pit.
VYSHINSKY: But what about your activities? Your wrecking work in the installation of the mine machinery and so forth?
SHESTOV: I am just coming to that. This is a very large chapter. In the Prokopyevsk Mines the chamber-and-pillar system was employed without filling in the worked-out cavity. As a result of this system we had over 50 percent loss of coal instead of the usual 15-20 per cent. Secondly, as a result of this, we had about 60 underground fires in the Prokopyevsk Mines up to the end of 1935.
VYSHINSKY: This as a result....
SHESTOV: Of the work of wrecking and destruction that was done.
VYSHINSKY: Did you organize these underground fires?
SHESTOV: We did not organize them, but we introduced a system of coal extraction which caused underground fires.
VYSHINSKY: Caused them?
VYSHINSKY: I mean "organized" in this sense, that YOU PUT INTO EFFECT SUCH A SYSTEM AS MUST INEVITABLY RESULT IN THE OUTBREAK OF FIRES.
SHESTOV: QUITE CORRECT.
VYSHINSKY: AND IT WAS FOR THIS PURPOSE THAT YOU EMPLOYED THIS SYSTEM?
SHESTOV: SOLELY FOR THIS PURPOSE.
VYSHINSKY: IN ORDER TO CAUSE FIRES?
SHESTOV: YES, IN ORDER TO CAUSE BIG LOSSES OF COAL.
VYSHINSKY: WHO AIDED YOU IN THIS CRIMINAL WORK?
SHESTOV: I WAS AIDED BY STROILOV, by the manager of the Prokopyevsk Mines, Ovsyannikov, and by the chief engineer of these mines, Mayer. With their assistance the deepening of the shafts was begun at the wrong time, in particular at the Molotov Pit; the hundred-meter level of the "Koksovaya" Pit was deliberately left unworked from 1933 onwards, and the deepening of the "Meneikha" Pit and Pit No. 5-6 was not begun at the right time. It was held up for as long as two years. Further, in the Prokopyevsk Mines to large shafts, Nos. 7-8, were sunk at my personal instructions on a coal bed which, as I knew previously would present great difficulties for the working of these pits. ALL THIS WAS DONE DELIBERATELY.
At the "Koksovaya" Pit and at Pit No. 5-6, in the installation of the equipment and in the installation of the underground power station and of other machinery, disruptive work was performed on a large scale. This was done by engineer Schneider, who had been recruited by me, together with a group of his assistants.
VYSHINSKY: Is that all?
SHESTOV: In Anzherka, the starting of Pit No. 5 was delayed for two years. Similar extensive wrecking operations were carried on in Pit No. 9-15.
Besides this, measures of a wrecking and destructive character were carried out on a large scale on the machinery already in use, both at the Lenin Mines and at the Anzhero-Sujensk Mines, as a result of which these mines did not fulfill their plans for five years running.
And finally, at all mines--the Prokopyevsk the Anzherka and the Lenin Mines--the Stakhanov movement was sabotaged. Instructions were issued to worry the life out of workers.... Impossible conditions of work were created. Normal work was rendered impossible,...
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 257-258
VYSHINSKY: Two more questions. IN THE FIRST PLACE, IN ADDITION TO THE CRIMES ABOUT WHICH YOU HAVE JUST SPOKEN, DO YOU NOT HAVE ON YOUR RECORD WHAT I MIGHT SIMPLY CALL CRIMES OF BANDITRY IN THE DIRECT SENSE OF THIS WORD. FOR EXAMPLE, ROBBERIES AND MURDERS?
SHESTOV: MURDERS, YES.
VYSHINSKY: NOT TERRORISM, BUT PLAIN MURDER?
SHESTOV: I RECOLLECT THAT AT PROKOPYEVSK ENGINEER BOYARSHINOV WAS MURDERED BY THE TERRORIST GROUP.
VYSHINSKY: WHY WAS HE MURDERED?
SHESTOV: HE WAS MURDERED ON MY INSTRUCTIONS. He had reported to me that there was something wrong in the work of the Coal Mine Construction Trust. He called my attention to this. At that time I enjoyed the confidence of the engineers and technicians. Boyarshinov himself was a former wrecker of the Donbas, but he was working honestly in these mines.
VYSHINSKY: He applied to you as an authoritative person in charge?
SHESTOV: Yes. He wanted to open my eyes to the state of things. I told him I would take note of what he said, thanked him, and added: "I will inform the right people. Don't say anything for the present." And then I SUMMONED CHEREPUKHIN AND GAVE HIM INSTRUCTIONS TO MURDER HIM, AND THIS WAS DONE.
VYSHINSKY: SO HE WAS MURDERED?
VYSHINSKY: AN HONEST ENGINEER?
VYSHINSKY: And who murdered him?... Who was the actual murderer?
SHESTOV: I cannot give his name. This was in 1933. I did not know all the Trotskyites in Prokopyevsk.
VYSHINSKY: IN SHORT, YOU WERE THE ORGANIZER OF THE MURDER?
SHESTOV: QUITE TRUE.
VYSHINSKY: Now for the second question. What about robberies?
SHESTOV: The Anzherka bank was robbed with my participation, at my instructions.... They took 164,000 rubles from the bank for the use of our organization and handed over this money to me.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 259-260
KAZNACHEYEV (Counsel for Arnold): Accused Shestov, when testifying yesterday, you related how you enlisted Stroilov. Tell us, when you enlisted Arnold did you use the same methods, or other methods?
SHESTOV: In the summer of 1932 Arnold came to see me at the Coal Mine Construction Trust to seek employment as a mechanic at one of the mines. When examining his application form I noted that he had not concealed the fact from me that he had been dismissed from the Kuznetsk Metallurgical Works Construction Trust for anti-Soviet propaganda among the foreign specialists. This induced me to employ him and to work to enlist him in our Trotskyite organization. I thought then of using him for undermining activities.
SHESTOV:... I TOLD HIM THAT I WAS A TROTSKYITE, A MEMBER OF A TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION, AND PERSUADED HIM TO TAKE THE PATH OF TERRORISM. HE AGREED. AND LATER I ASKED HIM WHETHER HE WOULD UNDERTAKE TO COMMIT A TERRORIST ACT. AFTER SOME TIME AND FURTHER DISCUSSIONS, HE CONSENTED TO THIS.
KAZNACHEYEV: Did you have to threaten him with anything when recruiting him, as you did with Stroilov?... When you talked to Stroilov, did you not threaten to denounce him to the authorities?
KAZNACHEYEV: Did you have to resort to similar threats in the case of Arnold, or not?
KAZNACHEYEV: Now tell me, when did you first instruct him to commit a terrorist act?
SHESTOV: I myself did not give the instructions.... I put him in touch with the man who was in practical charge of terrorist acts.
KAZNACHEYEV: What is the name of that man?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 261
KAZNACHEYEV: Did not Cherepukhin report to you what Arnold said?
SHESTOV: He said that Arnold had not only agreed to commit a terrorist act but was also prepared to die in the attempt.
KAZNACHEYEV: Did the first commission given by Cherepukhin to Arnold refer to a terrorist act, and against whom?
SHESTOV: Against Ordjonikidze, but it did not come off, because Ordjonikidze did not use the car.
KAZNACHEYEV: That is, for an absolutely unforeseen reason?
KAZNACHEYEV: What was the second commission?
SHESTOV: To commit a terrorist act against Molotov.
KAZNACHEYEV: Did Cherepukhin later report to you about this terrorist act?
KAZNACHEYEV: How did Arnold explain his failure to carry it out?
SHESTOV: Cherepukhin said that Arnold funked it.
KAZNACHEYEV: And you suspected that he became scared?
KAZNACHEYEV: Was this the last commission Arnold received from you or through Cherepukhin?
SHESTOV: I do not quite understand. I COMMISSIONED ARNOLD THROUGH CHEREPUKHIN TO COMMIT A TERRORIST ACT AGAINST MOLOTOV.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 263
VYSHINSKY: I have a question to ask Shestov. ACCUSED SHESTOV, DO YOU CONFIRM ARNOLD'S TESTIMONY REGARDING THE PREPARATIONS AND THE ATTEMPT ON THE LIFE OF COMRADE MOLOTOV?
SHESTOV: YES, IN THE MAIN THAT IS WHAT CHEREPUKHIN TOLD ME.
VYSHINSKY: ON WHOSE INSTRUCTIONS WAS IT ORGANIZED?
SHESTOV: IT WAS ORGANIZED ON MY INSTRUCTIONS.
VYSHINSKY: THROUGH CHEREPUKHIN?
SHESTOV: YES.... I WAS AT THAT TIME WORKING AT THE ANZHERO-SUJENSK MINE, AND THEREFORE CHEREPUKHIN WAS IN CHARGE OF ALL THE PRACTICAL WORK.
VYSHINSKY: THE PRACTICAL WORK?
SHESTOV: YES, THE MURDER.
VYSHINSKY: AND DID YOU GIVE HIM [ ARNOLD] INSTRUCTIONS TO ORGANIZE AN ATTEMPT ON THE LIFE OF COMRADE MOLOTOV?
VYSHINSKY: ON WHOSE INSTRUCTIONS?
SHESTOV: I HAD RECEIVED THE DIRECTIVES FROM MURALOV.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 329-330
KEY PARTS OF SEREBRYAKOV’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
ADMITS HE REMAINED A TROT WHILE REJECTING TROTSKY;
SAYS PYATAKOV TOLD HIM HE WAS COMMITING WRECKING WORK IN INDUSTRY AND RAILWAYS;
ADMITS HE ALSO DID WRECKING;
ADMITS THEY WERE PREPARING TO KILL STALIN;
ADMITS HE, PYATAKOV, AND MDIVANI WERE PREPARING TERRORIST ACTS;
ADMITS HE PROPOSED TO KILL STALIN AND BERIA;
ADMITS THEY PLANNED TO KILL YEZHOV;
SAYS THE INDICTMENT IS COMPLETELY CORRECT;
ADMITS HE AND LIVSHITZ DISCUSSED HOW TO JAM THE RAILWAY SYSTEM AND LIVSHITZ ADMITS SUCH A CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE AND THE DIRECTIONS CAME FROM PYATAKOV WHO ADMITS AS MUCH;
ADMITS HE TALKED OF THE NEED FOR WRECKING IN INDUSTRY AND RAILWAYS TO DESTROY STALIN’S LEADERSHIP;
ADMITS DISCUSSING RAILROAD WRECKING WITH LIVSHITZ BUT NOT TERRORISM
VYSHINSKY: Tell me, please, when did you resume your anti-Soviet criminal activities?
SEREBRYAKOV: In the autumn of 1932. Mrachkovsky came to see me and informed me about the creation of a Trotskyite-Zinovievite bloc, told me who were the members of this center, and then informed me that the center had decided to create a reserve center in the event of its being exposed.
VYSHINSKY: What was your attitude towards this proposal?
SEREBRYAKOV: It did not come as a surprise to me. ...I RETAINED COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY SENTIMENTS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE DECLARATION I SENT IN IN 1929.
VYSHINSKY: WHEN YOU SENT IN YOUR DECLARATION IN 1929 YOU HAD REALLY REMAINED A TROTSKYITE?
SEREBRYAKOV: YES, AT HEART I REMAINED A TROTSKYITE. IN THE AUTUMN OF 1933 I MET PYATAKOV IN GAGRI AND HE URGED ME THEN TO TAKE AN ACTIVE PART IN TROTSKYITE WORK. IN PARTICULAR, HE TOLD ME THAT HE WAS CONDUCTING WRECKING ACTIVITIES IN INDUSTRY AND THAT HE WAS ALSO CONFRONTED WITH THE TASK OF DEVELOPING WRECKING WORK ON THE RAILWAYS.
I am an old railway man, I had retained my connections, I raised no objections and I UNDERTOOK THIS PART OF THE WORK,...
... We set ourselves a very concrete and definite task: to disrupt freight traffic, to reduce daily loadings by increasing the runs of empty cars, by refraining from increasing the very low running norms for cars and engines, and by refraining from making full use of the traction power and capacity of engines, and so forth.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 168-169
SEREBRYAKOV: The question of committing a terrorist act against Beria was raised, but Pyatakov and I advised them not to do it. We argued that a terrorist act against Beria might interfere with the terrorist act against Stalin. WE PROPOSED THAT, IF THE FORCES WERE AVAILABLE, THEY SHOULD PREPARE A TERRORIST ACT AGAINST STALIN, while continuing with their preparations for a terrorist act against Beria.... We advised them in every way not to commit the act against Beria before the terrorist act against Stalin had been committed.
VYSHINSKY: HENCE, IN 1934, YOU AND PYATAKOV CAME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH MDIVANI ABOUT A PLAN OF TERRORIST ACTS AND ABOUT CARRYING THEM OUT.
VYSHINSKY: You agreed among yourselves that it was necessary to co-ordinate these operations?
SEREBRYAKOV: Yes, that the Georgian terrorists [under Mdivani] could form a group and could undertake the organization and preparation of a terrorist act.
VYSHINSKY: DID MDIVANI AGREE TO THIS?
SEREBRYAKOV: HE AGREED.
VYSHINSKY: And what about the attempt on the life of Comrade Beria?
SEREBRYAKOV: It was not abandoned, nor were the preparations abandoned; it was suspended.
VYSHINSKY: In order to coordinate operations?
VYSHINSKY: HENCE, I RIGHTLY UNDERSTAND THAT, INSTEAD OF ONE ATTEMPT AT ASSASSINATION WHICH MDIVANI PROPOSED, YOU PROPOSED TWO ATTEMPTS?
VYSHINSKY: This was in 1934?
SEREBRYAKOV: In 1934. NOW IN REGARD TO THE TERRORISM CONNECTED WITH GEORGIA IT MAY BE ADDED THAT WHEN I MET PYATAKOV AGAIN IN 1935, OUR DISCUSSION CULMINATED WITH THE QUESTION OF MAKING PREPARATIONS FOR YET ANOTHER TERRORIST ACT, NAMELY AGAINST YEZHOV.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 170
SEREBRYAKOV:... The indictment correctly formulates all the questions and puts them correctly....
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 171
THE PRESIDENT: During that conversation, did Livshitz point out the special importance of your work during the pre-mobilization period? IN YOUR TESTIMONY YOU SAY: "LIVSHITZ AND I DISCUSSED THE MATTER AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT... IT WAS ALSO NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE POSSIBILITY OF BLOCKING THE MOST IMPORTANT RAILWAY JUNCTIONS IN THE FIRST DAYS OF MOBILIZATION BY CREATING ON THEM SUCH JAMS AS WOULD LEAD TO THE DISLOCATION OF THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM AND REDUCE THE CAPACITY OF THE RAILWAY JUNCTIONS." DO YOU CONFIRM THIS?
THE PRESIDENT: FURTHER: "LIVSHITZ AND I THEN TRIED TO FIGURE OUT WHICH JUNCTIONS SHOULD BECOME THE OBJECTS OF OUR WORK.... WHICH JUNCTIONS SHOULD BECOME THE OBJECTS OF OUR UNDERMINING WORK, CONSIDERING THAT UNDERMINING ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE DEVELOPED AT SUCH AND SUCH POINTS...." DO YOU CONFIRM THIS?
SEREBRYAKOV: YES, I CONFIRM IT.
THE PRESIDENT: ACCUSED LIVSHITZ, DO YOU CONFIRM THE CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH SEREBRYAKOV ON THIS SUBJECT?
LIVSHITZ: I CONFIRM THE CONVERSATION.
THE PRESIDENT: I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE JUNCTIONS. I ASKED YOU WHETHER YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH SEREBRYAKOV ABOUT HAVING TO CAUSE JAMS AT A NUMBER OF RAILWAY JUNCTIONS IN THE PRE-MOBILIZATION PERIOD.
LIVSHITZ: THERE WAS SUCH A CONVERSATION.
THE PRESIDENT: When did that conversation with Serebryakov take place?
LIVSHITZ: In 1935.
THE PRESIDENT: THAT CONVERSATION AROSE OUT OF PYATAKOV'S INSTRUCTIONS?
THE PRESIDENT: ACCUSED PYATAKOV, DO YOU CONFIRM THAT YOU GAVE LIVSHITZ SUCH INSTRUCTIONS?
PYATAKOV: YES, OF COURSE.
THE PRESIDENT: ACCUSED SEREBRYAKOV, DO YOU CONFIRM THIS SENTENCE ONE OF THE STATEMENTS IN YOUR TESTIMONY (CONCERNING WHAT PYATAKOV SAID): "WRECKING IN INDUSTRY MUST BE COMBINED WITH UNDERMINING ACTIVITY ON THE RAILWAYS--THIS IS WHAT MUST BE DONE IF WE WANT TO STRIKE A SHATTERING BLOW AT THE STALIN LEADERSHIP"?
SEREBRYAKOV: YES, APPROXIMATELY.
THE PRESIDENT: ACCUSED PYATAKOV, TO YOU CONFIRM THAT YOU GAVE LIVSHITZ SUCH INSTRUCTIONS?
PYATAKOV: YES, OF COURSE.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 172
THE PRESIDENT: Have Counsel for Defense any questions?
COUNSEL FOR DEFENSE: (Reply in the negative.)
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 175
VYSHINSKY: Accused Serebryakov, do you confirm the conversation with Livshitz concerning the preparations for a terrorist act against Comrade Stalin?
SEREBRYAKOV: If that conversation occurred, it could only have taken place in a most general form.
VYSHINSKY (to Livshitz): When did Serebryakov tell you about this?
LIVSHITZ: In 1935 during our conversation in my railway car.
VYSHINSKY: Accused Serebryakov, were you in Livshitz's railway car in 1935?
SEREBRYAKOV: I was.
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH LIVSHITZ?
VYSHINSKY: WHAT ABOUT?
SEREBRYAKOV: MAINLY ABOUT WRECKING WORK ON THE RAILWAYS.
VYSHINSKY: WERE QUESTIONS OF TERRORISM MENTIONED THERE AMONG OTHER THINGS?
LIVSHITZ: Yes, I say what I remember.
SEREBRYAKOV: I am not saying that such talk might not have taken place.
VYSHINSKY: You merely plead that you do not recollect?
SEREBRYAKOV: Yes.--Yes, the more so since my conversation took place before I had heard from Pyatakov.
VYSHINSKY: In this connection I want to ask Pyatakov, since Serebryakov pleads forgetfulness. Accused Pyatakov do you confirm this?...
PYATAKOV: I do not remember.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 354
KEY PARTS OF LOGINOV’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
ADMITS HE FILED A BOGUS RECANTATION TO GET BACK INTO THE PARTY AND WAS FOLLOWING PYATAKOV’S LEAD WHICH PYATAKOV ADMITS WAS DOUBLE-DEALING;
ADMITS HE HAD A MEETING WITH PYATAKOV WHO SAID HE AND TROTSKY AGREED THAT THE PRINCIPLE METHOD OF STRUGGLE HAD TO BE TERROR AND STALIN WAS THE MAIN TARGET;
SAYS PYATAKOV TOLD HIM THE TROTS AND ZINOVIEVITES HAD UNITED AROUND TERROR ON TROTSKY’S INSTRUCTIONS;
SAID PYATAKOV SAID THEY SHOULD STOP TALKING ABOUT TERROR AND JUST DO IT;
SAYS PYATAKOV SAID THEY MUST PREPARE TO KILL STALIN, MOLOTOV, VOROSHILOV, KOSSIOR AND POSTYSHEV;
SAYS PYATAKOV TOLD HIM THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY MUST BE DISRUPTED BY ANY MEANS;
SAYS THE DIRECTOR AND ASSISTANT-DIRECTOR HELPED IN WRECKING AT A CHEMICAL PLANT;
ADMITS HE ENGAGED IN WRECKING AT A COKE PLANT;
ADMITS HE ENGAGED IN DIVERSION WITH COKING OVENS;
SAYS PYATAKOV TOLD HIM TROTSKY HAD DEFINITELY MADE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE NAZIS AND JAPANESE ON FIGHTING THE SU;
SAYS PYATAKOV TOLD HIM THEY WERE TO WORK FOR A SOVIET DEFEAT IN EVERY WAY THROUGH DIVERSION
THE PRESIDENT: Is your name Loginov?
THE PRESIDENT: YOUR LAST POSITION WAS THAT OF MANAGER OF THE COKE TRUST IN KHARKOV?
VYSHINSKY: What do you know about Pyatakov's Trotskyite underground activities?
LOGINOV: I met Pyatakov in the beginning of 1928. I had been expelled from the party at the time.... In Moscow we went to see Pyatakov to receive instructions as to what we should do. Pyatakov's directives were that apparently in the near future we would have to submit a double-dealers' statement to the effect that we had broken with the opposition, so as to get back into the Party and thus secure the opportunity of again rallying the Trotskyite cadres and continuing the struggle against the Party.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 176
LOGINOV: I have known Pyatakov's position since he returned from abroad, where he had lived as a political exile. Pyatakov at that time actively opposed Lenin's theses on the slogan of "Power to the Soviets."... I know that in 1915-16 Pyatakov repeatedly opposed Lenin on the question of the right of nations to self-determination.
VYSHINSKY: Did you follow Pyatakov's advice about submitting a deceitful statement?
LOGINOV: IT WAS AGREED WITH PYATAKOV THAT IF THE STRUGGLE SHOULD ASSUME A PROTRACTED CHARACTER HE HIMSELF WOULD SUBMIT A STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT HE HAD BROKEN WITH THE OPPOSITION AND THIS WAS TO BE A SIGNAL FOR THE FILING OF SIMILAR STATEMENTS BY US IN THE PROVINCES. THAT IS WHAT WE DID; that is to say, when Pyatakov published a statement of this kind, we in the provinces--myself, Golubenko, and Livshitz--submitted a statement that we associated ourselves with Pyatakov's statement, and we were reinstated into the party.
VYSHINSKY (TO PYATAKOV): DO YOU CONFIRM THIS TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS?
PYATAKOV: I CONFIRM IT AS REGARDS THE FACTS.
VYSHINSKY: AND IN THAT SENSE YOUR CONDUCT WAS ONE OF DOUBLE-DEALING?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 177-178
VYSHINSKY: Did you have any meetings when you were abroad?
LOGINOV: I had a number of meetings with Pyatakov. During one of these meetings Pyatakov asked me about the state of mind of the former Trotskyites who Pyatakov knew very well, such people as Kotsyubinsky and Livshitz....
Pyatakov then put it to me that it was necessary to restore the Trotskyite organization. AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING PYATAKOV SAID THAT HENCEFORTH THE PRINCIPAL FORM OF STRUGGLE MUST BE TERRORIST ACTIVITY; AND PYATAKOV ADDED THAT THIS WAS NOT HIS OWN PERSONAL VIEWPOINT, BUT THE VIEWPOINT OF TROTSKY.
VYSHINSKY: DID PYATAKOV TELL YOU AGAINST WHOM THE TERRORIST ACTS WERE TO BE AIMED?
LOGINOV: YES, PYATAKOV SAID THAT A TERRORIST ACT MUST BE AIMED FIRST AND FOREMOST AGAINST STALIN.
VYSHINSKY: In what year was that?
LOGINOV: It was approximately in the summer of 1931.... After 1931 I MET PYATAKOV AT THE END OF 1932.... PYATAKOV THEM TOLD ME THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH TROTSKY'S DIRECTIVES, THE TROTSKYITES AND ZINOVIEVITES HAD ALREADY ACTUALLY UNITED, MAINLY ON THE BASIS OF TERRORIST ACTIVITIES, and that in Moscow the work had already assumed fairly wide dimensions. HE PROPOSED THAT WE IN THE UKRAINE TOO SHOULD STOP TALKING ABOUT TERRORISM AND PROCEED TO PRACTICAL ACTION.
VYSHINSKY: WHO PROPOSED THIS TO YOU?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 178-179
VYSHINSKY: Did you know that Pyatakov had again been abroad in 1932?
LOGINOV: Yes, I learned about it in 1934 what I met Pyatakov. Pyatakov informed me of a number of entirely new instructions from Trotsky. Pyatakov expressed dissatisfaction over the fact that our terrorist struggle was still being confined to general talk. PYATAKOV SAID IT WAS TO TERRORISM THAT CHIEF ATTENTION MUST BE DEVOTED, and that one man who acts was far more valuable than a number of wide organizations. Pyatakov further said that the prestige of the Central Committee and the confidence its policy enjoyed in the country had grown considerably, and that TROTSKY WAS THEREFORE DEMANDING VERY INSISTENTLY THAT THE EFFORTS TO DISCREDIT THE POLICY CARRIED OUT BY STALIN SHOULD BE INTENSIFIED.
Pyatakov especially pressed and emphasized the point that in this respect a particularly great role must fall to us--to people working in industry. It was in industry above all that we must employ all means to discredit the policy of Stalin. We must employ all means to slow down the rapid growth and development of industry which in 1934 was already evident to every citizen of the Soviet country.
...Pyatakov pointed out that in the struggle against the Soviet state we must not rely on our internal forces alone, that these forces would hardly be sufficient. I remember this was how Pyatakov put it, pointing out that this was just how Trotsky thought, that we could not, that it was impossible to rely on the workers and proletarian masses within the country, that we ought, therefore, to try to enlist large numbers of engineers in our work.... Pyatakov pointed out that since we did not enjoy particularly wide support and would not be able to address a large public owing to our being in illegal conditions, we ought, therefore, to rely on help from foreign powers. And here he told me that in this respect we could reckon on help and support from Germany and Japan.
VYSHINSKY: This conversation was in 1934?
LOGINOV: Yes. These statements were repeated by Pyatakov in 1935 in a considerably more precise and clear form.
AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SUMMER OF 1935 PYATAKOV...SAID THAT WE MUST QUITE DEFINITELY MAKE PREPARATIONS FOR TERRORIST ACTS AGAINST STALIN, MOLOTOV, VOROSHILOV, AND KAGANOVICH, AND IN THE UKRAINE, AGAINST KOSSIOR AND POSTYSHEV. I replied that our principal forces were intended for the purpose of committing terrorist acts in the Ukraine, except for a number of people who were held in readiness in case of a summons from Moscow.
VYSHINSKY: Were there many of them?
LOGINOV: IN ODESSA, UNDER GOLUBENKO'S LEADERSHIP, A GROUP OF PEOPLE HAD BEEN ORGANIZED HEADED BY KALASHNIKOV WHICH WAS PREPARING TO COMMIT A TERRORIST ACT AGAINST STALIN. In Dniepropetrovsk Zhukov had a group which was preparing to commit a terrorist act against Voroshilov.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 180-181
VYSHINSKY: YOU RECEIVED SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FROM HIM [PYATAKOV]?
LOGINOV: YES, SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS.
VYSHINSKY: WHAT DID PYATAKOV INSTRUCT YOU TO DO IN THIS FIELD?
LOGINOV: He said that chief attention should be devoted to the chemical branch of the coke and chemical industry, because it was of importance for defense purposes. Therefore, PYATAKOV SAID, THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY MUST BE DISRUPTED BY EVERY POSSIBLE MEANS. We began to delay the construction and starting of new departments in chemical plants.
In conjunction with Yanovsky, manager of the Coke and Chemical Construction, we arranged new construction work in such a way that the chemical departments started operations a year or two later than the coking ovens. This we did in the case of the Mariupol Plant. At this Plant too, the coking ovens were started without a single auxiliary department, that is, without the coal shed, which made it absolutely impossible to supply coke of a proper quality, without the auxiliary workshops, chemical laboratories, and so forth...
A system of wrecking measures was applied at the Novo-Yenakievka coke and chemical plant and at the Krivoy Rog plant.
The temperature there was raised considerably above 1400 degrees and in this way the regenerators of the coking ovens were fused. The result of this was that for nearly three months the plant fulfilled only 70 percent of the monthly coke plan, whereas before this the plant had worked well. There was a corresponding loss in chemicals, of course. And in addition 200,000-300,000 rubles had to be spent on repairs to restore the regenerators of the coking ovens. THIS WRECKING ACT WAS PERFORMED BY SITULIN AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE PLANT, KHOLYAVKO, AND THE ASSISTANT-DIRECTOR OF THE OVEN-HEATING DEPARTMENT WAS ALSO ENLISTED. Similar acts were performed at the Gorlovka Works.
VYSHINSKY: And does the Gorlovka Works come under the same trust?
LOGINOV: It comes under the Coke Trust, which was under my charge.
VYSHINSKY:... DID YOU ALSO ORGANIZE WRECKING ACTIVITIES AT THE GORLOVKA COKE PLANT?
The construction of the washing installation at the Staro-Yenakievka coal concentration factory was delayed.
VYSHINSKY: DID YOUR ORGANIZATION COMMIT ANY DIVERSIVE ACTS?
LOGINOV: AT ZAPOROZHYE--FUSING OF THE REGENERATORS OF THE COKING OVENS.
VYSHINSKY: IN WHAT YEAR WAS THAT?
LOGINOV: IN 1935-36....
VYSHINSKY: WRECKING AND DIVERSIVE ACTIVITIES?
VYSHINSKY: Did you meet Pyatakov at the end of 1935 or the beginning of 1936?
LOGINOV: I met him at the beginning of 1936.... Pyatakov said that he had again been abroad in 1935.
HE SAID THAT HE HAD RECEIVED FROM TROTSKY CONFIRMATION OF THE DIRECTIVE THAT CONTACTS WITH FOREIGNERS--FASCISTS IN THE SOVIET UNION--SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED MORE DETERMINEDLY THAN HERETOFORE. PYATAKOV TOLD ME THAT THERE WAS A VERY DEFINITE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TROTSKY AND THE FASCIST ORGANIZATIONS IN GERMANY AND AN AGREEMENT WITH THE RULING CIRCLES OF JAPAN ON THE SUBJECT OF JOINT STRUGGLE AGAINST THE SOVIET POWER.
VYSHINSKY: On what conditions?
LOGINOV: I questioned Pyatakov in detail as to what this would mean and where all this policy would lead to--that we would practically cease to exist as a country. It seemed to me absurd that this vast country was to be destroyed as a state. He said that it was not this that was intended, but big territorial concessions both in the East and in the Ukraine, and that Trotsky had an arrangement to this effect.... WE WERE NOW TO HELP IN EVERY WAY TO BRING ABOUT THE DEFEAT OF THE SOVIET UNION, AND OUR PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY SHOULD BE DESTRUCTION AND DIVERSION, WHICH WERE TO BE CARRIED OUT AT THAT VERY PERIOD.
VYSHINSKY: When did he tell you this?
LOGINOV: He told me this at the beginning of 1936.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 182-184
KEY PARTS OF BOGUSLAVSKY’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
SAYS HE RECEIVED ORDERS FROM TROTSKY TO FORM A TROT UNDERGROUND CENTER IN SIBERIA;
SAYS TROT LEADERS GOT ORDERS FROM TROTSKY THAT THE NEW LINE FOCUSED ON KILLING LEADERS AND ECONOMIC DISRUPTION;
SAYS HE GOT ORDERS FROM TROTSKY TO DO A FAKE RECANTATION IN 1929 WHICH HE AND SMIRNOV DID;
SAYS MURALOV TOLD HIM A TERRORIST GROUP TO KILL LEADERS WHILE THEY WERE IN THE KUZBAS HAD BEEN FORMED AND IVANOV HAD BEEN SENT TO MOSCOW TO KILL STALIN;
SAYS OBERTALER TOLD HIM TROT GROUPS HAD BEEN FORMED TO DO WRECKING ON THE RAILROADS;
SAYS PYATAKOV TOLD HIM NORKIN HAD BEEN DOING WRECKING FOR 2 YEARS;
SAYS PYATAKOV TOLD HIM HE WOULD BE SENDING DROBNIS TO THE KUZBAS TO DO WRECKING;
SAYS IT BECAME CLEAR TO HIM THAT STROILOV WAS DOING WRECKING;
SAYS MANY TRAINS SABOTAGED IN 1934;
SAYS MURALOV TOLD HIM HE COMMISSIONED KUDRYASHEV, MANAGER OF ONE OF THE STATE FARMS, TO KILL MOLOTOV;
MURALOV ADMITS THAT HE DIRECTED SHESTOV, NOT KUDRYASHEV, TO KILL MOLOTOV AND SHESTOV AGREES;
SAYS HE HAD CHARGE OF WRECKING WHILE MURALOV HANDLED TERRORISM;
MURALOV ADMITS HE HAD CHARGE OF TERRORISM;
SAYS BOTH SHESTOV AND ZHITKOV PREPARED TO KILL KAGANOVICH; SAYS HE KNEW BERMANT WAS PLANNING TO KILL KAGANOVICH;
SAYS SHESTOV WAS PLANNING TO KILL MOLOTOV;
SAYS KHODOROZE WAS PLANNING TO KILL EICHE;
SAYS BERMANT TOLD HIM DIRECTLY HE PLANNED TO COMMIT TERROR; ADMITS HE WRECKED RAILWAYS;
SAYS HE WAS NOT FORCED OR PROMISED A REDUCED SENTENCE TO BEGIN CONFESSING;
ADMITS HE ENGAGED IN WRECKING AND CRIMINAL ACTS
VYSHINSKY: Tell us, what were your criminal Trotskyite activities in Siberia?
BOGUSLAVSKY: In Siberia my activities date from the beginning of February 1928, when I arrived there after being expelled from the party at the 15th Party Congress....
AT THE END OF FEBRUARY 1928 I RECEIVED DIRECTIVES FROM TROTSKY THROUGH SOSNOVSKY ABOUT THE FORMATION OF THE SIBERIAN TROTSKYITE UNDERGROUND CENTER. The tasks which were set before this center at that time consisted, in the first place, in doing everything possible to preserve those Trotskyite forces in Siberia who had not been subjected to any penalties by the government authorities or to penalties of a Party nature--expulsion and so forth.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 192
BOGUSLAVSKY: IN 1932 PYATAKOV INFORMED ME ABOUT THE MEETING THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE IN BERLIN BETWEEN PYATAKOV, SMIRNOV, AND SHESTOV ON THE ONE HAND AND SEDOV ON THE OTHER. HE TOLD ME THAT DURING THESE MEETINGS DIRECTIVES HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM TROTSKY SWITCHING THE WORK OF THE TROTSKYITES ON TO NEW LINES: THE PRINCIPAL METHOD OF WORK WAS NOW TO BE TERRORISM, THAT IS TO SAY, THE COMMITTING OF TERRORIST ACTS AGAINST LEADERS OF THE PARTY AND THE GOVERNMENT, AND MOREOVER, AS HE TOLD ME AT THAT TIME, OUR TASK WAS TO CREATE ALL KINDS OF DIFFICULTIES IN THE ECONOMIC LIFE OF THE SOVIET UNION.
...IN 1929 SMIRNOV HAD TRANSMITTED TROTSKY'S DIRECTIVE TO US, to the effect that while not laying down our arms, while not disarming ideologically, we were to disarm organizationally, to declare that we would put a stop to fractional work, and RETURN TO THE PARTY, WHILE PRESERVING IN OUR DECLARATIONS, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, SOMETHING OF OUR OLD TROTSKYITE IDEAS--WHICH IS WHAT SMIRNOV AND I ACTUALLY DID.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 195
... The construction of the Kuznetsk Metallurgical Works was at that time in full swing. Accordingly, WRECKING ACTIVITIES IN INDUSTRY WERE TO BE CONDUCTED IN THE KUZBAS, AND, SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THIS, ON THE RAILWAYS....
...MURALOV INFORMED ME IN 1933 THAT A TERRORIST GROUP HAD BEEN FORMED IN THE KUZBAS AND GIVEN THE TASK OF PREPARING FOR ATTEMPTS ON THE LIVES OF PARTY LEADERS WHILE THE LATTER VISITED THE KUZBAS. MURALOV ALSO TOLD ME THAT THE LEADER OF THE FIRST GROUP, KHODOROZE, HAD SENT ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP, IVANOV, TO MOSCOW TO CARRY OUT THE ASSASSINATION OF STALIN.
...OBERTALER REPORTED THAT WRECKING HAD ALSO BEEN STARTED ON THE TOMSK RAILWAY.
VYSHINSKY: WHO IS OBERTALER?
BOGUSLAVSKY: HE WAS THE HEAD OF CONSTRUCTION WORK ON THE LINE. OBERTALER TOLD ME OF DEPOTS WHERE NUCLEI OF TROTSKYITES HAD BEEN FORMED AND WHERE WRECKING ACTIVITIES WERE BEING CARRIED ON, the main objective here too being the locomotive service.... In 1934 I had my second meeting with Pyatakov, this time visiting him in his apartment.... In 1934, for the first time, the word "wrecking," uttered in full voice, appeared in our vocabulary.
Then during the same conversation, when I complained that we had very few people, PYATAKOV INFORMED ME, FIRSTLY, THAT IN ADDITION TO SHESTOV, NORKIN--CHIEF OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE KEMEROVO COMBINED WORKS, A MEMBER OF OUR ORGANIZATION, AND ONE OF THE ACCUSED IN THIS TRIAL--HAD ALREADY BEEN CARRYING ON WRECKING WORK IN THE KUZBAS FOR TWO YEARS.... PYATAKOV INFORMED ME THAT IN THE NEAR FUTURE HE WOULD SEND TO THE KUZBAS DROBNIS, ALSO ONE OF THE ACCUSED IN THIS TRIAL, WHO WAS TO CARRY ON ACTIVITIES IN THE KUZBAS on a larger scale and to establish contact with Norkin on the one hand and with Shestov on the other.
IT WAS DURING THIS CONVERSATION TOO THAT IT BECAME CLEAR TO ME THAT WRECKING ACTIVITIES WERE BEING CARRIED ON IN THE KUZBAS BY STROILOV, CHIEF ENGINEER OF THE KUZBAS COAL TRUST, also accused in this trial.
In response to my pessimism, occasioned by the arrest of Smirnov and a number of other people in 1933 (this conversation took place early in 1934), Pyatakov said: "We have to get down to work, especially as Trotsky has been sending letters and directives. He accuses us of inaction bordering, as he then said, on the sabotage of his, Trotsky's, directives."
BOGUSLAVSKY:...IN 1934 THERE WAS A CONSIDERABLE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF LOCOMOTIVES PUT OUT OF ACTION. And finally, especially important wrecking activity was carried out in 1934 on the construction of new railway lines, in particular the Eiche-Sokol line.
In 1934 I learned that in addition to the terrorist groups I have mentioned--the groups of Khodoroze and Shestov--MURALOV HAD COMMISSIONED KUDRYASHEV, MANAGER OF ONE OF THE STATE FARMS, TO PERPETUATE A TERRORIST ACT AGAINST THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL OF PEOPLE'S COMMISSARS, MOLOTOV, who was expected to come to Siberia and to visit this farm in particular. MURALOV TOLD ME ABOUT THIS.
VYSHINSKY: WHO MADE PREPARATIONS FOR THIS TERRORIST ACT?
BOGUSLAVSKY: KUDRYASHEV, ON MURALOV'S ORDERS.
VYSHINSKY (TO MURALOV): ACCUSED MURALOV, WAS THERE SUCH A CASE?
MURALOV:... THIS TASK WAS ASSIGNED NOT TO KUDRYASHEV BUT TO SHESTOV AND KHODOROZE.
VYSHINSKY (TO SHESTOV): DO YOU CONFIRM MURALOV'S STATEMENT THAT HE COMMISSIONED YOU TO ORGANIZE AN ATTEMPT ON THE LIFE OF COMRADE MOLOTOV?
SHESTOV: YES, I CONFIRM IT.
VYSHINSKY: FROM WHOM DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THE PREPARATIONS FOR AN ATTEMPT ON THE LIFE OF MOLOTOV BY SHESTOV?
BOGUSLAVSKY: FROM MURALOV.
VYSHINSKY: And did you hear about this from Shestov?
BOGUSLAVSKY: No, I had no connections with him
VYSHINSKY: This does not come within the sphere of your department?
BOGUSLAVSKY: We had no divisions into departments
VYSHINSKY: How is that? You had charge of wrecking affairs and Muralov had charge of terrorist affairs. WHAT CAME WITHIN YOUR CHARGE--TERRORISM OR WRECKING?
VYSHINSKY: WHILE MURALOV HAD CHARGE OF TERRORISM?
VYSHINSKY: What were Muralov's main functions?
BOGUSLAVSKY: He was the leader of the whole center and in addition he directed that part of the work.
VYSHINSKY (to Muralov): Do you also confirm this?
MURALOV: I confirm it.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R p. 196-200
VYSHINSKY: AND DID ANYONE ELSE BESIDES ZHITKOV PREPARE FOR AN ATTEMPT ON THE LIFE OF COMRADE KAGANOVICH?
BOGUSLAVSKY: YES, SHESTOV DID. He trained groups which were to take action if any of the members of the government, including Kaganovich, came to Siberia.
VYSHINSKY: AND ARE YOU AWARE THAT BERMANT WAS PREPARING FOR AN ATTEMPT?
BOGUSLAVSKY: YES. BUT BERMANT WAS HERE, IN MOSCOW.
VYSHINSKY: ALL THE SAME, YOU KNEW OF SOME OTHER TERRORIST ACTS THAT WERE BEING PREPARED AGAINST THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE LEADING ORGANS OF OUR PARTY?
BOGUSLAVSKY: YES, SHESTOV MADE PREPARATIONS FOR AN ATTEMPT ON THE LIFE OF MOLOTOV.
VYSHINSKY: SO SHESTOV PLANNED AN ATTEMPT AGAINST MOLOTOV?
BOGUSLAVSKY: ZHITKOV AGAINST KAGANOVICH AND KHODOROZE AGAINST EICHE.
VYSHINSKY: And Bermant?
BOGUSLAVSKY: Bermant told me....
VYSHINSKY: Answer the question, DID BERMANT MAKE PREPARATIONS FOR A TERRORIST ACT OR NOT?
BOGUSLAVSKY: HE DID.
VYSHINSKY: WHOM DID YOU LEARN THAT FROM?
BOGUSLAVSKY: FROM BERMANT HIMSELF.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 200-201
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU CONTINUE YOUR WORK AS A MEMBER OF THE SIBERIAN CENTER?
BOGUSLAVSKY: YES, I DID.
VYSHINSKY: WHAT DID IT CONSIST OF?
BOGUSLAVSKY: THE SAME AS IN 1935: EXCLUSIVELY IN DIRECTING WRECKING ACTIVITIES ON THE RAILWAYS....
VYSHINSKY: SO YOU SPECIALIZED ALONG THIS LINE?
BOGUSLAVSKY: Until my arrest.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 201
VYSHINSKY: AT FIRST YOU WOULD NOT TESTIFY AT ALL, AND THEN YOU BEGAN TO TESTIFY. PERHAPS THIS IS TO BE EXPLAINED BY SOME SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF YOUR ARREST, PERHAPS PRESSURE WAS BROUGHT TO BEAR ON YOU?
VYSHINSKY: PERHAPS IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT YOU SHOULD TESTIFY IN THE WAY YOU SUBSEQUENTLY DID, IN RETURN FOR WHICH YOUR SENTENCE WOULD BE MITIGATED?
VYSHINSKY: CONSEQUENTLY YOU BEGAN TO GIVE THIS TESTIMONY QUITE VOLUNTARILY AND SINCERELY, BECAUSE OF YOUR INTERNAL PERSONAL CONVICTIONS?
BOGUSLAVSKY: QUITE TRUE; if the court permits me I would like to explain my motives.
VYSHINSKY: What motives induced you, Boguslavsky, an old Trotskyite, who for some ten years had devoted yourself to the fight in the ranks of the Trotskyites against the Party and against the Soviet government, and who continued your anti-Soviet Trotskyite activities until the very day of your arrest, what motives induced you to say what you're saying, to expose people, to lay down your arms, etc. What has led you to this?
BOGUSLAVSKY:...I must frankly say here in Court that in the last few years, I mean in 1934, 1935, and 1936, the position of a criminal, in which I found myself, not only disturbed me, but weighed on me heavily....
In this connection I want to mention the absolutely intolerable and incredible rottenness within the Trotskyite organization, which I could not help feeling at every step. I must confess that many things have become clear to me only at this trial, in the course of these two days, things that were absolutely unknown to me before....
The second thing is that we who conducted the work on the spot were absolutely unaware that our country was being sold to foreign capital behind our backs. I learned something about this when I was handed the indictment. But everything became clear to me only here, when I heard the testimony of Pyatakov and Radek.
VYSHINSKY: Did Pyatakov and Radek conceal it from you?
BOGUSLAVSKY: They have testified here that they particularly concealed Trotsky's last directive at the end of 1935 and told nobody about it, including me.
Of course, even so I should have realized at least what every worker and collective farmer in our country realizes--where this was leading. We who held the view that it is impossible to build of socialism in one country and adopted the path of terrorism and wrecking, we should have realized that if it wasn't socialism we were intending to build, what was it? Why, there is only socialism and capitalism.
...And, indeed, everything we did was repulsive, beginning with these abominable diversive activities. "Fish begin to stink from the head down," the proverb says. And we ought to have cut off this head, but we did not. And WE ENGAGED IN WRECKING ACTIVITIES AND DIVERSIVE ACTS IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE DEFEAT OF OUR UNION. I HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 203-205
KEY PARTS OF DROBNIS’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
SAYS HE WAS A TROT PUT IN CHARGE OF ALL WRECKING AND TERRORISM IN THE KUZBAS;
SAYS PYATAKOV DIRECTED HIM IN TERROR AND WRECKING;
SAYS PYATAKOV SAID TERROR ALONE WAS NOT ENOUGH BECAUSE THE ECONOMY MUST BE WRECKED ALSO TO GAIN MASS SUPPORT;
SAYS MURALOV STATED HE WAS IN CHARGE OF FARM WRECKING AND BOGUSLAVSKY WAS WRECKING IN THE RAILWAYS;
SAYS PYATAKOV TOLD HIM NORKIN HAD DONE SOME SERIOUS CHEMICAL WRECKING;
SAYS PYATAKOV WAS TOLD BY TROTSKY TO SPEED UP AND NOT WORRY ABOUT MEANS;
SAYS HE UPSET THE SCHEDULES IN THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY;
DESCRIBES MANY WRECKING ACTIVITIES;
SAYS SHESTOV TOLD HIM OF HIS WRECKING ACTS;
SAYS HE APPROVED OF THE EXPLODING OF A MINE EVEN WHEN WORKERS WOULD BE KILLED AND THE MORE THE BETTER BECAUSE THAT WOULD CAUSE WORKER RESENTMENT;
ADMITS HE COULD HAVE STOPPED A MINE EXPLOSION AND DEATHS BUT DID NOT;
ADMITS HE TOLD NOSKOV TO BLAME NON-PARTY ACTIVISTS FOR THE DEATHS IF HE WERE QUESTIONED;
VYSHINSKY: DO YOU CONFIRM THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BY BOGUSLAVSKY THAT YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE WEST-SIBERIAN TROTSKYITE CENTER?
DROBNIS: SINCE THE END OF JULY 1934, I WAS PUT IN CHARGE OF ALL THE WRECKING AND DIVERSIVE ACTIVITIES IN THE WHOLE OF THE KUZBAS.
VYSHINSKY: IN THE WHOLE OF THE KUZBAS?
VYSHINSKY: And before that did you take any part in underground Trotskyite criminal activities after 1927?
DROBNIS: After I was reinstated in the Party in 1929, my Trotskyite activities were resumed at the beginning of 1932.... Smirnov spoke to me of the necessity of resuming Trotskyite counter-revolutionary activity, of Trotsky's new directives, of the adoption of terrorist tactics. I accepted the line set forth by Smirnov....
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 205
VYSHINSKY: That is, Pyatakov took advantage of his official position and transferred you wherever he thought necessary?
DROBNIS: Well, of course, that goes without saying. In 1934, before leaving for Western Siberia, I had a conversation with Pyatakov in his private office. Pyatakov stressed and confirmed the necessity of my going to Western Siberia in order to strengthen the Trotskyite counter-revolutionary activities there, and at the same time HE OUTLINED AN ENTIRELY NEW TASK: NOT ONLY TERRORISM, BUT ALSO DIVERSIVE ACTS AND WRECKING ACTIVITIES. What reasons did Pyatakov give for this task? He said that terrorism was a drastic method, but that it was far from enough. It had to be supplemented by wrecking and underground activities in order to undermine the achievements gained by the Soviet power, to undermine the prestige of Stalin's leadership and to disorganize economic life; because successes raised the prestige of the leaders, strengthened their influence among the working masses, and if we did not now transfer our energies to disorganizing the economic life of the country, it was obvious that we could not arrive at power by terrorism alone.... He repeated the already known expression: "the worse, the better." HE REPEATED THAT WE MUST ACT ENERGETICALLY AND PERSISTENTLY, AND STOP AT NOTHING.
ALL MEANS WERE USEFUL AND FAIR; SUCH WAS TROTSKY DIRECTIVE, WHICH THE TROTSKYITE CENTER SUBSCRIBED TO.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 206
Pyatakov justified diversive and wrecking activities solely by considerations of internal policy. He never, either then or later, at our second meeting, said a word to me about the new line, about the agreements with the various foreign states which Trotsky was negotiating and for which he had received the approbation of the center. He did not say a word to me about the existing agreements and understandings for the partitioning of the country, and so on and so forth. I learned this only from the indictment, I learned this only from the evidence which Pyatakov, Sokolnikov, Radek, and Serebryakov gave here. At that time he gave reasons which exclusively concerned internal affairs.... MURALOV ALSO TOLD ME THAT HE WAS IN DIRECT CHARGE OF WRECKING ACTIVITIES IN AGRICULTURE IN WESTERN SIBERIA...THAT THE WRECKING ACTIVITIES ON THE RAILWAYS WERE BEING CONDUCTED BY BOGUSLAVSKY, and that I would have to devote my attention to the work in the Kuznetsk Basin.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 207
DROBNIS:...In March 1935 Pyatakov summoned me to Moscow to hear my report on my wrecking and diversive activities in the Kuznetsk Basin and especially at the Kemerovo Chemical Works. PYATAKOV INFORMED ME THAT AT THE KEMEROVO CHEMICAL WORKS, NORKIN, CHIEF OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORKS, HAD ON HIS INSTRUCTIONS ALREADY STARTED RATHER SERIOUS WRECKING ACTIVITIES, and that this work was being carried on by the chief engineer, Kartsev. During this same conversation PYATAKOV SAID THAT TROTSKY WAS DEMANDING MORE FORWARD AND ENERGETIC WORK, AND HE EMPHASIZED THAT WE WERE NOT TO BE PARTICULAR ABOUT MEANS.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 208
DROBNIS: ONE OF THE WRECKING TASKS IN THE PLAN WAS TO DIFFUSE FUNDS ON MEASURES OF SECONDARY IMPORTANCE. ANOTHER WAS TO DELAY CONSTRUCTION WORK IN SUCH A WAY AS TO PREVENT THE LAUNCHING OF IMPORTANT DEPARTMENTS ON THE DATES FIXED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
VYSHINSKY: THAT IS, TO UPSET THE SCHEDULE IS WELL?
VYSHINSKY: CHIEFLY IN ENTERPRISES OF IMPORTANCE FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE COUNTRY?
DROBNIS: YES. Then there were frequent revisions of the building designs, and delays in payments to the designing organizations, so that the designs were received very late.
Needless to say, this retarded the speed and progress of construction work. It must be said that this was done rather cleverly. For example, there were plans for the main, basic buildings of the Combined Fertilizer Works, but for things like the gas mains, the steam supply of pipes and so forth, which might appear of secondary importance but were really of very great importance for starting the plant on schedule, plans were not prepared in time, and of course this constant fussing in dealings with the organizations responsible for the designs led to the plans arriving much too late.
Of the enterprises already in operation, a number of things were deliberately left uncompleted in the departments of the coke and chemical plant, and this seriously affected the work of the plant, lowering the quality of the product and resulting in the production of coke with an excessive moisture and ash content.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 209
As the Kemerovo Combined Coke and Chemical Works supplied the industry of the Urals with coke, this in its turn affected the quality of the metal.... Although the workers in the Coke and Chemical Works strove to improve the work, they could not succeed because of the wrecking activities that were going on there.
...In addition, coal was supplied that was technically unsuitable for fuel for the power station, and this led to explosions. This was done quite deliberately.
In addition, breakdowns were arranged. There were two breakdowns of a very serious nature. There was no loss of life, it is true, but a number of workers were seriously injured.
...wrecking work was conducted in the automobile transport department. This chiefly consisted in increasing the idle periods in the work of the trucks and reducing the number of trucks in operation. Furthermore, housing construction was conducted at such a slow rate that engineers, technicians, and workers were left without dwellings, which would give rise to a difficult and grave situation when operation started. This, so to speak, is roughly what concerns the plan of wrecking measures and its realization.
... Shestov came to see me in Kemerovo in the autumn of 1935. At this meeting SHESTOV TOLD ME WHAT MEASURES HE INTENDED TO CARRY OUT, CHIEFLY TO DISRUPT THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW MINES AND TO LOWER THE OUTPUT OF COAL AND A NUMBER OF OTHER MEASURES.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 210
DROBNIS:...IN JULY 1935 NOSKOV REPORTED TO ME THAT HE HAD COMPLETED PREPARATIONS FOR THE EXPLOSION OF THE "TSENTRALNAYA" MINE, WHICH WAS IN HIS CHARGE. I APPROVED OF THIS.
VYSHINSKY: And did you discuss with him under what conditions this explosion was to take place?
DROBNIS: Noskov said that such a wrecking measure as allowing gas to accumulate in the mine would result in an explosion and would cause loss of life. I replied: well then, we must be ready for this, too. It would even be a good thing, because it would arouse the resentment of the workers which will enable us to win their sympathies.
VYSHINSKY: THAT IS TO SAY, YOU NOT ONLY APPROVED OF NOSKOV'S PLAN FOR AN EXPLOSION IN THE MINE, BUT EVEN GAVE YOUR SANCTION TO THE EXPLOSION TAKING PLACE UNDER CONDITIONS WHICH WOULD DIRECTLY INVOLVE THE DEATH OF WORKERS?
VYSHINSKY: WITH ALL THE CONSEQUENCES?
VYSHINSKY: You said that workers were bound be killed?
DROBNIS: I ASKED NOSKOV WHETHER SUCH A WRECKING ACT COULD BE PERFORMED WITHOUT LOSS OF LIFE. HE TOLD ME THAT IT WAS OUT OF THE QUESTION. THEREUPON I SAID THAT THERE WAS NO USE BEING FINICKY AND THAT WE MUST BE READY FOR THIS....AND EVEN IF IT DID CAUSE LOSS OF LIFE IT WOULD ALSO AROUSE THE RESENTMENT OF THE WORKERS, AND THAT WOULD BE IN OUR FAVOR.
VYSHINSKY:... IT FOLLOWS FROM WHAT YOU SAID THAT, FAR FROM BEING OPPOSED TO SACRIFICE OF LIFE, YOU THOUGHT, TO THE CONTRARY, THAT THE MORE LIVES LOST, THE BETTER FOR YOU.
DROBNIS: WELL, YES, THAT'S SO, MORE OR LESS....
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 212
VYSHINSKY:...DID YOU SAY THAT THERE WAS NOTHING TO SHRINK FROM?
DROBNIS: I DID.
VYSHINSKY: AND THAT MEANT THAT IF WORKERS WERE TO PERISH AS A RESULT, WELL, LET THEM PERISH. DID YOU ENCOURAGE NOSKOV?
VYSHINSKY: YOU ENCOURAGED HIM WITH REGARD TO THE KILLING OF WORKERS, AND EVEN SAID THAT THE MORE THERE WERE KILLED THE BETTER. DID I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY THAT?
VYSHINSKY: THAT IS, I AM EXAGGERATING NOTHING?
DROBNIS: YOU ARE EXAGGERATING A LITTLE.***
VYSHINSKY: LET US MAKE THIS CLEAR, LET US RECALL THE FACTS. DID YOU SAY TO NOSKOV THAT THE MORE VICTIMS, THE BETTER?
VYSHINSKY: WHAT, THEN, AM I EXAGGERATING?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 213
DROBNIS: I SAID THAT WE MUST BE PREPARED FOR THIS?
VYSHINSKY: "FOR THIS," FOR WHAT?
DROBNIS: FOR THE SACRIFICE OF WORKERS
VYSHINSKY: WHAT THUS "SACRIFICE" MEAN?
DROBNIS: IT MEANS MURDER.
VYSHINSKY: AND HOW DID YOU JUSTIFY IT?
DROBNIS: THE MORE VICTIMS THE BETTER.
VYSHINSKY: FOR WHOM?
DROBNIS: FOR THE WRECKING WORK.
VYSHINSKY: FOR THE TROTSKYITES?
DROBNIS: BECAUSE THIS MIGHT AROUSE THE RESENTMENT OF THE WORKERS AGAINST THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT.
VYSHINSKY: AROUSE THE RESENTMENT OF THE WORKERS AGAINST THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT, WAS THAT YOUR AIM?
VYSHINSKY: AND IT WAS FOR THIS THAT YOU WERE WILLING TO RESORT TO ANY MEANS, AND EVEN THE MURDER OF WORKERS?
VYSHINSKY: WHAT THEN AM I EXAGGERATING?
VYSHINSKY: THEN THIS EXPLOSION WAS EFFECTED?
DROBNIS: I WAS ARRESTED ON AUG. 6 AND THE EXPLOSION TOOK PLACE ON SEPT. 23.
VYSHINSKY: BUT YOU SANCTIONED THE EXPLOSION?
DROBNIS: I SANCTIONED IT AT THE END OR IN THE MIDDLE OF JULY.
VYSHINSKY: CONSEQUENTLY, YOUR ARREST DID NOT PREVENT THE EXPLOSION FROM BEING EFFECTED, BECAUSE NOSKOV REMAINED AT THE MINE?
VYSHINSKY: AND COULD IT HAVE BEEN PREVENTED?
DROBNIS: PREVENTED? OF COURSE IT COULD.
VYSHINSKY: WHO COULD HAVE PREVENTED IT?
DROBNIS: I COULD HAVE PREVENTED IT.
VYSHINSKY: YOU DID NOT PREVENT IT?
DROBNIS: I DID NOT PREVENT IT.
VYSHINSKY: THE EXPLOSION WAS EFFECTED?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 214
THE PRESIDENT: ACCUSED DROBNIS, DID YOU ADVISE NOSKOV, IN CASE EVERYTHING CAME OUT AND HE WAS QUESTIONED, ON WHOM HE WAS TO LAY THE BLAME FOR THESE DIVERSIVE AND WRECKING ACTS?
THE PRESIDENT: WHAT INSTRUCTIONS DID YOU GIVE NOSKOV IF HE SHOULD BE CALLED TO ACCOUNT?
DROBNIS: TO LAY ALL BLAME ON THE NON-PARTY SPECIALISTS.
THE PRESIDENT: EVEN ON THOSE WHO WERE IN NO WAY INVOLVED?
DROBNIS: WELL, OF COURSE.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 215
KEY PARTS OF MURALOV’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
SAYS HE MET SMIRNOV WHO TOLD HIM HE MET WITH SEDOV WHO SAID THE NEW TROT LINE JUSTIFIED KILLING LEADERS;
SAYS HE GOT AN INVISIBLE LETTER FROM TROTSKY ADVOCATING TERROR;
SAYS SMIRNOV TOLD HIM HE GOT AN ORDER FROM TROTSKY FOR ECONOMIC TERRORISM;
SAYS HE GOT A LETTER FROM SEDOV DEMANDING THEY SPEED UP KILLING STALIN, VOROSHILOV, KAGANOVICH, AND KIROV;
SAYS PYATAKOV TOLD HIM THE RIGHTS DECIDED TO ADOPT TERROR; ADMITS HE APPROVED A PLAN TO KILL EICHE;
ADMITS TRYING BUT FAILING TO KILL MOLOTOV IN 1934;
ADMITS HE GAVE SHESTOV INSTRUCTIONS TO ORGANIZE THE KILLING OF MOLOTOV AND SHESTOV AGREES;
SAYS PYATAKOV TOLD HIM IN A CONVERSATION THAT “ONE OF THOSE LISTED IN THE PLAN HAS BEEN WIPED OFF, NOW IT IS THE TURN OF THE REST” AND PYATAKOV ADMITS HE SAID IT;
SAYS KIROV WAS ONE OF 4 ON TROTSKY’S LIST;
SAYS HE AND PYATAKOV AGREED THAT MASS KILLING RATHER THAN INDIVIDUAL KILLING WAS NEEDED;
SAYS DROBNIS AND NORKIN DID WRECKING AT A CHEMICAL PLANT AND NORKIN TOLD HIM SO;
SAYS BOGUSLAVSKY TOLD HIM HE WAS TRYING TO CAUSE JAMS AT RAILWAY STATIONS AND HE ACTUALLY DID;
SAYS HE WAS TREATED VERY NICELY AND POLITELY WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED AND NO ROUGH METHODS;
MURALOV: IN THE BEGINNING OF 1931. WHILE I WAS ON AN OFFICIAL BUSINESS TRIP IN MOSCOW I MET SMIRNOV. HE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD BEEN ABROAD AND HAD SEEN SEDOV. HE TOLD ME ABOUT TROTSKY'S NEW LINE ABOUT RESORTING TO TERRORISM AGAINST THE LEADERSHIP OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND GOVERNMENT.
...They [Sumetsky and Boguslavsky] also agreed with me and we three began to function as the Trotskyite counter-revolutionary center in Siberia. I was the leader; Sumetsky was to gather the cadres, chiefly among the young people in the universities.... In the same year, 1932, Shestov arrived in Novosibirsk and brought a letter from Sedov.
This letter contained a lot of fiction... BUT WHAT WAS NOT FICTION WAS WRITTEN WITH ANTIPIRIN AND WHEN MADE VISIBLE WAS FOUND TO BE TROTSKY'S DIRECTIVE TO PROCEED TO TERRORIST ACTIVITIES. The letter confirmed what Smirnov had said.... In the next year, when I met Smirnov in Moscow...he told me that there was now something new, namely the program of economic terrorism. I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THIS TERM, NOT KNOWING WHAT ECONOMIC TERRORISM WAS. HE EXPLAINED TO ME THAT IN EFFECT, IT WAS WRECKING. WHO'S LINE IS IT? I ASKED. HE SAID IT WAS ALSO TROTSKY'S.
...IN 1932 I RECEIVED ANOTHER LETTER FROM SEDOV BROUGHT BY SEIDMAN, A TROTSKYITE ENGINEER. This letter was also outwardly concerned with imaginary everyday matters; inquiries after people's health and so forth. The business part was written in code.... THIS LETTER INSTRUCTED US TO ACCELERATE TERRORIST ACTS AGAINST STALIN, VOROSHILOV, KAGANOVICH, AND KIROV.
...PYATAKOV INFORMED ME THAT HE HAD COME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE RIGHTS. AT FIRST IT SURPRISED ME TO HERE THAT THE RIGHTS HAD COME OVER TO OUR POSITION ALSO IN REGARD TO TERRORISM AND IN REGARD TO WRECKING, AND THAT THEY HAD THEIR OWN CENTER CONSISTING OF TOMSKY, RYKOV, AND BUKHARIN. THIS NEWS SURPRISED ME, FIRSTLY, BECAUSE I REGARDED THEM AS OPPORTUNISTS, AND SECONDLY, AS COWARDS, INCAPABLE OF DRASTIC ACTION. PYATAKOV TOLD ME THAT THEY HAD CHANGED,...
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 216
MURALOV: Regarding the organization of terrorist groups and acts, as I have already stated, the first group was organized by Khodoroze under my personal direction and consisted of three or four persons in Novosibirsk. Then there was a group in Tomsk consisting of Kashkin and Nikolayev. I MET THEM, GAVE THEM INSTRUCTIONS, AND APPROVED THEIR PLAN FOR AN ATTEMPT ON THE LIFE OF EICHE IF HE ARRIVED THERE. Groups were organized by Shestov and Anzherka. IN PROKOPYEVSK WE ATTEMPTED IN 1934 TO COMMIT A TERRORIST ACT AGAINST MOLOTOV, BUT THE ATTEMPT FAILED.... There was an attempt on the life of Molotov, but the attempted automobile accident failed.... I charged Shestov with this. He told me that he had a group that was already prepared...and he had prepared a chauffeur who was ready to sacrifice his own life in order to kill Molotov. But at the last moment the chauffeur funked--he would not risk his own life and so Molotov's life was saved.
VYSHINSKY: How was the attempt made?
MURALOV: The car was to turn into a ditch while at full speed. Under such circumstances the car by its own momentum would overturn and get smashed, while the people....
VYSHINSKY: Was the attempt made to overturn the car in the ditch?
MURALOV: The attempt was made, but then the chauffeur funked and the car did not fall into the ditch.
VYSHINSKY: Who was this chauffeur?
MURALOV: Arnold, I think.
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU INSTRUCT SHESTOV TO ORGANIZE THIS AFFAIR?
VYSHINSKY: ACCUSED SHESTOV, DO YOU CONFIRM THIS PART OF MURALOV'S TESTIMONY?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 219-220
VYSHINSKY: Did you meet Pyatakov, and in what years?
MURALOV: At the end of 1927, when we were expelled at the Congress, I parted from him....
VYSHINSKY: AT THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION, WHEN YOU WERE EXAMINED AT THE OFFICE OF THE PROCURATOR OF THE USSR, YOU TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS....
"IN 1934, AFTER THE MURDER OF KIROV, I MET PYATAKOV IN MOSCOW AND IN CONVERSATION WITH ME HE SAID "ONE OF THOSE LISTED IN THE PLAN HAS BEEN WIPED OFF, NOW IT IS THE TURN OF THE REST; BUT WE MUST NOT BE IMPETUOUS."
IS THAT RIGHT?
MURALOV: I CONFIRM IT, THAT IS WHAT I SAID.
VYSHINSKY: ACCUSED PYATAKOV, WHAT HAVE YOU TO SAY ON THIS MATTER?
PYATAKOV: GENERALLY SPEAKING, MURALOV'S TESTIMONY IS VERY EXACT. The words, well, this is his own peculiar terminology, his phraseology, but in substance, he has conveyed it correctly.
MURALOV: KIROV WAS ONE OF THE FOUR CONCERNING WHOM TROTSKY HAD GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS, AND THE ORGANIZATION OF ONE MURDER ACCORDING TO THAT PROGRAM HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT....
VYSHINSKY: Accused Muralov, was it also said that you must act in an organized way?
MURALOV: Yes, it was.
VYSHINSKY: But was it not said that terrorism in general produces no result if only one is killed and the others remain, and therefore it is necessary to act at one stroke?
MURALOV: BOTH I AND PYATAKOV FELT THAT IT WAS NO USE WORKING BY SOCIALIST-REVOLUTIONARY, GUERRILLA METHODS. WE MUST ORGANIZE IT SO AS TO CAUSE PANIC AT ONE STROKE. We regarded causing panic and consternation in the leading ranks of the Party as one of the means by which we would come into power.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 224-226
THE PRESIDENT: Did you know that at the Kemerovo coal mines the Trotskyites had gassed the pits and had created absolutely intolerable conditions of work?...
MURALOV: I learned about that while I was in prison as being a result of all the undermining Trotskyite work.
THE PRESIDENT: UNDER THE DIRECTION OF DROBNIS AND NORKIN THE TROTSKYITES WORKING IN THE KEMEROVO CHEMICAL WORKS DEVELOPED INTENSE WRECKING ACTIVITIES. IS THAT SO?
THE PRESIDENT: That was under Drobnis' direction?
MURALOV: Yes. So I was informed.
THE PRESIDENT: They, that is, Drobnis and Norkin, held up the construction of the main departments. DID DROBNIS AND NORKIN INFORM YOU OF THIS?
MURALOV: ONLY NORKIN.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 229-230
THE PRESIDENT: WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT WRECKING ACTIVITIES ON THE OMSK AND TOMSK RAILWAYS AT THE TIME YOU WERE IN THE WEST-SIBERIAN TERRITORY?
MURALOV: ONLY WHAT BOGUSLAVSKY TOLD ME. HE REPORTED THAT HE WAS TRYING TO CAUSE JAMS AT THE STATIONS.
THE PRESIDENT: At what stations?
MURALOV: At Eiche station on the Novosibirsk Junction. In addition they put locomotives out of commission prematurely.
THE PRESIDENT: Your testimony contains the following: "Boguslavsky, who was connected with the Trotskyite organization on the railways, informed me that Trotskyites on the railways acting on the basis of directives given by our Siberian center, were putting locomotives out of commission, disrupting the traffic schedule, and causing jams at the stations, thereby delaying the transportation of urgent freight." Is that right?
MURALOV: It is.
THE PRESIDENT: AND QUITE LATELY BOGUSLAVSKY CARRIED ON WRECKING ACTIVITIES ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EICHE-SOKOL LINE?
THE PRESIDENT: And as a result disrupted the construction job?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 230-231
VYSHINSKY: What prompted you to fight the Soviet power in such acute forms as the organization of terrorist acts?
MURALOV: My fall should be traced back to the time I signed the first document against the Party. This was the Declaration of the Forty-Six made in 1923. That was the beginning of my fall, and then I was drawn into the Trotskyite organization until I was expelled from the Party and exiled to Western Siberia. I was, of course, motivated by resentment on behalf of myself and others. I was, so to speak, embittered.
VYSHINSKY: Was this the main reason for your subsequent work?
MURALOV: No, I would not say that. It was the dissent of a political worker. Political differences counted with me first of all and not personal ones.
VYSHINSKY: Are your political views determined by your adherence to Trotskyism?
MURALOV: Yes, they were set forth in the well-known platform submitted to the Fifteenth Congress.
VYSHINSKY: I am interested in knowing why you decided to give truthful testimony. Examining the record of the preliminary investigation, I see that at a number of interrogations you denied any part in underground work. Is that so?
MURALOV: Yes, up to December 5. Eight months.
VYSHINSKY: Why, then, in the end did you decide to give, and did give, truthful testimony? Explain the motives that led you to the decision to lay everything on the table--if you have laid everything on the table.
MURALOV: I think there were three reasons which held me back and induced me to deny everything.
One reason is political, and profoundly serious; two are of an exclusively personal character. I shall begin with the least important, with my character. I am very hot-tempered and resentful. That is the first reason. When I was arrested, I became embittered with resentment.
VYSHINSKY: WERE YOU BADLY TREATED?
MURALOV: I WAS DEPRIVED OF MY LIBERTY.
VYSHINSKY: BUT PERHAPS ROUGH METHODS WERE USED AGAINST YOU?
MURALOV: NO, NO SUCH METHODS WERE USED. I MUST SAY THAT IN NOVOSIBIRSK AND HERE I WAS TREATED POLITELY AND NO CAUSE FOR RESENTMENT WAS GIVEN: I WAS TREATED VERY DECENTLY AND POLITELY.... The second reason is also of a personal nature. It is my attachment to Trotsky.... I considered it morally inadmissible to betray Trotsky, although I did not subscribe to the directive on terror and destruction. I had heartpangs all the time at the very thought of it; I considered it wrong. Friendship and political motives were involved.
The third point was--well, as you know, in every affair something is carried too far. And I reasoned that if I continued to remain a Trotskyite, especially when the others were quitting--some honestly and others dishonestly--at any rate they were not standard-bearers of counter-revolution, but I--there was a "hero" for you!... If I kept on this way, I might become the standard-bearer of counter-revolution.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 231-232
VYSHINSKY: Muralov, I must verify the testimony on this point once more. DO YOU ADMIT THAT YOU GAVE INSTRUCTIONS TO SHESTOV TO ORGANIZE AN ATTEMPT ON THE LIFE OF COMRADE MOLOTOV?
MURALOV: I HAVE ALREADY TESTIFIED THAT I CONFIRM THIS.... I ADMIT, I CONFIRM IT.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 330
KEY PARTS OF STROILOV’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
ADMITS HE WAS EMPLOYED IN 1931 BY GERMAN INTELLIGENCE TO DO WRECKING AND DESTRUCTION;
ADMITS HE DECIDED TO STAY IN GERMANY AND WORK FOR THEM WHICH HE ADMITS IS BETRAYAL OF HIS COUNTRY;
ADMITS HE BECAME A TRAITOR WORKING FOR GERMAN INTELLIGENCE; ADMITS HE BECAME A TRAITOR BY PLACING GERMAN INTELLIGENCE SPECIALISTS IN KEY POSITIONS;
ADMITS HIS FIRST REPORT AMOUNTED TO ESPIONAGE FOR THE GERMANS;
ADMITS THEY WERE WORKING TO MAKE SOVIET WORKERS RESENTFUL OF ADVANTAGES GIVEN TO FOREIGN WORKERS AND PROPAGANDIZED SOVIET WORKERS ABOUT HOW MUCH GERMAN WORKERS WERE BEING TREATED;
RUMORS WERE SPREAD THAT FOREIGN WORKERS WERE TREATED MORE LENIENTLY;
SAYS A PLAN FOR WRECKING WAS DRAWN UP WITH THE TROT SHESTOV;
SAYS 6 GERMAN SPECIALISTS CARRIED OUT WRECKING;
SAYS HIS WRECKERS WERE TOO CRUDE AND OVERDID IT WHICH WOULD EXPOSE THEM;
VYSHINSKY: Accused Stroilov, I want to verify this part of Shestov's statement. WERE YOU A LONG TIME IN GERMANY?
STROILOV: OVER A YEAR.
VYSHINSKY: HOW WERE YOU ENROLLED THERE?
STROILOV: NOT BY THE DEHLMANN FIRM BUT BY ENGINEER WUSTER.
VYSHINSKY: IN WHAT CAPACITY?
STROILOV: AS A PERSON WHO WAS TO CARRY OUT DESTRUCTIVE AND WRECKING WORK ON BEHALF OF GERMANY.
VYSHINSKY:... TO PUT IT PLAINLY, YOU WERE CONNECTED WITH THE GERMAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE?
VYSHINSKY: NO, THROUGH THIS ENGINEER WUSTER.
STROILOV: THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF OTHERS?
VYSHINSKY: WELL, THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF OTHERS IF YOU LIKE.
VYSHINSKY: Consequently, what Shestov said here was correct, or was it not?
STROILOV: As a matter of fact I was enrolled not by Dehlmann but by Wuster, but substantially it was correct.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 245-246
VYSHINSKY: ALL THE SAME, THESE ARE INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR BECOMING AN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE AGENT.
STROILOV: OF COURSE THEY ARE INSUFFICIENT. I BECAME AN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE AGENT IN 1931.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 249
STROILOV: I HANDED A WRITTEN STATEMENT TO WUSTER SAYING THAT I HAD DECIDED TO GIVE UP THE IDEA OF RETURNING TO THE SOVIET UNION AND EXPRESSED THE WISH TO REMAIN IN GERMANY, WORKING ENERGETICALLY TOGETHER WITH THEM AND CARRYING OUT THEIR ORDERS.
VYSHINSKY: WHAT IS THAT CALLED?
STROILOV: BETRAYAL...OF MY COUNTRY.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 251
STROILOV: That is why I AGREED TO WUSTER'S PROPOSALS, THAT IS TO SAY, BECOME A TRAITOR.
VYSHINSKY: And so you, Shestov, approached Stroilov, already knowing that he had been enrolled in the German intelligence service?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 252
VYSHINSKY: Can you add anything to the testimony you gave yesterday?
STROILOV: I was sent for two years to Germany and was there employed as chief engineer to the mining section of the Technical Bureau of the Trade Representation. In this capacity I visited many factories, engineering works, mines, showrooms, and so forth. Consequently, a fairly large number of people knew me. Moreover, for six months I was in charge of engaging specialists for the USSR. My work consisted of testing their technical knowledge and of assigning them on the basis of this testing to the various jobs in the USSR. Thus, about 250 men passed in my hands, but only 70 were engaged....
Wuster said to me... "You gave us your personal note, Stroilov, and you must carry out our instructions as you bound yourself to do." He declared in a loud voice that he was now speaking not in his own name, but in the name of those political circles who could do one of two things: either, on the basis of a number of facts regarding propaganda I was alleged to have carried on, to put me in a German prison, or on the basis of this note, to put me in a Soviet prison. I CONSENTED TO CARRY OUT WUSTER'S INSTRUCTIONS, THAT IS, TO PUT IT PLAINLY, TO BECOME A TRAITOR. DURING THIS SAME CONVERSATION HE TOLD ME THAT MY IMMEDIATE TASK WAS TO HELP GERMAN SPECIALISTS... IN EVERY WAY TO PLACE THEM IN DEFINITE JOBS IN THE USSR, to help them in their work and not to pay any attention to technical shortcomings.
...He also told me that I must take measures to hinder the development of the coal industry of the Soviet Union. In plain words, this was an instruction to carry on wrecking work.... About two months later some of the German specialists began to come to me with the agreed password. Until the end of 1934 six men came to see me... . THESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE AGENTS, AS I FOUND AFTERWARDS, WERE PLACED IN THE MOST IMPORTANT KEY POSITIONS....
MY FIRST REPORT, MADE IN JANUARY 1932 THROUGH ENGINEER FLESSA AND TELLING OF THE VAST PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE KUZNETSK BASIN, WAS IN EFFECT ESPIONAGE.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 264-266
THE PRESIDENT (to Stroilov): Do you desire to repeat the testimony you gave in Novosibirsk during the proceedings at the Visiting Session, or do you wish to say something else?
VYSHINSKY (to the President): Pardon me, but the procedure lays down specific rules and to ask the accused what he wants to say is to hamper the accused.
THE PRESIDENT: That is absolutely not so.***
VYSHINSKY: I request to have it entered in the record, as a circumstance hampering the accused.
STROILOV: On the demand of this official person, efforts were made to incense Soviet and foreign workers against the Soviet government.
I can quote the following examples. In inviting foreign workers the object of the Soviet Union was to adopt such methods of work as to enable the Soviet workers working side-by-side with them to learn how to improve the organization of production and use advanced methods of labor. Therefore the most rational method would have been to put the foreign workers with the Soviet workers so that our Soviet workers could learn to become skilled workers. It was deliberately arranged to carry on agitation with a view to preventing this. THE FOREIGN WORKERS NOT ONLY WORKED SEPARATELY, BUT ENJOYED FAR BETTER CONDITIONS: TOOLS, COMPRESSED AIR, ELECTRIC POWER, OVERALLS, ETC.... IN OTHER WORDS THIS WAS SIMPLY INCITING THE SOVIET WORKERS AGAINST THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT. Of course, the Soviet workers said that it was easy to work well under the conditions the foreign workers enjoyed in regard to pay, overalls, and the rest. It looks, they said, as if we were merely floor sweepers and not like those who were invited from abroad.
...I KNOW THAT FIERCE AGITATION, ALMOST UNCONCEALED, WAS CARRIED ON WITH SLOGANS ABOUT GERMANY'S REBIRTH AND SO FORTH, IN SHORT, WITH FASCIST SLOGANS ABOUT THE WORKERS WHO REMAINED IN THE SOVIET UNION REMAINING IN SLAVERY, AND SO FORTH. I will not go into details concerning this malicious agitation but it was carried on, and I know this from information received from official persons.
Third, endless disputes were deliberately provoked. We have our own disputes, they are inevitable: about piece rates, overalls, conditions of labor, and so forth, but this was mere fault-finding, and there were disputes during which some foreign workers stopped work for 5, 10, 15, and 20 days. THE RUMOR WAS SPREAD, NOBODY KNOWS BY WHOM, THAT THESE PEOPLE, SABOTEURS AND UNDISCIPLINED, WERE TAKEN BACK AND THE SOVIET WORKERS USED TO SAY: THE LAW IS APPLIED TO SOME BUT NOT TO OTHERS: IF WE MISS WORK FOR A DAY OR TWO WE ARE DISCHARGED.
...This then was the criminal line I pursued in my connections with the foreigners.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 268-269
STROILOV: Shestov already spoke about that yesterday, and he could not avoid telling about it, because THE PLAN OF WRECKING AND DESTRUCTIVE WORK WAS DRAWN UP TOGETHER WITH HIM AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WEST-SIBERIAN TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION.
VYSHINSKY: What was the nature of this work?
STROILOV: ...Repeated attempts were made to steal from the head offices designs and sketches of machinery of Soviet inventions being tested under actual industrial conditions. This refers to a pneumatic pick, drilling machines and so on. Then it was planned to set fire to the power station. According to what Sommeregger [a German specialist] told me later, the central partition in the machinery room was actually set on fire.
Underground headings in Pit Number 5-6 were driven in such a way as to make electric hauling absolutely impossible. Then there was proposed what was called the "Shebflo" system, after the names of its initiators--Schebesto, Flessa, and Otto--which involved a loss of 80% of the coal.
Further, attempts were made to stop work on the upper-level in Prokopyevsk. The scraper hoists were deliberately designed in a criminal way. At the "Koksovaya" Mine the foundations of the compressors were built in solidly with the foundation of the building. This led to so much vibration of the walls of the building that they might collapse at any moment.
At the Rukhimovich Mine, engineer Weber deliberately delayed the sinking of a dip heading to open up the lower level, which resulted in an under-output of coking coal. For two years engineer Hauer, ignoriing the advantages of English and American equipment, was engaged in making new drawings for only such equipment as is manufactured by German firms in the hope that we would purchase this equipment from them....
I WILL NOT SAY THAT ALL THE SEVENTY GERMAN CITIZENS WHO WORKED WITH US WERE WRECKERS AND DIVERSIONISTS. BY NO MEANS. THESE WRECKING ACTIVITIES WERE CONDUCTED BY THE SIX PERSONS I HAVE ENUMERATED, AND ALSO BY THOSE PERSONS MENTIONED BY SHESTOV....
I must now say something about our planning. This work was headed by the Trotskyite Vershkov, but I was in touch with it. Every pit was planned and designed as though the outlets belonged to separate owners, without reference to approaches, electric power, and roads, with the result that pits were handed over for operation but actually they could not work.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 273-274
VYSHINSKY: To what state did you reduce the Kemerovo Mine?
STROILOV: The last time I was there was in 1935.... I found the mine in a bad way. The heading was so low that it was impossible to open up stopes, while the tubs and electric locomotives did not permit the normal supply of props. No relation at all was maintained between the seams. Ventilation was neglected. Capital construction work for the second level was not being performed. I had never seen work in such a state anywhere. This was the result of the wrecking activities carried on by Peshekhonov's group. I was obliged to tell him to use his brains and to stop being so crude. My instructions were not observed.
In reply to the question why he had taken no measures, when I had given personal instructions both as the leader of the counter-revolutionary organization and as chief engineer, he said that he had spoken to my deputy, Andreyev--chief of construction--and they had decided not to improve the state of the mine, assuming that I would not object.
VYSHINSKY: And you?
STROILOV: I objected.
VYSHINSKY: Why did you object?
STROILOV: Well, it was too crude.
VYSHINSKY: Too much of it?
STROILOV: Too much.
STROILOV: Dangerous, because all around there are people with heads on their shoulders, who understood that work should not be done in this way.
VYSHINSKY: THEY OVERDID IT?
STROILOV: YES.... I WANTED THE OUTPUT TO BE ABOUT 5% LOWER.
VYSHINSKY: A LITTLE LOWER?
STROILOV: AND COST OF PRODUCTION ABOUT 50 KOPEKS HIGHER.
VYSHINSKY: WHY DID YOU CALCULATE IN THIS WAY: OUTPUT, 5% LOWER, AND COST OF PRODUCTION, 50 KOPEKS HIGHER, AND SO FORTH?
STROILOV: BECAUSE THAT WOULD NOT BE SO NOTICEABLE.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 275-276
KEY PARTS OF NORKIN’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
ADMITS HE DIRECTED MONEY INTO THE MOST WORTHLESS CHANNELS; ADMITS DISCUSSING CRIMINAL ACTS WITH PYATAKOV AT EVERY ONEOF THEIR MEETINGS;
ADMITS DOING WRECKING ON DEFENSE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS; ADMITS PUTTING A POWER STATION OUT OF OPERATION BY 3 EXPLOSIONS;
ADMITS BEING TOLD BY SAFETY INSPECTORS THAT WHAT HE WAS DOING COULD LEAD TO EXPLOSIONS;
ADMITS COMMITTING ACTS OF DIVERSION;
ADMITS HE KNEW ABOUT TERRORIST ACTS BEING PLANNED BY THE TROTS;
ADMITS BEING A MEMBER OF THE UNDERGROUND TROTSKYITE, ANTI- SOVIET, TERRORIST, DIVERSIVE, ESPIONAGE AND WRECKING ORGANIZATION;
ADMITS PASSING ON INFO HE LEARNED AS A GOVT OFFICIAL ABOUT TROT ACTS TO THE TROTS THEMSELVES;
SAYS HE DECIDED TO TESTIFY NOT BECAUSE OF ILL TREATMENT BUT HE REALIZED THE CAUSE WAS HOPELESS;
ADMITS THEY PLANNED TO SEIZE POWER BY USING TERRORISM, RESISTANCE, OBSTRUCTION, WRECKING AND DIVERSION AND UNITING WITH FOREIGN CAPITAL;
ADMITS THEY PLANNED TO RELY ON KULAK REMNANTS BECAUSE THE MASSES HAD DESERTED THEM;
SAYS NEGOTIATIONS BY THE TROTSKYITE CENTER UNQUESTIONABLY TOOK PLACE WITH CERTAIN FOREIGNERS;
SAYS HE EXPRESSED FEARS ABOUT WORKERS BEING KILLED AND PYATAKOV SAID HE SHOULD NOT WASTE HIS PITY AND PYTAKOV
SAID WORKERS WOULD BLAME THE GOVT FOR THE DEATHS; SAYS SHESTOV ASKED HIM TO WORK WITH HIM ON DIVERSIVE ACTS
NORKIN: I was chief of the Kemerovo Combined Works Construction.
VYSHINSKY: Who appointed you to that post?
... In 1933 it became clear to me that the reason I was sent to Kemerovo was that I was supposed to carry on destructive work in the most important plant of the chemical industry, which is of enormous importance for defense purposes.... It became clear to me from the instructions I received in 1933 as a member of the Trotskyite organization from the person who was immediately directing my work, Pyatakov.
VYSHINSKY: What did Pyatakov tell you?
NORKIN: In the main, his instructions were to work in the direction of retarding this construction work for the purpose of undermining the power of the state.
VYSHINSKY: WAS ANYTHING SAID ABOUT CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, AND THE ATTITUDE YOU WERE TO TAKE?
NORKIN: TO INVEST LARGE AMOUNTS OF CAPITAL WITH THE LEAST AFFECT, AND TO INVEST THE CAPITAL NOT IN THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTS, BUT IN THOSE OF LESS IMPORTANCE.
VYSHINSKY: That is to say, to tie up the capital?
NORKIN: Yes.... Inasmuch as part of the capital was diverted, this led to the weakening of the units that are important for defense. The principal method of our work was to alter the designs of the various plants mainly on the pretext of increasing their capacity, or of rationalizing them, to delay the designing work, to delay construction....
VYSHINSKY: All these instructions were giving you by Pyatakov?
VYSHINSKY: In what year?
NORKIN: In 1933....
VYSHINSKY: And in 1932, did you meet Pyatakov?
NORKIN: I had many meetings with Pyatakov.
VYSHINSKY: And in 1932?
NORKIN: In 1931 and in 1932 and in 1933....
VYSHINSKY: AND DURING YOUR CONVERSATIONS DID YOU DISCUSS THESE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES?
NORKIN: I THINK THAT, AS A RULE, WE DISCUSSED THESE ACTIVITIES AT EVERY MEETING.... Of subsequent conversations concerning our joint activities I must mention the conversation in the middle of 1935 when more drastic instructions were given to increase destructive activity, and a conversation which took place recently, before my arrest, at which I was instructed to organize explosions and fires during the war.
... I received an instruction from Rataichak and it turned out that he was pursuing the same object that I was, only his tactics were different. I am referring to the construction of a factory on the right bank. It was our intention to retard this construction work by our usual methods. Rataichak proposed new methods, but this entailed blowing up the foundations and very big alterations. In short, this meant a lot of noise, but no effect. I tried to protest, but I received instructions to obey Rataichak because he was one of our men....
VYSHINSKY: WHAT HAVE YOU DONE CONCRETELY IN THE MATTER OF WRECKING?
NORKIN: SUMMARIZED, IT IS AS FOLLOWS: MOST IMPORTANT CONSTRUCTION WORKS, OF MAJOR IMPORTANCE FOR DEFENSE PURPOSES, WERE RETARDED. One very palpable result was that there were cases of disruption of the electrical supply in the Kuznetsk Basin.... In 1935 I received instructions from Pyatakov.... ACCORDINGLY, I PLANNED TO PUT THE STATE DISTRICT POWER STATION OUT OF ACTION BY MEANS OF EXPLOSIONS. IN FEBRUARY 1936 THERE WERE THREE EXPLOSIONS.
VYSHINSKY: ACTUALLY OCCURRED?
NORKIN: YES. After that I had to abandon this operation because there was enormous pressure from the workers....
VYSHINSKY: WERE YOU APPROACHED BY SAFETY INSPECTORS AND WARNED THAT WHAT YOU WERE DOING MIGHT LEAD TO DANGEROUS EXPLOSIONS?
VYSHINSKY: Did you know that on Jan. 26, 1936, Ponomaryov sent the chief of the boiler room a note warning him about this.... This note reads as follows: "that the crushing of certain coals is dangerous and may cause a big explosion leading to the destruction of equipment and injury to the staff."
NORKIN: I saw this document.
VYSHINSKY: HENCE, YOU WERE WARNED THAT SUCH A SYSTEM OF COAL FEEDING CREATED THE DANGER OF EXPLOSIONS AND THAT THE MEASURES OF PRECAUTION YOU WERE TAKING WERE INADEQUATE?
NORKIN: YES, I CONFIRM IT.
VYSHINSKY:...FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD, FROM 1936, YOU OR PEOPLE SUBORDINATED TO YOU, WERE WARNED ABOUT EXPLOSIONS?
NORKIN: I WAS WARNED BY ALL THESE PEOPLE. THE WORK WAS DONE IN THE FACE OF GREAT RESISTANCE ON THE PART OF THE WORKERS. I MUST CONFIRM THAT.
VYSHINSKY: DID THE EXPLOSIONS TAKE PLACE?
NORKIN: I HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT.
NORKIN: THIS IS THE PRINCIPAL ACT OF DIVERSION WHICH I PERSONALLY COMMITTED....
VYSHINSKY: WHAT DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THESE TERRORIST ACTIVITIES?
NORKIN: I KNEW THAT THE MURDER OF KIROV WAS A TERRORIST ACT COMMITTED BY THE ORGANIZATION. I KNEW THAT THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION HAD PLANNED AND WAS PREPARING TO CARRY OUT A NUMBER OF OTHER ACTS AGAINST THE LEADERS OF THE PARTY AND THE GOVERNMENT....
VYSHINSKY: What was the last position you held in the Party?
NORKIN: I was a member of the Territory Committee of the Party, and a member of the Bureau of the City Committee of the Party.
VYSHINSKY: And simultaneously, YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE UNDERGROUND TROTSKYITE, ANTI-SOVIET, TERRORIST, DIVERSIVE, ESPIONAGE AND WRECKING ORGANIZATION?
VYSHINSKY: Was there a case where you, having learned that Drobnis had been exposed as a Trotskyite, took measures to warn him about it?
NORKIN: Of course....IN SHORT, I IMMEDIATELY PASSED ON EVERYTHING I LEARNED IN THE TERRITORY COMMITTEE ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZATION.
VYSHINSKY: AND ABOUT THE MEASURES TAKEN AGAINST THESE ACTIVITIES?
NORKIN: EVERYTHING I HEARD IN THE TERRITORY COMMITTEE THAT ENDANGERED THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION OR ANY OF ITS MEMBERS, I OF COURSE IMMEDIATELY UTILIZED EITHER TO COMMUNICATE FURTHER OR TO GUIDE MYSELF BY.
VYSHINSKY: When were you arrested?
NORKIN: On September 30th, 1936.
VYSHINSKY: Did you begin to testify at once?
NORKIN: No, not at once.
VYSHINSKY: You refused?
NORKIN: Yes, I refused.
VYSHINSKY: Did you refuse for a long time?
NORKIN: Yes, for a fairly long time; I refused to testify for approximately two months or so.
VYSHINSKY: Why, what restrained you?
NORKIN: Very many reasons.
VYSHINSKY: Mention the most important.
NORKIN: I want to mention one of the reasons.... I refer to Pyatakov's article in Pravda in which he expressed his attitude towards the first trial.
VYSHINSKY: The trial of the Zinoviev-Kamenev united center?
NORKIN: Yes.... I am speaking about the article in Pravda in which Pyatakov shouted "bravo, bravo Chekists."...
I could not interpret that article otherwise than as a signal to keep firm, as an instruction to "hold tight." I thought that Pyatakov had the means of continuing the struggle.... The jaunty and breezy style in which that article was written could not be otherwise explained except as a clearly understood hint to "hold tight"; and I kept tight.
VYSHINSKY: AND WHY DID YOU AFTERWARDS DECIDE TO GIVE WAY?
NORKIN: BECAUSE THERE IS A LIMIT TO EVERYTHING.
VYSHINSKY: PERHAPS PRESSURE WAS BROUGHT TO BEAR UPON YOU?... HOW WERE YOU KEPT? WHAT WERE YOUR PRISON CONDITIONS LIKE?
NORKIN: VERY GOOD. ARE YOU ASKING ME ABOUT OUTWARD PRESSURE?
NORKIN: THERE WAS NO PRESSURE WHATEVER.
VYSHINSKY: A MAN CAN BE DEPRIVED OF GOOD FOOD, DEPRIVED OF SLEEP. WE KNOW THIS FROM THE HISTORY OF CAPITALIST PRISONS. HE CAN BE DEPRIVED OF CIGARETTES.
NORKIN: IF THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, THERE WAS NOTHING LIKE IT.
VYSHINSKY: DID THEY FEED YOU WELL?
NORKIN: THEY WERE EXTREMELY ATTENTIVE.... OF COURSE, WHAT PLAYED A ROLE WAS THAT I REALIZED THE HOPELESSNESS OF THE STRUGGLE, AND REALIZED THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO BRING THE WHOLE THING TO LIGHT.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 270-288
THE PRESIDENT: I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT WHAT CONVERSATIONS YOU HAD WITH PYATAKOV ABOUT THE METHODS OF SEIZING POWER, NOT IN THE 1931-32 PERIOD BUT IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS?
NORKIN: THE METHODS WERE AS FOLLOWS: TERRORISM, AT FIRST RESISTANCE AND OBSTRUCTION, THEN WRECKING AND DIVERSIVE ACTS, AND ALSO INVITATION OF FOREIGN CAPITAL ON SOME BASIS OR OTHER, TECHNICAL AID, CONCESSIONS; THEN THERE WERE HINTS AT AN ALLIANCE.
THE PRESIDENT: On what forces were you reckoning--Internal or external?
NORKIN: Both on internal and on external forces.
THE PRESIDENT: What were the internal forces?
NORKIN: AS FOR INTERNAL FORCES, WE HAD RECKONED ON THE MASSES, AT FIRST TO A GREATER EXTENT. SUBSEQUENTLY THE MASSES DISAPPEARED, AND WE BEGAN TO RECKON ON THE ELEMENTS WHO HAD AN INTEREST IN A CHANGE OF POLICY--THAT IS TO SAY, ON KULAK AND CAPITALIST ELEMENTS.
THE PRESIDENT: SO YOU RECKONED ON KULAK ELEMENTS WITHIN THE COUNTRY? And on what others?
NORKIN: On no others.
THE PRESIDENT:...YOU PLACED YOUR HOPES ON THE REMNANTS OF THE KULAK CLASS, ITS LEFT-OVERS?
NORKIN: YES, ON THE REMNANTS OF THE KULAK CLASS.
THE PRESIDENT: Was there any talk about admitting foreign capital?
NORKIN: There were very many conversations about admitting foreign capital, even quite specific conversations.
THE PRESIDENT: BUT DID PYATAKOV HINT THAT CERTAIN NEGOTIATIONS WERE BEING CONDUCTED BY THE TROTSKYITE CENTER WITH CERTAIN FOREIGNERS?
NORKIN: SUCH NEGOTIATIONS UNQUESTIONABLY DID TAKE PLACE, and I have given testimony to this effect.
THE PRESIDENT: When Pyatakov in July 1936 gave instructions to consider the question of the organization of arson at the chemical works, did you express the fear that workers might be killed?
NORKIN: I testified about this.
THE PRESIDENT: I RECOLLECT THAT YOU PERSONALLY EXPRESSED YOUR FEARS THAT WORKERS MIGHT BE KILLED?
NORKIN: THIS IS RECORDED IN MY TESTIMONY, AND I SAID IT NOT ONCE BUT MANY TIMES.
VYSHINSKY: HOW DID PYATAKOV ANSWER YOU?
NORKIN: PYATAKOV ANSWERED THAT SACRIFICES WERE INEVITABLE, AND IT WAS HERE THAT HE USED THAT PHRASE OF HIS WHICH I CORROBORATED YESTERDAY ABOUT "WASTING MY PITY."
THE PRESIDENT: AND HE ADDED: "AND THEN IT ISN'T US THEY WILL BLAME."
NORKIN: I CONFIRM ALL THIS, PAINFUL THOUGH IT IS.
THE PRESIDENT: At the end of this sentence of yours you have the following words: "To tell the truth, Pyatakov always regarded the working class with contempt."... the man had lost contact with the masses. I felt this very keenly, especially at the end of 1935 and the beginning of 1936. In short, I do not think that I am exaggerating; I am giving sufficiently objective testimony. I have no need now to make false statements.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 289-291
KEY PARTS OF STEIN’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
SAYS GERMAN ENGINEER WURM TOLD HIM THEY MUST DAMAGE GERMAN EQUIPMENT SO IT LOOKS LIKE WORKER INCOMPETENCE IS RESPONSIBLE;
ADMITS SHESTOV GOT HIM TO AGREE TO FLOOD SOME MINES;
SAYS THE GERMAN FLOREN WAS WORKING WITH THE TROTS TO WRECK MINES;
SAYS HE REALIZED THAT FLOREN AND FLESSA WERE FASCISTS;
VYSHINSKY: WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT SHESTOV'S CRIMINAL ACTIONS? DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE CRIMES THAT SHESTOV COMMITTED?
STEIN: SHESTOV ASKED ME TO WORK FOR HIM ALONG THE THE LINES OF DIVERSIVE ACTIVITIES.
VYSHINSKY: And where were you working officially at that time?
STEIN: At Anzherka.
VYSHINSKY: In what capacity?
STEIN: As superintendent of an installation work.
VYSHINSKY: What do you understand by diversive activities?
STEIN: Wrecking work.
VYSHINSKY: What do you understand by wrecking work?
STEIN: I mean stoppage at the factories, breakdowns, and damaging of machines, incorrect laying of cables.... May I tell the whole story about Wurm, about how I was brought to do this work?
In 1932 engineer Wurm and Sommeregger arrived. Engineer Wurm came to see me in my apartment, as one German to another, and on this pretext he struck up an acquaintance with me. Engineer Wurm said that we had not come to the Soviet Union to help the Bolsheviks. We had come here in order to help the German state, German firms.
THE POINT WAS THAT WE MUST AT ALL COSTS DAMAGE THE MACHINES THAT WERE BEING IMPORTED FROM GERMANY, IN ORDER THAT WE MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE TO IMPORT MORE MACHINES TO THIS COUNTRY. FOR THIS PURPOSE, WE MUST AT ALL COSTS DESTROY THE MACHINES IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE DAMAGE WOULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE QUALITY OF THE MACHINES BUT TO THE INCAPACITY OF THE RUSSIAN WORKERS....
At the same time, in 1932, engineer Flessa arrived. He asked me whether I had done any wrecking work as yet. I told him I had not. Thereupon he called me a coward and a traitor to Germany.... He told me...that Germany wanted to regain her former strength at all costs, and we Germans living here in the Soviet Union ought to do wrecking work in order to help Germany in this way.
We had to weaken the Soviet Union by this wrecking work of ours. As regards practical work, he said it was necessary to disorganize the electric power system in the Soviet Union, and at the place where I worked, to destroy the storage batteries and electric locomotives so that the mine haulage system would stop functioning and mines would be flooded....
In addition to this, Flessa advised me to join the Communist Party in order to have greater opportunities of access to various jobs, so that the wrecking work might thus be intensified.
VYSHINSKY: And did you take any steps by way of attempting to join the Communist Party?
STEIN: Yes, Flessa advised me to apply to Shestov.
VYSHINSKY: So you applied to Shestov? What came of this?...
STEIN: DURING THIS MEETING SHESTOV MADE ME THE FOLLOWING PROPOSAL: I WAS TO TRY AT ALL COSTS TO FLOOD SOME OF THE PITS AND HINDER THE EXTRACTION OF COAL. I AGREED TO DO THIS.
STEIN:...I want to say something about Floren.
VYSHINSKY: What do you want to say about Floren?
STEIN: Floren made me the same proposal as Flessa. FLOREN HIMSELF HAD ALREADY COMMITTED SEVERAL ACTS OF WRECKING AT THE MINES AND WAS MAKING PREPARATIONS FOR A BIG EXPLOSION AT PIT NO. 5-7, WHERE HE WAS IN TOUCH WITH THE RUSSIAN TROTSKYITES. I do not know why this explosion for which Floren was making preparations did not take place, but I KNOW THAT FLOREN TOOK A VERY CONSIDERABLE PART IN THE WRECKING ACTS OF THE MINES.
VYSHINSKY: And do you know what sort of people Floren and Flessa are?
STEIN: No, they did not tell me openly what Party they belonged to, but I MADE SURE, WHILE TALKING WITH THEM, THAT THEY WERE FASCISTS.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 294-298
KEY PARTS OF ARNOLD’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
SAYS SHESTOV TOLD HIM THEY WERE PERFORMING ALL SORTS OF WRECKING ACTS AND THEY INTENDED TO OVERTHROW THE PRESENT LEADERSHIP BY TERRORISM;
SAYS HIS FIRST TERRORIST ACT WAS ORGANIZED AGAINST ORDJONIKIDZE;
SAYS HE WIMPLED OUT ON KILLING ORDJONIKIDZE AND MOLOTOV; CHEREPUKHIN AND SHESTOV THREATENED HIS LIFE IF HE DID NOT ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION AND SHESTOV ADMITS IT:
ARNOLD : It was said in the Control Commission that there were rumors that Arnold was carrying on anti-Soviet propaganda among the foreign specialists. I was expelled from the Party for this....
VYSHINSKY: When did you get in touch with the Trotskyites?
ARNOLD : In 1932.
VYSHINSKY: With whom?
ARNOLD : When I worked in Prokopyevsk the manager was Shestov.
...When I got to know him I would often go to his office, and he asked me why I was dismissed from the Kuznetsk Combined Works Construction.
VYSHINSKY: Why were you dismissed?
ARNOLD : For anti-Soviet propaganda among foreign specialists....
VYSHINSKY: And when did he let you into his criminal plans, into his crimes?
ARNOLD : I would often go into his office. He said: "I could have handed you over to the authorities long ago. But I do not want to do so because I think that you will be a good man for our organization." Then he said that the organization worked very well.
VYSHINSKY: What does it mean--well?
ARNOLD : Splendid, in a word, that it was developing, our members were already working all over the Kuzbas.
VYSHINSKY: How were they working?
ARNOLD : PERFORMING ALL SORTS OF WRECKING ACTS.... AND THEN HE TOLD ME THAT THEY SHORTLY INTENDED TO OVERTHROW THE PRESENT LEADERSHIP.... AND THAT IT WAS OUR CHIEF TASK TO COMMIT TERRORIST ACTS AGAINST THE LEADERS OF THE GOVERNMENT.... I was the manager of the garage and it fell to me to perform terrorist acts.
VYSHINSKY: Who instructed you?
ARNOLD : Cherepukhin.
VYSHINSKY: And who instructed Cherepukhin?
ARNOLD : Cherepukhin was instructed by Shestov.
VYSHINSKY: What acts did you prepare for?
ARNOLD : I was told of two places where to commit the terrorist acts one place was at Pit No. 3, the other place was at Pit No. 8.
VYSHINSKY:... When did you organize the terrorist acts?
ARNOLD : THE FIRST TERRORIST ACT WAS IN 1934....
VYSHINSKY: AGAINST WHOM?
ARNOLD : AGAINST ORDJONIKIDZE.... Its nature was that Cherepukhin definitely told me: "Ordjonikidze is coming tomorrow. Look here, you must perform the terrorist act and stop at nothing."... I agreed to the proposal. The next day I drove up in the car, because, as the manager of the garage, and as a member of the Party, I was above suspicion. I drove to the station. Ordjonikidze, Eiche and Rukhimovich got in. I drove them to the German Colony, and they asked me to drive from there to Tyrkan, and when we get to the top of the hill they asked me to stop so that they could take a look at the whole of Prokopyevsk. We then stopped at the combined Pit, No. 7-8-9. Cherepukhin had warned me that everything was in readiness there: "You will see an obstacle there and on this obstacle you will cause an accident." And so, when I descended the hill I went at a great speed, about 70 are 80 kilometers an hour, and I saw an obstacle about one and a half kilometers ahead. It flashed into my head at once that this was the place where I was to cause the accident. Not knowing the place, I did not know what would happen to me.... So I slowed down and soon stopped, and then turned on to the bridge on the left, although I was to have driven straight ahead.
VYSHINSKY: You did not dare?
ARNOLD : I could not do it.
VYSHINSKY: You could not do it, you did not dare? That is our luck. And the second case?
ARNOLD : One morning Cherepukhin came to my office and said: "Molotov is coming today. Look here, see that you don't muff it this time." I told him that I had not muffed it. He said: "I know how you did not muff it." I then realized that somebody was keeping an eye on me. I replied that I would do it, I drove up to the dispatch office. I knew the place where I was to cause the accident very well; it was near the rise from Pit No. 3. There is a curve there. On this curve there is not a gully, as Shestov called it, but what we call an embankment, the edge of the road, about 8 or 10 meters deep, a drop of nearly 90 degrees. When I came to the station, Molotov, Kurganov, Secretary of the District Committee of the Party, and Gryadinsky, Chairman of the Territory Executive Committee, got into the car....
I was told to drive to the workers' residential quarter through Komsomolskaya Street. I did so. Just as I was leaving the dirt road for the highroad, a car suddenly came dashing towards me. There was no time to think; I had to commit a terrorist act. I saw that the other car is flying towards me. Then I realized that Cherepukhin had not trusted me and had sent a second car. I had not much time to think, but I got scared. I managed to turn to the side, into the gully. At that moment Gryadinsky seized me and said: "What are you doing?"
VYSHINSKY: What stopped you?
ARNOLD : Cowardice stopped me.
VYSHINSKY: And this thwarted your criminal plans?
ARNOLD : Yes.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 324-329
KAZNACHEYEV: Please tell us more precisely how long you belonged to the Trotskyite organization?
ARNOLD : From 1932 to 1934.
KAZNACHEYEV: When you were instructed to commit the terrorist act, were you warned that if you did not carry it out your life would be in danger?
ARNOLD : When I gave my consent to commit such an act I was afraid that if I did not carry it out they would suspect me as unreliable and put me out of the way.
KAZNACHEYEV: That is, you feared revenge?
ARNOLD : Yes.
KAZNACHEYEV: AND DID ANYBODY THREATEN YOU?
ARNOLD : CHEREPUKHIN AND SHESTOV DID NOT SAY THAT DIRECTLY, BUT THEY SAID THAT IF I BETRAYED THEM THEY WOULD PUT ME OUT OF THE WAY.
KAZNACHEYEV: These hints were made to you by whom?
ARNOLD : By Cherepukhin, also by Shestov. Shestov also spoke to me in this spirit and warned me....
KAZNACHEYEV: May I, in passing, put a question to the accused Shestov? Do you confirm this part of Arnold's explanation?
SHESTOV: Yes, I can confirm that a hint was made to Arnold about his bad past.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 330-332
KAZNACHEYEV: When you were recruited for the Trotskyite organization, had you any idea, even an elementary one, about their program?
ARNOLD : They assured me that the Trotskyite organization was strong, that it would come to power, and that I would not be among the last people then.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 333
KEY PARTS OF KNYAZEV’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
ADMITS HE HAD TALKS WITH LIVSHITZ ABOUT CAUSING TRAIN WRECKS; ADMITS HE DISCUSSED WITH LIVSHITZ THE FACT THAT THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE OF A CERTAIN FOREIGN STATE WAS ALSO INTERESTED IN THESE TRAIN WRECKS;
SAYS HE RECEIVED SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FROM LIVSHITZ TO ORGANIZE TRAIN WRECKS;
SAYS THIS WAS THE TROTSKYITE LINE AND THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE LINE;
ADMITS HE WAS A JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE AGENT AND SAYS LIVSHITZ KNEW IT;
SAYS LIVSHITZ SAID THEY MUST WORK WITH FOREIGN POWERS AND GIVE SECRET INFORMATON;
SAYS LIVSHITZ LINED HIS WORK UP WITH JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE; SAYS LIVSHITZ TOLD HIM THE TROTS WOULD TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST THE SU IN CASE OF WAR AND STAB THE SU IN THE BACK;
ADMITS HE KNEW THERE WAS RAILWAY WRECKING GOING ON;
ADMITS HE ENGAGED IN RAILWAY WRECKING; SAYS LIVSHITZ STATED WRECKS AND LOSS OF LIFE MUST OCCUR TO UNDERMINE THE PEOPLES’ CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVT;
HE GIVES A LONG LIST OF KEY RAILWAY TROTS INVOLVED IN THE CONSPIRACY;
SAYS HE CONCEALED THE FACT THAT A MAJOR TRAIN WRECK WAS CAUSED BY A TROT;
ADMITS HE SENT AN APPRENTICE WITH TWO WEEKS' EXPERIENCE TO RECEIVE A TROOP TRAIN WHICH IS ILLEGAL;
HE ADMITS SUCH ILLEGALITIES WERE POSSIBLE BECAUSE ADMINISTRATORS WERE WORKING WITH THE TROTS;
SAYS ATTEMPTS WERE MADE TO GET HIM INTO JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE BUT HE REFUSED AND DID NOT REPORT IT;
ADMITS HE GAVE JAPANESE MOBILIZATION INFORMATION;
ADMITS HIS TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION ENGINEERED FROM 13 TO 15 TRAIN WRECKS;
SAYS THE TROTS CAUSED OVER 1500 TRAIN WRECKS IN 1934 ALONE; SAYS HE CAUSED TRAIN WRECKS BY DISRUPTING ROAD BED MAINTENANCE RESULTING IN DEATHS;
SAID THE PARTY AND THE GOVERNMENT SUPPLIED THE RAILROAD WITH POWERFUL LOCOMOTIVES AND HIS TROTSKYITES PUT THEM OUT OF ACTION;
SAYS THE JAPANESE THREATENED TO EXPOSE HIM AS A TROT IF HE DID NOT COOPERATE SO HE AGREED TO WORK WITH THEM; ADMITS HE ENGINEERED TRAIN WRECKS UPON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE AND OF LIVSHITZ, THE ASSISTANT PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR OF RAILWAYS;
ADMITS HE CAUSED TRAIN WRECKS;
SAYS THE CULPRITS WERE NOT FOUND UNTIL NOW;
SAYS HE WAS THE CHIEF INVESTIGATOR SENT TO INVESTIGATE THE CAUSE WHICH HE CAUSED;
ADMITS HE HID EVIDENCE AND AN INNOCENT MAN WAS FRAMED AND PROSECUTED FOR A WRECK HE CAUSED;
SAYS A JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE AGENT PROPOSED SETTING FIRES TO MILITARY DEPOTS;
SAYS THE JAPANESE AGENT SUGGESTED USING BACTERIA TO KILL ON TROOP TRAINS WHICH THE JAPANESE WOULD PROVIDE; ADMITTED HE WAS RECEIVING MONEY FROM THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE;
SAYS A JAPANESE AGENT TOLD HIM THEY WERE PAYING A LOT OF MONEY TO THE TROT GROUP;
SAYS LIVSHITZ TOLD HIM CONTACTS HAD DEFINITELY BEEN ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE JAPANESE AND THE TROT LEADERS
VYSHINSKY: ACCUSED KNYAZEV, YOU HAD TALKS WITH LIVSHITZ?
KNYAZEV: YES, I HAD.
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU TALK ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION OF TRAIN WRECKS?
KNYAZEV: IT WAS IN AUGUST 1935.
VYSHINSKY: YOU TALKED ABOUT ORGANIZING TRAIN WRECKS?
KNYAZEV: THAT WAS THE INITIAL STAGE OF THE TALK.... When I met him I was already a member of the Trotskyite organization. That was in April 1934.
VYSHINSKY: WHAT WAS YOUR OFFICIAL POSITION?
KNYAZEV: CHIEF OF A RAILWAY.
VYSHINSKY: And Livshitz, was he Assistant People's Commissar?
KNYAZEV: He had only just been appointed Assistant People's Commissar.
VYSHINSKY: AND YOU, CHIEF OF A RAILWAY, MEET WITH YOUR SUPERIOR AND DISCUSS WITH HIM HOW TO ORGANIZE TRAIN WRECKS?
KNYAZEV: QUITE RIGHT.
VYSHINSKY: And when this talk about train wrecks took place, was he already Assistant People's Commissar?
KNYAZEV: No, he was not, but I knew that he was about to be appointed Assistant People's Commissar,...
VYSHINSKY: AND DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO MEET HIM WHEN HE WAS ASSISTANT PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR?
KNYAZEV: I DID.
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO DISCUSS TRAIN WRECKS WITH HIM?
VYSHINSKY: THAT IS, THERE WAS SUCH A SITUATION WHEN YOU, THE CHIEF OF A RAILWAY, DISCUSSED WITH YOUR SUPERIOR, THE ASSISTANT PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR, HOW TO ORGANIZE TRAIN WRECKS ON THE RAILWAYS?
KNYAZEV: QUITE RIGHT.
VYSHINSKY: AND AT THAT TIME, DID YOU DISCUSS THE FACT THAT THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE OF A CERTAIN FOREIGN STATE WAS ALSO INTERESTED IN THESE TRAIN WRECKS?
KNYAZEV: WE DID.
VYSHINSKY: When was that?
KNYAZEV: When we met, as I have said, I had already been a member of the Trotskyite organization for about a year and, consequently, I had already received instructions about disruptive wrecking activities before I met Livshitz. These instructions were to organize train wrecks which put locomotives out of action.... LATER I RECEIVED SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FROM LIVSHITZ TO ORGANIZE TRAIN WRECKS ON THE RAILWAY.
VYSHINSKY: WAS THIS THE TROTSKYITE LINE, OR THE LINE OF THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE?
KNYAZEV: IT WAS THE LINE BOTH OF THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION AND OF THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE.
VYSHINSKY: AND WERE YOU ALREADY ENROLLED AS AN AGENT OF THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE?
KNYAZEV: I HAD BEEN ENROLLED IN SEPTEMBER 1934.
VYSHINSKY: What position did you hold in the Japanese intelligence service since September 1934?
KNYAZEV: I was connected with the Japanese.
VYSHINSKY: AND AT THE SAME TIME HELD THE POSITION OF AGENT OF THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE?
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU TELL THIS TO LIVSHITZ? DID HE KNOW ABOUT IT?
VYSHINSKY: When you talked to Livshitz about the organization of train wrecks on the railways, did you mention that the Japanese intelligence service was demanding the organization of such train wrecks?
KNYAZEV:... When I met Livshitz I told him that the line of the Japanese coincided with the line of the Trotskyites with regard to disruptive activities. BUT THE JAPANESE WERE DEMANDING SECRET INFORMATION, AND I SIMPLY COULD NOT GRASP THAT.
VYSHINSKY: What did you not understand, why they were interested in secret information?
KNYAZEV: Yes. I said that this was going beyond the instructions I had formerly received from Turok.
VYSHINSKY: That is, the instructions about disruptive activities?
VYSHINSKY: WHAT DID LIVSHITZ REPLY?
KNYAZEV: HE SAID THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE STRUGGLE OF THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATIONS AGAINST STALIN'S LEADERSHIP WERE SUCH THAT NOT ONLY MUST WE CARRY ON DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES, BUT THAT WE MUST ALSO ESTABLISH CONNECTIONS WITH FOREIGN POWERS.
... Livshitz replied that since the Trotskyite organization was connected with foreign governments, this information should be given in order to maintain connections with the Japanese.
VYSHINSKY: CONSEQUENTLY, LIVSHITZ SANCTIONED YOUR CONNECTION WITH THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, LINKING IT UP WITH THE AIMS OF THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION, AND YOU CONTINUED TO ACT ALONG THOSE LINES?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 342-345
BRAUDE: ACCUSED KNYAZEV, DO YOU NOT REMEMBER WHAT LIVSHITZ SAID REGARDING THE STAND THE TROTSKYITES WOULD TAKE IN THE EVENT OF WAR?
KNYAZEV: (Remains silent.)
BRAUDE: Did he not tell you that the members of the Trotskyite organization would themselves fight against the Soviet government with arms in our hands?
KNYAZEV:...THIS QUESTION CAME UP BETWEEN US DURING LENGTHY CONVERSATIONS WITH LIVSHITZ, AND HIS ANSWER... [WAS] THAT IN THIS WAR THE TROTSKYITES WOULD PURSUE A DEFEATIST LINE AND BY COMBINING ALL INTERNAL FORCES HOSTILE TO THE SOVIET POWER AND TO THE PARTY, UTILIZING THESE FORCES, THE TROTSKYITES WOULD EVEN BE COMPELLED TO DELIVER A STAB IN THE BACK IN ORDER TO UNDERMINE THE SUCCESS OF THE WAR IN THIS WAY. THAT WAS THE SPIRIT IN WHICH HE SPOKE.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 359
VYSHINSKY: Accused Knyazev, when did you begin your counter-revolutionary activities?
KNYAZEV: In April 1934. Up to then I had never belonged to the Trotskyite grouping,...
VYSHINSKY:...IN 1930 DID YOU KNOW THAT THERE WERE ALL SORTS OF WRECKING GROUPS ON THE RAILWAYS?
KNYAZEV: I KNEW THIS; THERE WERE TRIALS GOING ON AT THAT TIME.
VYSHINSKY: SO YOU KNEW THAT THE RAILWAYS WERE WORKING BADLY BECAUSE THEY WERE MADE TO WORK BADLY?
KNYAZEV: QUITE RIGHT.
VYSHINSKY: Why did you say that you were influenced in your waverings by a lack of confidence in the strength of the railways, when you could see that these railways were being deliberately wrecked by anti-Soviet people?
KNYAZEV: These waverings of mine were fostered and developed in me, as I have said, systematically in conversations with Turok.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 359-360
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU TAKE PART IN DIVERSIVE AND WRECKING ACTIVITIES ON THE RAILWAYS?
KNYAZEV: I DID.
VYSHINSKY: What kind of activities?
KNYAZEV: The organization of train wrecks, damaging the permanent way and locomotives; the aim pursued was to undermine the work of the Urals industry, especially metallurgy. The Trotskyites on the South Urals Railway sabotaged the program for the repair of the railway track. Instead of investing the funds assigned in the reconstruction of the track by whole sections, we diffused them on work on separate kilometers.
Thus they did not give the required effect, and the track continued to deteriorate. THE AIM IN VIEW WAS TO BRING ABOUT A LARGE NUMBER OF TRAIN WRECKS.
The second form of undermining work was disorganizing the repair of locomotives, paying less care to the locomotives, so as to put them out of action in the long run. ALL THESE METHODS OF UNDERMINING WORK WERE ENDORSED BY LIVSHITZ IN 1935. AT THE SAME TIME LIVSHITZ SAID THAT WE MUST NOW PASS FROM GENERAL METHODS OF UNDERMINING ACTIVITY TO TRAIN WRECKS INVOLVING LOSS OF HUMAN LIFE. I thereupon asked Livshitz whether we Trotskyites could really be against the working class, against the population in general. Livshitz said that it was a question of a very fierce struggle against Stalin, that we must cause the Party leadership to become completely discredited in the eyes of the people, and, by a number of separate blows against the population, cause embitterment against Stalin, against the government, and create the impression among the population that the government, was to blame for all this.
Such was his stand regarding the new policy of train wrecks with loss of life....
After my return to the line I told the members of the organization who were on my line at that time; on the line administration were Levin, assistant manager of the traffic department, Dolmatov, manager of the maintenance department, Bochkarev, my inspector, and engineer Shcherbakov. At my instructions these persons formed an organization on the line directly at the place of work. I knew the leading members of these organizations on the line. In particular there was the permanent way manager of the Vyazovaya-Zlatoust section, Korolkov, the permanent way manager of the Shumikha section, Bordovich, the station master on the same section, Markevich, a number of his assistants--Vaganov, Rykov, Rodin; at Kurgan, the permanent way manager Novikov, and the permanent way manager of the Ufaleya section, Pavlovsky. These were the men in the maintenance department.
In the traffic department there was Lizunov a number of his assistants, and Shibayev, the station master at Kurgan. As I said, there was the Shumikha station master, Markevich, the traffic inspector Kuznetsov, Khrebtov on the Zlatoust section, the assistant station master Romanov, and Fadeyev, the station master at Kosyrevo. That is all, insofar as the traffic department was concerned.
In the traction department the following were drawn into Trotskyite undermining counter-revolutionary work: on the Kurgan section-- Nikolayev, chief of the depot, Andreyev, his assistant, and engineer Starostin, besides Mogilny, a foremen of the locomotive service. On the Zlatoust section there was the locomotive foremen Sumin, and in the Chelyabinsk depot engineer Kolbik. As far as I remember, engine-driver Granin.
These persons formed the cadres of my Trotskyite organization on the South Urals Railway.
When I told Levin, Bochkarev, Shcherbakov, and Dolmatov, after my return from Moscow and my meeting with Livshitz, that the task now was to organize train wrecks with loss of human life, Levin said there and then that this could be organized with the help of Markevich, the station master at Shumikha.
On Oct. 27 (our conversation had been in the latter half of August) a train wreck took place at Shumikha.
VYSHINSKY: What kind of train was wrecked?
KNYAZEV: A troop train.
VYSHINSKY: Do you remember the number of the train?
KNYAZEV: No. 506 or 504.
VYSHINSKY: Troop train No. 504, according to the findings. Did you draw up these findings?
VYSHINSKY: Did these findings of yours reflect the real state of affairs?
KNYAZEV: I gave an incorrect explanation, a false one. I CONCEALED THE FACT THAT THIS TRAIN WRECK WAS DONE BY THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION.... As far as I remember, I was in Kurgan at the time. I was told there had been a train wreck at Shumikha. I thereupon left for Shumikha by special train, and went straight to look at the scene of the smash. WHEN I ARRIVED THERE, THE ASSISTANT STATION MASTER VAGANOV CAME UP TO ME AND FROM THE HINTS HE DROPPED I UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS WAS THE WORK OF MARKEVICH.
I GRASPED AT ONCE THAT THIS WAS THE WORK OF OUR ORGANIZATION. It had been organized directly by Kolesnikov, the head switchman on duty at the arrival switches. He had ordered Chudinova, a girl apprentice on duty at that time, to turn arrival switch No. 14 onto the track that was occupied. Since this apprentice did not understand what the correct position of the switches should have been, she carried out his instructions.
An old skilled switchman who was standing at the switch on the track along which the train should really have arrived was meanwhile sent off by Kolesnikov to clean the glass on the lamps.
VYSHINSKY: And who was left at the switch?
KNYAZEV: There was no one at the switch. The train, traveling at high-speed, about 40 or 45 kilometers an hour, sped off down the eighth track, on which a freight train of ore was standing.
VYSHINSKY: How many were killed?
KNYAZEV: Twenty-nine Red Army men, and 29 were also injured.
VYSHINSKY: Injured severely or slightly?
KNYAZEV: I cannot say at the moment.
VYSHINSKY: Here was a train wreck quite out of the ordinary, involving a large number of victims and you, the chief of the railroad, do not know whether the injuries were severe or slight?
... You do not remember if these 29 Red Army men were badly mutilated?
KNYAZEV: About 15 were badly mutilated.
VYSHINSKY: But what sort of serious injuries were there?
KNYAZEV: They had arms broken, heads pierced....
VYSHINSKY: Heads pierced, arms broken, ribs broken, legs broken?
KNYAZEV: Yes, that is so.
VYSHINSKY: THIS HAPPENED BY THE GRACE AND YOU AND YOUR ACCOMPLICES?
VYSHINSKY: And do you know how the preparations for this train wreck were organized?...
KNYAZEV: Rykov, the acting station master, received word from the dispatcher at Chelyabinsk that a troop train was coming through, and he told Kolesnikov, the head switchman, to "get ready to receive it."
VYSHINSKY: What did Rykov say?
KNYAZEV: Rykov said that a troop train was coming, and we must cause a train wreck, route it so as to "prepare it wrongly."
VYSHINSKY: Not "prepare it wrongly," but receive it wrongly?
KNYAZEV: Prepare it wrongly and thereby see that it was wrongly received.
VYSHINSKY: Did not you say it more simply: "The train must be wrecked"?
KNYAZEV: (Remains silent.)
VYSHINSKY: AND SO YOU SENT AN APPRENTICE WITH TWO WEEKS' EXPERIENCE TO RECEIVE A TROOP TRAIN? ACCORDING TO RAILWAY SERVICE REGULATIONS, IS THAT PERMISSIBLE?
VYSHINSKY: SO YOU VIOLATED THE LAW, VIOLATED THE REGULATIONS IN THE EYES OF EVERYONE?
VYSHINSKY: BUT WHY WAS SUCH A VIOLATION OF RAILWAY SERVICE REGULATIONS POSSIBLE? WAS IT NOT BECAUSE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATION WAS IN LEAGUE WITH THE TROTSKYITES?
KNYAZEV: QUITE RIGHT.
VYSHINSKY: Name these persons.
KNYAZEV: Markevich, the station master, Rykov, the acting station master, Vaganov, assistant station master, Rodionov, assistant station master, Kolesnikov, head switchman.
KNYAZEV: Switchman Bezgin.
KNYAZEV: And then there was also the permanent way manager of that section, Brodovikov.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 364-368
MEMBER OF THE COURT RYCHKOV: WERE THERE ATTEMPTS TO ENLIST YOU AS AN AGENT OF THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE BEFORE YOU JOINED THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION?
KNYAZEV: YES, IN 1931, WHEN A GROUP OF JAPANESE SPECIALISTS WERE WORKING ON MY RAILROAD, BUT I CATEGORICALLY REFUSED.***
RYCHKOV: Categorically refused?
RYCHKOV: So you do not deny that attempts were made to enlist you in the Japanese intelligence service as an agent in 1931?
RYCHKOV: But you refused and did not report this to anyone?
KNYAZEV: Quite right.
RYCHKOV: ...WHAT SPYING INFORMATION WAS HANDED OVER TO THE AGENT OF THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE BY YOU IN PERSON? WAS INFORMATION GIVEN REGARDING MOBILIZATION PLANS?
KNYAZEV: IT WAS GIVEN.
RYCHKOV: SO YOU REVEALED TO THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE CERTAIN DATA ON MOBILIZATION PLANS?
KNYAZEV: A NUMBER OF DATA.
RYCHKOV: ...Concerning one railway?
KNYAZEV: Concerning the South Urals, Perm, Transbaikal, Ussuri, and East Siberian Railways.
RYCHKOV: HOW MANY TRAIN WRECKS WERE ENGINEERED BY THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION UNDER YOUR LEADERSHIP?
KNYAZEV: FROM 13 TO 15 TRAIN WRECKS WERE ORGANIZED DIRECTLY BY US.
...THE INCREASE IN TRAIN WRECKS WAS UNDOUBTEDLY CONNECTED WITH THE WRECKING ACTIVITIES OF THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION IN THE OTHER BRANCHES OF INDUSTRY AS WELL. I REMEMBER IN 1934 THERE WERE ALTOGETHER ABOUT 1500 TRAIN WRECKS AND ACCIDENTS.
RYCHKOV: ALONG WHAT LINES WERE YOUR WRECKING ACTIVITIES DIRECTED?
KNYAZEV: ALONG THE LINES OF DISRUPTING TRACK MAINTENANCE....
RYCHKOV: What did you do specifically in the way of wrecking the permanent way?
KNYAZEV: The ballast of the roadbed was weakened, which led to the subsidence of the track. This resulted in rails snapping.
RYCHKOV: And as a result were there train wrecks?
KNYAZEV: From these causes there were train wrecks on the stretch between Yakhino and Ust-Katav in December 1935, also between Yedinover and Berdyaush in February 1936.
VYSHINSKY: WERE THERE ANY VICTIMS IS WELL?
KNYAZEV: THERE WERE, AMONG THE TRAIN GUARDS.
RYCHKOV: A HEAD GUARD AND A SENIOR GUARD WERE KILLED?
RYCHKOV: ...How was wrecking work carried on to destroy the locomotives?
KNYAZEV: Powerful locomotives of the FD type were introduced in the Kurgan depot. Taking advantage of the fact that not much was known about them in this depot, the management deliberately slackened the supervision of current repairs, frequently compelled the engine-drivers to leave before repairs were completed. Almost all the water gauges were reduced to a ruinous condition. As a result of this neglect, a boiler burst in January 1936 on the Rosa-Vargashi stretch. As far as I remember, the engine-driver's mate and the fireman were killed, while the engine-driver was thrown about 30 meters away. The engine was put completely out of action. All these undermining, wrecking activities in the Kurgan depot were conducted by Nikolayev, Andreyev, Starostin and Mogilny, and in the Zlatoust depot by the locomotive foreman Sumin.
RYCHKOV: THE PARTY AND THE GOVERNMENT SUPPLIED THE RAILROAD WITH POWERFUL LOCOMOTIVES, AND YOU TROTSKYITES SPOILED THEM, PUT THEM OUT OF ACTION?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 369-372
BRAUDE:... WHAT CONVERSATIONS DID YOU HAVE IN 1929 AND 1930 WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE? WERE THEY IN THE FORM OF CONCRETE PROPOSALS TO WORK FOR THEM...?
BRAUDE: You did not answer my direct question. When you tried to refuse and said that you would turn the unknown citizen [who approached you] over to the authorities of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs, did he make any direct threats to you?
KNYAZEV: HE TOLD ME BLUNTLY THAT I WAS CONNECTED WITH THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION.
BRAUDE: AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU REFUSED?
KNYAZEV: THAT IT WOULD NOT BE TO MY ADVANTAGE.
BRAUDE: WHAT PRECISELY?
KNYAZEV: THAT IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER THE PARTY AND ORGANS OF JUSTICE WOULD BE INFORMED.
BRAUDE: YOU WERE TOLD THAT THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE WOULD EXPOSE YOUR BELONGING TO THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION?
BRAUDE: YOU, ACCUSED KNYAZEV, IN THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION SAID: "HAVING BEEN PLACED IN A HOPELESS POSITION AND FEARING THAT MY CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES AS A MEMBER OF THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION WOULD BE EXPOSED, I GAVE MY CONSENT TO WORK ON BEHALF OF THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE." IS THAT RIGHT?
KNYAZEV: THAT IS RIGHT
...I received this letter from Japan, from Mr. H.... Mr. H. told me that he well knew of my connections with the Trotskyite organization and that the Trotskyite organization was now carrying on activity in the Soviet Union with the assistance of Japan. "We," he said, "help each other, consequently what we shall ask from you is nothing more than a return for the help which we render the Trotskyite organization."
He also told me that undermining work did not satisfy the Japanese and that it was necessary to undertake acts of diversion, especially with regard to troop trains bound for the Far East, in order to demoralize the Red Army. As a matter of fact, the activities outlined by Mr. H. were later confirmed by Livshitz.
...The Japanese described this as pursuing the object of demoralizing the army when it moves to the East, whereas the Trotskyite organization describes this diversive work as undermining the authority of Stalin and the Party leadership, inciting the people against the Party and thus rousing anger among the people, although I must say frankly that this anger was roused, not against the Party, and not against Stalin, but against those who engaged in wrecking trains.
BRAUDE: THUS, YOU ENGINEERED TRAIN WRECKS UPON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE AND OF LIVSHITZ, THE ASSISTANT PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR OF RAILWAYS.
KNYAZEV: YES.... I MOSTLY FOLLOWED THE INSTRUCTIONS LIVSHITZ GAVE ME, BECAUSE HE HAD THE MOST AUTHORITY FOR ME.
BRAUDE: BUT YOU ALSO REPORTED TO THE JAPANESE?
VYSHINSKY: I want to go back to train wrecks. You mentioned here quite a number of cases of wrecking. THE TRAIN WRECK ON FEB. 7, 1936, ON THE YEDINOVER-BERDYAUSH SECTION WAS CARRIED OUT ON YOUR INSTRUCTIONS?
VYSHINSKY: Was anyone prosecuted for that train wreck?
KNYAZEV: I think not, except for the fact of a reprimand.
VYSHINSKY: No one was prosecuted?
KNYAZEV: No, no one.
KNYAZEV: As I have already said, all the traces were covered up, to put it plainly, in railway traditions....
VYSHINSKY: No, not railway traditions, but criminal, counter-revolutionary activity.
KNYAZEV: THEY DID NOT FIND THE CULPRITS.
VYSHINSKY: HAVE THEY FOUND THEM NOW?
KNYAZEV: NOW THEY HAVE FOUND THEM.
VYSHINSKY: Who was to blame?
KNYAZEV: I was.
VYSHINSKY: HOW ABOUT THE WRECK ON THE YAKHINO- UST-KATAV SECTION?
KNYAZEV: THE SAME THING.
VYSHINSKY: ON YOUR INSTRUCTIONS?
VYSHINSKY: Was anyone prosecuted?
KNYAZEV: No one was prosecuted.
VYSHINSKY: For the same reasons?
KNYAZEV: For the same reasons.
VYSHINSKY: It was covered up?
VYSHINSKY: ON FEB. 27 THERE WAS A TRAIN WRECK AT CHRISTAYA CHUMLYAK STATION; WAS THAT ALSO ON YOUR INSTRUCTIONS?
VYSHINSKY: YOUR ORGANIZATION?
KNYAZEV: OUR ORGANIZATION.
VYSHINSKY: Was anyone prosecuted?
KNYAZEV: I believe not.
VYSHINSKY: It was covered up?
VYSHINSKY: You covered it up?
KNYAZEV: It was not I who covered it up.
VYSHINSKY: Who was the chief of the line?
KNYAZEV: IT WAS COVERED UP BY THOSE WHO CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION.
VYSHINSKY: WHO WAS THE CHIEF OF THE LINE?
VYSHINSKY: THERE IS AN ORDER TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CHIEF OF THE LINE HIMSELF MUST GO TO THE SCENE OF THE TRAIN WRECK AND INVESTIGATE.
KNYAZEV: MY ASSISTANT WENT.
VYSHINSKY: BUT THERE WAS NOTHING FOR YOU TO INVESTIGATE. YOU KNEW ALL ABOUT IT?
VYSHINSKY: Then, there was a train wreck at Logovushka station in 1936. Was anyone prosecuted?
KNYAZEV: I believe that a foreman was removed for a short time.
VYSHINSKY: As regards criminal prosecution?
VYSHINSKY: It was covered up?
VYSHINSKY: It was concealed?
VYSHINSKY: WAS THE TRAIN WRECK ON MAY 13, 1936 ON THE ROSA-VARGASHI SECTION ALSO ON YOUR INSTRUCTIONS?
KNYAZEV: YES, I ALREADY SPOKE OF IT.
VYSHINSKY: Were the actual culprits or anyone else prosecuted?
KNYAZEV: I believe Nikolayev, a foreman, was prosecuted.
VYSHINSKY: Was he tried?
KNYAZEV: He was tried.
VYSHINSKY: WAS HE TO BLAME?
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU HAVE A HAND IN THAT MATTER?
KNYAZEV: I DID.
VYSHINSKY: SO AN INNOCENT MAN WAS TRIED?... That means you not only organized train wrecks that caused loss of human life, but you framed innocent people like Chudinova, like the engine-driver Fedorov. YOU SHUFFLED THE FACTS OF THE EVIDENCE AND PUT INNOCENT MEN ON TRIAL. IS THAT RIGHT?
KNYAZEV: As far as I know the engine-driver Fedorov was not tried in that case.
VYSHINSKY: As far as I know, he was tried.
KNYAZEV: Nikolayev and Andreyev were tried.
VYSHINSKY: The whole blame was laid on Fedorov?
KNYAZEV: It was.
VYSHINSKY: That's just what I am saying. ON JANUARY 18, 1936, THE WRECK OF TRAIN NO. 910 AT CHUMLYAK STATION WAS ENGINEERED--ON YOUR INSTRUCTIONS?
VYSHINSKY: BY MEMBERS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION?
VYSHINSKY: Were criminal proceedings instituted against anyone?
KNYAZEV: I believe an engine-driver was prosecuted.
VYSHINSKY: No one was prosecuted?
KNYAZEV: Greine, I believe, was prosecuted.
VYSHINSKY: As far as I know no one was prosecuted because you and your accomplices presented the matter as though objective causes were responsible and no one was to blame.
KNYAZEV: I cannot affirm that.
VYSHINSKY: But you can affirm the previous cases?
VYSHINSKY: THAT MEANS THAT WE MAY DRAW THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION: YOU NOT ONLY ORGANIZED TRAIN WRECKS, BUT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF YOUR POSITION AS CHIEF OF THE LINE, YOU DELIBERATELY FABRICATED INCORRECT DOCUMENTS WHICH MISLED THE INVESTIGATING ORGANS AND THE COURTS. IS THAT RIGHT?
KNYAZEV: I THINK I HAVE REPLIED TO EVERYTHING, AND HAVE SPOKEN CLEARLY, I DO NOT DENY THINGS.
VYSHINSKY: IN A NUMBER OF CASES, SOME OF WHICH HAVE BEEN MENTIONED NOW, YOU ACTED IN A CRIMINAL MANNER IN ORDER TO HIDE THE REAL CULPRITS, IN ORDER TO LAY THE BLAME ON INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE ACTUALLY NOT TO BLAME. IS THAT RIGHT OR IS IT NOT?
KNYAZEV: IT IS QUITE RIGHT. I can add that the underlying purpose of all the undermining activities was not the purpose which Serebryakov spoke of here, it was aimed at organizing a disruption of transportation and organizing the causes. I cannot understand why Livshitz is silent and Serebryakov continues to deceive the Supreme Court.
VYSHINSKY: Don't get indignant over Serebryakov. Just at present we are discussing your crime. Were you chief of the South Urals Line throughout 1935, at the time when the train wrecks occurred?
KNYAZEV: Yes, until October 1936.
VYSHINSKY: IS IT TRUE THAT IN 1935, 46 PERSONS WERE KILLED AND 51 WERE INJURED IN TRAIN DISASTERS WHICH YOU ORGANIZED? DO YOU CONFIRM THESE FIGURES?
KNYAZEV: THAT IS CORRECT.
VYSHINSKY: AND IN 1936, 17 PERSONS WERE KILLED AND 103 INJURED?
VYSHINSKY: TOTAL: 63 PERSONS KILLED AND 154 INJURED IN TRAIN DISASTERS WHICH YOU PERSONALLY ORGANIZED?
KNYAZEV: NOT PERSONALLY, BUT MOST OF THEM WERE CONNECTED WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF OUR TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION.
VYSHINSKY: THE FIGURES I HAVE MENTIONED, ARE THEY PROBABLE?
KNYAZEV: I CONFIRM THEM.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 373-381
VYSHINSKY: AND HE [A FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AGENT] SPOKE TO YOU ABOUT ARRANGING TO SET FIRE TO MILITARY DEPOTS IN CASE OF WAR?
KNYAZEV: YES.... ABOUT SETTING FIRE TO MILITARY DEPOTS, ABOUT SETTING FIRE TO THE SUPPLY POINTS FOR TROOP TRAINS and as far as I remember, in October, when my conversation with Mr. X. [THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AGENT] TOOK PLACE, HE STRONGLY STRESSED THE NECESSITY THAT" WE NOT ONLY SET THE TASK OF MERELY CAUSING FIRES, BUT IF NECESSARY, OF EVEN CONTAMINATING THE CARS WHICH ARE ASSIGNED FOR THE TRANSPORT OF MILITARY DETACHMENTS."
VYSHINSKY: CONTAMINATING WITH WHAT?
VYSHINSKY: WHAT BACTERIA?
KNYAZEV: HE TOLD ME THAT THEY WOULD PROVIDE THESE MEANS.
VYSHINSKY: BUT WHAT WERE THEY TO BE USED FOR?
KNYAZEV: TO CONTAMINATE THE TROOP CARS.
VYSHINSKY: TO INFECT THEM?
KNYAZEV: YES, TO INFECT THEM.
VYSHINSKY: THE TROOP TRAINS AND CANTEENS?
KNYAZEV: AND POINTS OF EMBARKATION.
VYSHINSKY: AND THEN FILL THOSE CARS WITH PEOPLE, INFECT THE PEOPLE, SO THAT THEY WILL GET SICK AND DIE?
VYSHINSKY: MR. X. PROPOSED THIS TO YOU?
VYSHINSKY: HE PROMISED TO PROVIDE THE BACTERIA AT THE PROPER TIME?
KNYAZEV: YES.... According to data in his possession, war between Japan and the USSR is inevitable....
VYSHINSKY: He prepared you and the whole Trotskyite espionage organization to help them?
KNYAZEV: Not only through me, he evidently had extensive connections.
VYSHINSKY: He had other connections besides you?
VYSHINSKY: And did he inform you of the purpose?
KNYAZEV: For the purpose of properly organizing forces for Trotskyite destructive activities.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 384-385
VYSHINSKY: YOU ADMITTED YESTERDAY THAT YOU RECEIVED 15,000 RUBLES THROUGH TUROK FROM THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE.
VYSHINSKY:... WERE YOU CONNECTED WITH THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE?
KNYAZEV: I WAS.
VYSHINSKY: The Japanese intelligence service paid its agents?
KNYAZEV: I do not know whether it paid its agents.
VYSHINSKY: Did it pay Turok?
KNYAZEV: It did not pay Turok personally, but it paid the Trotskyite organization.***
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 387
VYSHINSKY: WHEN MR. X. SAID TO YOU, "GIVE ME CERTAIN INFORMATION," AND THIS WAS INFORMATION OF AN ESPIONAGE NATURE, DID HE OFFER YOU MONEY?
KNYAZEV:... HE SAID TO ME: BEAR IN MIND THAT WE ARE GIVING A LOT OF ASSISTANCE TO THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION.
VYSHINSKY: HE SAID THAT?
VYSHINSKY: WHAT ASSISTANCE?
KNYAZEV: FINANCIAL, MATERIAL.... THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF PERSONAL MONEY MATTERS, BUT WHAT HE SAID TO ME WAS THAT THEY ARE HELPING THE TROTSKYITES A GREAT DEAL. I UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS MEANT PARTLY MATERIAL AID.
VYSHINSKY: AND PARTLY FINANCIAL AID?
KNYAZEV: QUITE RIGHT.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 390
KNYAZEV: I CONFIRM THAT WHEN I MET LIVSHITZ IN 1935 HE TOLD ME AT THE TIME THAT A SERIOUS TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION WAS IN EXISTENCE ON THE RAILWAYS. IN PARTICULAR HE MENTIONED MIRONOV, ZORIN AND MIRSKY.... IN THE SECOND PLACE, IN 1936, WHEN WE HAD OUR SECOND CONVERSATION HE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD LEARNED FROM THE PARALLEL CENTER THAT BETWEEN THOSE HIGHER UP IN THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION AND THE JAPANESE CONTACTS--THIS HAS BEEN DEFINITELY PROVED NOW--HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 392
KEY PARTS OF TUROK’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
ADMITS HE WORKED WITH THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES; SAYS KNYAZEV TOLD HIM HE HAD ESTABLISHED CONNECTIONS WITH THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE;
SAYS HE AND KNYAZEV WERE BOTH TROTS;
CONFIRMS WHAT KNYAZEV SAID ABOUT HIS CONNECTION WITH THE JAPANESE;
LIVSHITZ TOLD HIM TO NOT BREAK OFF HIS CONNECTION TO THE JAPANESE;
SAYS HE DREW KNYAZEV INTO SUBVERSION IN 1934 NOT 1930;
SAYS HE RECEIVED INSTRUCTIONS FROM MARYASIN TO PERFORM TROTSKYITE ANTI-SOVIET WRECKING WORK ON THE RAILWAYS; SAYS LIVSHITZ TOLD HIM WRECKING MUST DISRUPT THE TRAIN SCHEDULE, CAUSE ACCIDENTS, AND INVOLVE LOSS OF LIFE; SAYS ABOUT 40 TRAIN ACCIDENTS WERE CAUSED BY HIS TROT GROUP RESULTING IN DEATH;
ADMITS THE TROTS PREPARED TERRORIST ACTS AGAINST MOLOTOV AND KAGANOVICH;
ADMITS HE WORKED WITH JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE WHO GAVE HIM MONEY WHICH HE DISTRIBUTED TO TERRORISTS;
ADMITS HE CAUSED TRAIN ACCIDENTS IN WHICH PEOPLE DIED
VYSHINSKY: WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE CONNECTIONS WITH THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE?
TUROK: I HAD ESTABLISHED CONNECTIONS WITH THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE WHILE I WAS WORKING ON THE KAGANOVICH RAILWAY, formerly Perm Railway, in 1934. I had instructions which were agreed-upon with Maryasin, to whom I used to report on my Trotskyite activities.
VYSHINSKY: AND WHAT CONNECTIONS DID YOU HAVE WITH KNYAZEV?
TUROK: HE INFORMED ME THAT HE HAD ESTABLISHED CONNECTIONS WITH THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, and I informed him.
VYSHINSKY: Why did you have to tell other people of such secret matters?
TUROK: BECAUSE BOTH I AND HE WERE MEMBERS OF THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION and we were in close contact.
VYSHINSKY: Where were you working?
TUROK: AS ASSISTANT CHIEF OF THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT OF THE PERM RAILWAY.
VYSHINSKY: AND KNYAZEV?
TUROK: KNYAZEV WAS CHIEF OF THE SOUTH URALS RAILWAY.
VYSHINSKY: DO YOU CONFIRM WHAT KNYAZEV SAID ABOUT HIS CONNECTIONS WITH THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE?
TUROK: YES.... I WENT TO SEE LIVSHITZ ON SEPT. 15, 1935, AND HAD A TALK WITH HIM AND TOLD HIM THAT I WAS CONNECTED WITH THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE. LIVSHITZ REPLIED THAT THIS CONNECTION SHOULD NOT BE BROKEN OFF, but it should be maintained in the interest of the Trotskyite organization.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 345
VYSHINSKY: So up to 1930 you had waverings, and in 1934 you joined a group of Trotskyites under the influence of Turok?
VYSHINSKY:...ACCUSED TUROK, DO YOU CONFIRM KNYAZEV'S REFERENCE TO YOU AS THE MAN WHO DREW HIM INTO THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION?
TUROK: NO, AS REGARDS 1931 I DO NOT CONFIRM THIS; AS REGARDS 1934, I CONFIRM IT.***
VYSHINSKY: YOU DREW HIM IN?
TUROK: I DID.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 362
THE PRESIDENT: Accused Turok, when and by whom were you recruited for the Trotskyite anti-Soviet organization?
TUROK: In 1934, by the manager of the Urals Car Construction Works, Maryasin.
THE PRESIDENT: With what duties were you entrusted?
TUROK: To form an organization of Trotskyites and of other elements who might help in the struggle against the Party and the government, for the purpose of organizing destructive work on the Perm and Urals Railway.
THE PRESIDENT: WHAT WAS YOUR POSITION AT THE TIME?
TUROK: ASSISTANT MANAGER OF THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT.
THE PRESIDENT: FROM WHOM PERSONALLY DID YOU RECEIVE INSTRUCTIONS TO PERFORM TROTSKYITE ANTI-SOVIET WRECKING WORK ON THE RAILWAYS?
TUROK: FROM MARYASIN.... On September 15 LIVSHITZ CALLED ME INTO HIS OFFICE AND TOLD ME THAT WRECKING AND UNDERMINING WORK MUST NOW CONSIST OF DISRUPTING THE NEW TRAIN SCHEDULE. In addition to causing the railways to work badly, this would affect the wages of the workers and would discredit the leadership of Kaganovich....
THE PRESIDENT: DID LIVSHITZ GIVE YOU ANY CONCRETE INSTRUCTIONS TO ORGANIZE ACCIDENTS?
TUROK: YES. HE SAID THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING TO ORGANIZE TRAIN ACCIDENTS INVOLVING LOSS OF LIFE.
THE PRESIDENT: DID HE STRESS THIS?
THE PRESIDENT: Did you not inquire why loss of life should necessarily be involved?
TUROK: I did not inquire because I was told the same thing in greater detail by Maryasin, who gave as a reason that it was necessary in order to arouse resentment against the government.
THE PRESIDENT: After these instructions were given to Maryasin, Livshitz and Pyatakov, did the number of accidents caused by your organization increase on your railway?
TUROK: I CANNOT GIVE THE FIGURES JUST NOW, OF COURSE, BUT AT ANY RATE A NUMBER OF SERIOUS ACCIDENTS TO FREIGHT TRAINS AND ONE PASSENGER TRAIN WAS ORGANIZED BY US.
THE PRESIDENT: HOW MANY TRAIN ACCIDENTS WERE DELIBERATELY ORGANIZED BY MEMBERS OF YOUR TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION?
TUROK: I KNOW OF APPROXIMATELY 40.
THE PRESIDENT: During what period of time?
TUROK: From the end of 1934 to the day of my arrest.
THE PRESIDENT: WERE ANY LIVES LOST?
TUROK: YES, CHIEFLY AMONG THE CREWS OF THE FREIGHT TRAINS, BUT ALSO IN THE CASE OF THE PASSENGER TRAIN.
THE PRESIDENT: DID YOUR COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION ENGAGE IN PREPARATIONS FOR TERRORIST ACTS?
TUROK: YES. IN THE AUTUMN OF 1934 MOLOTOV WAS TO HAVE PASSED THROUGH SVERDLOVSK, AND BURLAKOV, A MEMBER OF THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION WHO WAS CONNECTED WITH MRACHKOVSKY, PERSONALLY PREPARED TO COMMIT A TERRORIST ACT AGAINST MOLOTOV, but it did not come off.
I LEARNED FROM BURLAKOV THAT HE HAD PREPARED TO COMMIT A TERRORIST ACT AGAINST KAGANOVICH TOO IN FEBRUARY 1936. He enlisted Mikhetko, who was a Japanese agent, as immediate executant of this terrorist act.
THE PRESIDENT: ...DO YOU CONFIRM YOUR TESTIMONY ABOUT YOUR CONNECTIONS WITH JAPANESE AGENTS....
TUROK: I DO.
THE PRESIDENT: HOW MUCH MONEY DID YOU RECEIVE FOR THE WORK YOU PERFORMED ON BEHALF OF THE JAPANESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE?
TUROK: IN FEBRUARY 1935 THEY BROUGHT ME 35,000 RUBLES....
THE PRESIDENT: How did you distribute this money?
TUROK: I GAVE 15,000 RUBLES TO KNYAZEV.... OF THE REMAINING MONEY, I GAVE 4000 RUBLES TO BURLAKOV FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF UNDERMINING WORK.
THE PRESIDENT: A TERRORIST?
TUROK: YES. I gave 4500 rubles to Alexin, 3000 rubles to Naumov, 1500 rubles to Meyerson and 1500 rubles to Bondarenko.
VYSHINSKY: YOU SPOKE OF A TRAIN ACCIDENT IN WHICH ONE PERSON WAS KILLED, FIVE SERIOUSLY INJURED, AND SLIGHTLY INJURED...?
VYSHINSKY: THIS WAS ON APRIL 26, 1936?
TUROK: YES.... BETWEEN THE SVERDLOVSK PASSENGER STATION AND THE SVERDLOVSK SORTING STATION.
VYSHINSKY: WAS IT ON YOUR INSTRUCTIONS?
TUROK: YES, IT WAS. It was carried out by Perrov, a sectional road maintenance chief, and Popov, road master.
VYSHINSKY: WAS THE ACCIDENT TO TRAIN NO. 756 ON THE STRETCH SVERDLOVSK PASSENGER STATION-- SVERDLOVSK SORTING STATION IN MARCH 1936, WHICH WAS ACCOMPANIED BY LOSS OF LIFE, ORGANIZED ON YOUR INSTRUCTIONS?
TUROK: YES, ON OUR INSTRUCTIONS.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 393-397
KEY PARTS OF RATAICHAK’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
ADMITS HE SCHIELDED A THIEF BECAUSE HE SHARED STOLEN MONEY WITH HIM;
ADMITS HE RECEIVED INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING WRECKING WORK, DIVERSIVE ACTS, AND ESPIONAGE THROUGH PUSHIN AND HRASCHE;
PUSHIN SAYS RATAICHAK WAS CONNECTED THROUGH HIM WITH AN ESPIONAGE ORGANIZATION AND HRASCHE;
SAYS RATAICHAK WAS CONNECTED THROUGH HIM WITH AGENTS OF GERMAN INTELLIGENCE;
ADMITS HE TRANSMITTED ESPIONAGE MATERIAL TO THE GERMAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE;
SAYS HE KNEW ABOUT TROTSKY’S TERRORIST LINE FROM PYATAKOV AND KNEW IT WAS DIRECTED AGAINST GOVT LEADERS;
ADMITS HE DID NOT LEAVE THE GROUP ASSOOCIATED WITH TERRORISM;
ADMITS HE DID NOT DISCLOSE ALL THE DEVILISH WORK;
ADMITS HE ARRANGED BREAKDOWNS AND A DIVERSION AND WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 3 DEATHS;
ADMITS HE ORGANIZED AN EXPLOSION THAT KILLED 2 PEOPLE;
ADMITS ORDERING 2 DIVERSIVE ACTS AND BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKERS DYING WHEN A WALL CAVED IN ON RESCUERS;
SAYS THE FIRST PERSON HE DREW INTO THE TROT GROUP WAS PUSHIN WHO WAS A CONCEALED TROT;
SAYS HE PLANNED FOR PUSHIN TO DO DIVERSIVE WORK IN THE GORLOVKA WORKS;
SAYS PUSHIN TOLD HIM TWICE THAT HE HAD COMMITTED DIVERSIVE ACTS;
SAYS KOZINITSKY, YUSHKEVICH, GOLOVANOV AND TODORSKY. WERE DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH HIM IN WRECKING AND DIVERSION;
VYSHINSKY: Why did you, the assistant chairman of the Provincial Council of National Economy, keep in your employment a svindler who was stealing government property?
RATAICHAK: (Remains silent.)
VYSHINSKY: THAT IS, YOU CONFIRM THAT YOU SHIELDED THE CRIMINAL OFFENSES OF KRAPIVSKY WHILE YOU WERE ASSISTANT CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL OF NATIONAL ECONOMY BECAUSE HE SHARED THE STOLEN MONEY WITH YOU. IS THAT RIGHT?
RATAICHAK: PERHAPS IT IS NOT QUITE EXACT, BUT ON THE WHOLE, THAT IS THE SENSE OF IT.
VYSHINSKY: ...Perhaps we had better proceed by questioning. Did you join the Trotskyite organization?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 406-407
RATAICHAK: I did.
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU RECEIVE INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING WRECKING WORK?
RATAICHAK: I DID.
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU RECEIVE INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING DIVERSIVE ACTS?
RATAICHAK: I DID.
VYSHINSKY: WERE YOU CONNECTED WITH ESPIONAGE?
RATAICHAK: I WAS.
VYSHINSKY: THROUGH WHOM?
RATAICHAK: THROUGH PUSHIN AND HRASCHE.
VYSHINSKY (to Pushin): ACCUSED PUSHIN, IS IT CORRECT THAT RATAICHAK WAS CONNECTED THROUGH YOU WITH ESPIONAGE ORGANIZATION?
PUSHIN: THROUGH ME, AND ALSO DIRECTLY.
VYSHINSKY: ACCUSED HRASCHE, WAS HE CONNECTED THROUGH YOU WITH AGENTS OF THE GERMAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE?
HRASCHE: YES, HE WAS CONNECTED WITH AGENTS OF THE GERMAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE.
VYSHINSKY: AND WERE YOU CONNECTED WITH THEM?
VYSHINSKY: AS AN AGENT?
VYSHINSKY: WHAT DID THAT CONSIST IN?
HRASCHE: IN TRANSMITTING MATERIALS, SECRET INFORMATION REGARDING THE WORK OF THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY.
VYSHINSKY: WAS THIS KNOWN TO RATAICHAK?
HRASCHE: YES, HE WAS MY CHIEF.
VYSHINSKY (to Rataichak): CONSEQUENTLY, YOU TRANSMITTED TO THE GERMAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ESPIONAGE MATERIAL WHICH YOU POSSESSED BY VIRTUE OF YOUR OFFICE?
RATAICHAK: YES, I WAS THE CHIEF OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE BASIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY.
VYSHINSKY: Were there wrecking activities?
VYSHINSKY: Were their diversive acts?
VYSHINSKY: Was their espionage?
VYSHINSKY: Did you take part in terrorist organizations?
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU KNOW ABOUT TERRORIST ORGANIZATION?
RATAICHAK: I KNEW ABOUT TROTSKY'S LINE FROM PYATAKOV.
VYSHINSKY: DID PYATAKOV TELL YOU THAT HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE TERRORIST ORGANIZATION, DID HE INFORM YOU OF TROTSKY'S DIRECTIVES, INCLUDING THE DIRECTIVE ABOUT TERRORISM?
RATAICHAK: HE DID.
VYSHINSKY: TERRORISM AGAINST WHOM?
RATAICHAK: AGAINST THE LEADERS OF THE PARTY AND THE GOVERNMENT.
VYSHINSKY: THAT IS, YOU KNEW THAT YOUR ORGANIZATION WAS MAKING PREPARATIONS TO COMMIT TERRORIST ACTS AGAINST THE LEADERS OF THE PARTY AND THE LEADERS OF THE GOVERNMENT? DID YOU KNOW IT?
RATAICHAK: I DID.
VYSHINSKY: And what was your attitude towards terrorism?
RATAICHAK: I did not agree with it.***
VYSHINSKY: Why did you not agree with it?
RATAICHAK: (Remains silent.)
VYSHINSKY: WHAT DID NOT PLEASE YOU? WRECKING PLEASED YOU, DIVERSIVE ACTS PLEASED YOU, ESPIONAGE PLEASED YOU? WHY DID TERRORISM NOT PLEASE YOU, WHY DID YOU NOT AGREE WITH IT?
RATAICHAK: ALL THE THINGS YOU HAVE ENUMERATED ARE VILE.
VYSHINSKY: ALL ARE VILE. BUT AT ANY RATE YOU DID NOT DISASSOCIATE YOURSELF FROM THE GROUP WHICH WAS ENGAGED IN TERRORISM, YOU DID NOT LEAVE IT?
VYSHINSKY: Did you ever attempt to inform anybody of these abominable things?
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU EVER ATTEMPT TO DISCLOSE ALL THIS TREACHEROUS, DEVILISH WORK?
RATAICHAK: IF I HAD DISCLOSED IT, I WOULD NOT BE SITTING HERE IN THE DOCK....
VYSHINSKY: WHAT DID YOUR DIVERSIVE WORK CONSIST IN?
RATAICHAK: IN ACCORDANCE WITH MY INSTRUCTIONS, TRANSMITTED THROUGH PUSHIN, THREE BREAKDOWNS WERE ARRANGED, ONE DIVERSIVE ACT AT THE GORLOVKA WORKS AND TWO OTHER BREAKDOWNS-- one at the Nevsky Works and the other at the Voskressensk Combined Chemical Works.
VYSHINSKY: Let us take the Gorlovka Works. What was this breakdown?
RATAICHAK: Owing to this breakdown certain of the installations were put out of action.
VYSHINSKY: Was there a breakdown at the Gorlovka Works?
RATAICHAK: There was.
RATAICHAK: An explosion. The department and the works as a whole were put out of action for several days. THREE WORKERS LOST THEIR LIVES.
VYSHINSKY: DO YOU KNOW THEIR NAMES?
RATAICHAK: I HAVE FORGOTTEN THEM.
VYSHINSKY: I WILL REMIND YOU: KURKIN, 20 YEARS OLD; MOSTETZ; STRELNIKOVA, 22 YEARS OLD. WHO MURDERED THEM?
RATAICHAK: WE DID.
VYSHINSKY: You--the CHIEF OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY?
RATAICHAK (remains That silent.)
VYSHINSKY: When was the second case?
RATAICHAK: The second case did not involve loss of life. It was the collapse of a reserve gas line. The plant worked very unevenly for several days.
VYSHINSKY: What was the third case?
RATAICHAK: THE THIRD CASE WAS IN NOVEMBER 1934; IT WAS AN EXPLOSION IN ONE OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF THE AIR CHAMBERS, AS A RESULT OF WHICH ONE OF THE CHAMBERS WAS PUT OUT OF ACTION.
VYSHINSKY: THIS WAS ON THE LINDE INSTALLATIONS?
VYSHINSKY: DID YOU ORGANIZE IT?
RATAICHAK: IT WAS ORGANIZED ON MY INSTRUCTIONS.
VYSHINSKY: WAS ANYBODY KILLED?
RATAICHAK: TWO WORKERS, I THINK.
VYSHINSKY: YOU DO NOT REMEMBER? I REMIND YOU: LUNEV, ONE OF THE BEST APPARATUS-TENDERS IN THE DEPARTMENT; YUDIN, 26 YEARS OLD, STUDENT IN HIS LAST YEAR AT THE TOMSK POLYTECHNICAL IF INSTITUTE.... DO YOU REMEMBER?
RATAICHAK: THAT IS SO.
VYSHINSKY: WAS THE DIVERSIVE ACT AT THE VOSKRESSENSK COMBINED CHEMICAL WORKS PERFORMED ON YOUR INSTRUCTIONS?
VYSHINSKY: Was there any loss of life?
VYSHINSKY: What about the 17 workers killed and 15 injured?
RATAICHAK:...I WAS REFERRING TO THE DIVERSIVE ACT WHICH TOOK PLACE IN APRIL-MAY, 1934, WHEN ONE OF THE ACID DEPARTMENTS WAS PUT OUT OF ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH MY INSTRUCTIONS.
VYSHINSKY: THAT IS, THERE WERE TWO DIVERSIVE ACTS: ONE ON YOUR INSTRUCTIONS TO PUT ONE OF THE DEPARTMENTS OUT OF ORDER; AND THE OTHER THE FIRE ON THE NIGHT OF AUGUST 1, 1936?
VYSHINSKY:... DID YOU DEMAND THAT CLEARANCE WORK SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY PROCEEDED WITH, ALTHOUGH IT INVOLVED EXTREME DANGER TO HUMAN LIFE?
RATAICHAK: YES, I DID.
VYSHINSKY: DO YOU KNOW THAT ON YOUR DEMAND THE WORKERS UNDERTOOK THE CLEARANCE WORK?
RATAICHAK: I DO.
VYSHINSKY: DO YOU KNOW THAT THE WALL CAVED IN?
RATAICHAK: I DO, I WAS ON THE SPOT MYSELF.
VYSHINSKY: AND THAT 17 WORKERS WERE KILLED?
RATAICHAK: THAT IS SO.
VYSHINSKY: AND THAT 15 WERE INJURED?
RATAICHAK: THAT IS SO.
VYSHINSKY: IS THAT A FACT?
RATAICHAK: YES, IT IS.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 408-412
KOMMODOV (to Rataichak): Please tell us exactly when you entered the Trotskyite organization?
RATAICHAK: Early in 1934.
KOMMODOV: WHOM DID YOU PERSONALLY DRAW INTO THIS ORGANIZATION?
RATAICHAK: THE FIRST PERSON WHOM I DREW INTO THE WORK OF THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION WAS PUSHIN, then Karnissky.... Pushin's state of mind and his conduct became perfectly clear to me as far back as 1929. This was revealed during one of the Party purges, when Pushin was expelled from the Party.... I was one of those who petitioned the commission for Pushin's reinstatement in the Party. Pushin was reinstated after a certain time.
...I discovered that Pushin, to put it mildly, had extremely little in common with the Party. And in 1933 when I began working with Pushin in the head office, I was sure that Pushin was a concealed Trotskyite;... He gave his consent to participate in the Trotskyite organization, since he fully shared the views of the Trotskyites.
KOMMODOV: BUT WHAT FIELD OF WRECKING OR DIVERSIVE ACTIVITY DID YOU PLAN FOR PUSHIN?
RATAICHAK: PUSHIN WAS ASSIGNED A FIELD WITH WHICH HE WAS VERY WELL ACQUAINTED, BEING AN EXPERT IN THIS MATTER--NAMELY THE GORLOVKA WORKS, of which HE WAS THE CHIEF ENGINEER, CHIEF OF CONSTRUCTION....
KOMMODOV: Now those acts were committed at the Gorlovka Works, and you were kept posted on those acts, you personally?
RATAICHAK: I was informed after the commission of each act, because I received the official findings of the case and knew that these acts were the result of Pushin's work.... I did not give Pushin instructions in each particular case to commit a specific act. I have pointed out that early in 1934 AFTER THE COMMISSION OF THESE ACTS PUSHIN TWICE INFORMED ME THAT THE ACT HAD BEEN COMMITTED BY HIM AND HIS ASSOCIATES.
KOMMODOV: Was it you who selected and appointed the members of the commission which went to Gorlovka to investigate the last diversive act?
KOMMODOV: And who did?
RATAICHAK: My assistant.
KOMMODOV: Do you recall who were members of the commission?
RATAICHAK: I remember that the commission included Yushkevich, Golovanov, Pushin.
KOMMODOV: Was Yushkevich in the organization?
KOMMODOV: Was Golovanov a member of the organization?
KOMMODOV: Was Pushin a member of the organization?
KOMMODOV: Who was your assistant?
KOMMODOV: So Yushkevich selected the members of this commission?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 416-418
VYSHINSKY: I have a question to put to Rataichak. WHO WAS DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH YOU IN THE MATTER OF WRECKING AND DIVERSIVE ACTIVITIES?
RATAICHAK: KOZINITSKY, YUSHKEVICH, GOLOVANOV, TODORSKY.
VYSHINSKY: What post did Kozinitsky hold?
RATAICHAK: He was chief engineer superintending construction work.
VYSHINSKY: And Todorsky? Where did he work?
RATAICHAK: As one of my assistants.... In the Central Administration.
VYSHINSKY: Did you know Lenz?
RATAICHAK: I knew Lenz as an installation mechanic of one of the foreign firms, as a member of a wrecking organization connected with the German intelligence service.
VYSHINSKY: Whom else did you know?
RATAICHAK: I knew also-- Meyerowitz.
VYSHINSKY: Was he also an agent of the German intelligence service?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 420
KEY PARTS OF HRASCHE’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
SAYS HE CAME IN CONTACT WITH TROTSKISM AS A RESULT OF HIS WRECKING AND ESPIONAGE ACTS AS A GERMAN AGENT;
ADMITS HE WAS IN ESPIONAGE AND A SPY FOR THE GERMANS AND CZECHS AS EARLY AS 1921;
SAYS HE INSTALLED A GERMAN INTELLIGENCE AGENT TO GATHER ESPIONAGE INFO FOR DIVERSIONS AND HANDED OVER MATERIALHE RECEIVED FROM GERMAN SPIES;
ADMITS HE WAS A GERMAN INTELLIGENCE AGENT FOR MONEY
VYSHINSKY: TELL THE COURT ABOUT YOUR TROTSKYISM.
HRASCHE: I HAVE NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH TROTSKYISM.***
VYSHINSKY: NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT?
HRASCHE: I CAME IN CONTACT WITH IT ON THE BASIS OF MY ESPIONAGE AND WRECKING ACTIVITIES.
VYSHINSKY: AH, I SEE! FROM ESPIONAGE TO TROTSKYISM, THEN, AND NOT THE OTHER WAY ABOUT. IN THAT CASE IT WILL BE BETTER FOR YOU TO TELL THE COURT HOW YOU BECAME AN AGENT OF THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE.... OF WHAT INTELLIGENCE SERVICE WERE YOU AN AGENT?
HRASCHE: OF THE GERMAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE.
VYSHINSKY: SO THAT IT! IN WHAT YEAR?
HRASCHE: THAT WAS IN 1932.
VYSHINSKY: WHEN YOU STARTED WORK IN THE PEOPLE'S COMMISSARIAT OF EDUCATION, WERE YOU ALREADY CONNECTED WITH AN ESPIONAGE ORGANIZATION?
VYSHINSKY: WHEN YOU STARTED WORK IN THE COMINTERN [A TRANSLATOR FROM MAY 1921 TO MAY 1922], WERE YOU ALREADY CONNECTED WITH AN ESPIONAGE ORGANIZATION?
VYSHINSKY: AND HERE YOU SAY THAT YOU DID NOT BECOME AN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE AGENT UNTIL 1932. I ASK YOU POINT-BLANK: DID YOU COME TO THE USSR IN 1920 FOR THE PURPOSE OF SPYING?
HRASCHE: YES, QUITE RIGHT.
VYSHINSKY:... IN WHAT YEAR DID YOU FINALLY BECOME CONNECTED WITH THE GERMAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE?
HRASCHE: WITH THE GERMAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE I BECAME CONNECTED IN 1932.
VYSHINSKY: AND BEFORE THAT, WITH WHAT INTELLIGENCE SERVICE WERE YOU CONNECTED?
HRASCHE: BEFORE THAT--WITH THE CZECHOSLOVAKIAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE.
VYSHINSKY: SO WHAT IS YOUR BASIC PROFESSION?
HRASCHE: IT WOULD SEEM THAT NO ANSWER IS REQUIRED.... A SPY.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 427-428
HRASCHE: I HAVE ALSO RECOGNIZED THE INSTALLATION MECHANIC OF THE LINDE FIRM--LENZ.
VYSHINSKY: WHAT KIND OF PERSON IS HE?
HRASCHE: HE IS ALSO AN AGENT OF THE GERMAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE.
VYSHINSKY: WERE YOU CONNECTED WITH HIM?
HRASCHE: YES, I GOT HIM WORK AT THE KOMSOMOLETZ PLANT IN TAMBOV.... I GOT HIM WORK THERE AT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF MEYEROWITZ, AS ONE OF THE AGENTS OF THE GERMAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE FOR GATHERING ESPIONAGE INFORMATION AND FOR DIVERSIVE ACTIVITIES.... I HANDED OVER THE MATERIAL WHICH I RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS GERMAN SPIES WORKING IN THE FACTORIES IN THE GUISE OF FOREIGN SPECIALISTS.
VYSHINSKY: Were you and Rataichak connected as Trotskyites or as intelligence service agents?
HRASCHE: I WAS CONNECTED AS AN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE AGENT.... I SUPPOSE THAT MATERIAL INTEREST, MONEY INTEREST WAS THE MAIN THING HERE.
VYSHINSKY: Why, did you receive money for this?
HRASCHE: Yes, I received it from Meyerowitz. Once I received 300 marks from him. He assured me that he had sent another 500 marks to an address agreed upon.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 429-430
KEY PARTS OF PUSHIN’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
PLEADS GUILTY TO WRECKING AND HANDING OVER 3 SECRET DOCUMENTS TO GERMAN SPY;
SAYS HE RECRUITED TAMM FOR UNDERMINING WORK;
ADMITS HE COMMITTED AN ACT OF DIVERSION AT THE GORLOVKA WORKS;
SAYS HE CONFESSED TO HIS CRIMES BY HIS OWN WRITTEN STATEMENT RATHER THAN UNDER INTERROGATION;
ADMITS HE WAS AN INFORMER FOR GERMAN INTELLIGENCE;
ADMITS HE CARRIED ON ESPIONAGE AND DIVERSION;
SAYS HE RECRUITED 2 MEN FOR WRECKING WORK
VYSHINSKY (to Pushin): WHAT DO YOU PLEAD GUILTY TO?
PUSHIN: I PLEAD GUILTY TO the fact that having been recruited for the counter-revolutionary, Trotskyite organization by Rataichak in the beginning of 1934, I remained a member of this organization until my arrest; that on the instructions of Rataichak I committed three acts of diversion at the Gorlovka Works, TOOK PART IN THE WRECKING WORK THAT WAS CARRIED ON IN CONNECTION WITH FACTORY DESIGNING, AND LASTLY, THAT, ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE SAME RATAICHAK, I HANDED TO THE GERMAN SPY, LENZ, THREE SECRET DOCUMENTS. THIS BRIEFLY, SO TO SPEAK, IN THE BRIEFEST POSSIBLE TERMS, IS WHAT I PLEAD GUILTY TO.
VYSHINSKY: And to the fact that you also recruited various persons for the Trotskyite organization? WHICH OF THE PERSONS YOU RECRUITED FOR UNDERMINING WORK CAN YOU NAME?
PUSHIN: THE TECHNICAL DIRECTOR OF THE GORLOVKA CHEMICAL WORKS, ENGINEER TAMM.
KOMMODOV: I have a question to put to Pushin. WHEN DID YOU COMMIT THE ACT OF DIVERSION AT THE GORLOVKA WORKS?
PUSHIN: IN NOVEMBER 1935.
KOMMODOV: When were you arrested?
PUSHIN: I was arrested on Oct. 22nd, and from the very first moment I was brought up from my cell for interrogation I confessed.
KOMMODOV: DID YOU CONFESS UNDER INTERROGATION, OR DID YOU WRITE YOUR OWN STATEMENT?
PUSHIN: BEFORE ANY EVIDENCE OR QUESTIONS WERE PUT TO ME I ASKED FOR PAPER AND PEN AND WROTE A STATEMENT TO THE PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS, YEZHOV, IN WHICH I CONFESSED ALL MY CRIMES.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court certifies that there is in the records in Pushin's own handwriting a statement addressed to Yezhov and dated October 22nd, 1936, in which Pushin says the following: "Being arrested on the night of October 22nd, 1936, I consider it my duty immediately, without pondering long over the matter, to tell about the counter-revolutionary organization in the chemical industry into which I was drawn, to tell about its criminal activities, and about the part I took in them. By my confession and sincere repentance I hope to expiate the crime I committed against the party and against my country."
VYSHINSKY (to Pushin): ...HOW LONG DID YOU YOU CARRY OUT THE FUNCTIONS OF INFORMER FOR THE GERMAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE?
PUSHIN: I WAS IN FORMER FOR THE GERMAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE DURING THE FIRST PART OF 1935 TO THE MIDDLE OF 1935.
VYSHINSKY: WHEN DID YOU CARRY ON YOUR DIVERSIVE ACTIVITIES?
PUSHIN: THERE WERE THREE ACTS OF DIVERSION....
VYSHINSKY: AT THAT TIME YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE PARTY?
VYSHINSKY: AND WHEN DID YOU ENGAGE IN ESPIONAGE WORK?
PUSHIN: UP TO THE MIDDLE OF 1935.
VYSHINSKY: What stopped you?
PUSHIN: I had no practical instructions, as the person with whom I was connected, Lenz, had gone.
VYSHINSKY: Hence, you ceased your activities not because of remorse but because no practical proposals were made you?
PUSHIN: ...I can point to one objective fact. In April 1936 I arrived at the Kamensky Works where, as I said at the beginning, I HAD RECRUITED TWO MEN.
VYSHINSKY: WHAT FOR?
PUSHIN: FOR WRECKING WORK.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 435-438
KEY PARTS OF TAMM’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
SAYS PUSHIN DEFINITELY INVITED HIM TO ENGAGE IN DIVERSIVE ACTIVITIES AND HE CONSENTED;
SAYS PUSHIN ADHERED TO THE DIVERSIONIST POSITION THROUGHOUT 1935 UNDER HIS DIRECTIONS AND THE ACTS WERE CARRIED OUT BY ASSINOVSKY, KHALEZOV, DRATCH, KRUSCHELNITSKY;
VYSHINSKY: In what connection did Pushin start to tell you about his crimes?
TAMM: Pushin and I had had a number of anti-Soviet talks.
VYSHINSKY: Was he a member of the party?
VYSHINSKY: And were you?
TAMM: I was non-Party
TAMM:...in February 1934, I went to see him at the Central Administration of the Chemical Industry on business connected with my plant, and there HE DEFINITELY INVITED ME TO ENGAGE IN DIVERSIVE ACTIVITIES. I CONSENTED.
VYSHINSKY: Did he give you any commissions to carry out?
TAMM: Yes....In 1935 he gave me another commission to carry out.
VYSHINSKY: Which you also succeeded in carrying out?
VYSHINSKY: What do you think: can we take it that PUSHIN ADHERED TO THE DIVERSIONIST POSITION DURING THE WHOLE OF 1935?
TAMM: I THINK WE CAN.
VYSHINSKY: THE ACTS OF DIVERSION ON PUSHIN'S INSTRUCTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT UNDER YOUR PERSONAL DIRECTION?
VYSHINSKY: WHO CARRIED THEM OUT?
TAMM: THEY WERE CARRIED OUT BY ASSINOVSKY, KHALEZOV, DRATCH, KRUSCHELNITSKY.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 440-442
KEY PARTS OF EXPERT WITNESS MONOSOVICH’S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
SAYS AN EXPLOSION IN GORLOVKA NITROGEN FERTILIZER WORKS WAS DEFINITELY CAUSED BY MALICIOUS INTENT
"Answers of the Expert Witness Monosovich to the Questions Submitted by Comrade Vyshinsky....
VYSHINSKY: In connection with the Explosion which occurred on Nov. 11, 1935, in the Hydrogen Department of the Gorlovka Nitrogen Fertilizer Works. WAS THE EXPLOSION DUE TO ACCIDENT OR TO MALICIOUS INTENT?
MONOSOVICH:... IN THE PRESENT CASE, WHEN THE REGULATIONS WERE ABSOLUTELY IGNORED AND EVERY CONDITION FAVORING AN EXPLOSION WAS THUS CREATED, IT CANNOT BE CALLED AN ACCIDENT. THAT THERE WAS MALICIOUS INTENT IS BEYOND DISPUTE.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 446
On the evening of January 27, at the close of the public session, a session of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court was held in camera.
The accused Pyatakov, Sokolnikov and Radek were examined as to their connections with official representatives of foreign states and the negotiations with representatives of these states which they conducted in conformity with Trotsky's line to expedite war against the USSR and to help foreign states to inflict defeat upon the USSR and dismember its territory. The examination of the accused Radek and Sokolnikov and also the documents appertaining to the matter submitted to them, established the identity and official positions of the representatives of the foreign states with whom Radek and Sokolnikov had conducted negotiations.
The examination of Rataichak, Knyazev, Turok, Hrasche, Shestov, and Stroilov established their definite connections with the agents of foreign intelligence services in the espionage and undermining activities in which they engaged in the USSR on the instructions of these intelligence services as well as on the instructions of the anti-Soviet, Trotskyite center--in pursuance of Trotsky's line.
SPEECH FOR THE PROSECUTION
This trial sums up the struggle waged against the Soviet state and the Party by these people, who started it long before the present time, started it during the life of our great teacher and organizer of the Soviet state, Lenin. WHILE LENIN WAS ALIVE THESE PEOPLE FOUGHT AGAINST LENIN; AND AFTER HIS DEATH THEY FOUGHT AGAINST HIS GREAT DISCIPLE, THAT LOYAL GUARDIAN OF LENIN'S BEHEST AND THE CONTINUATOR OF HIS CAUSE--STALIN.
This trial has revealed and proved the stupid obstinacy, the reptile cold-bloodedness, the cool calculation of professional criminals with which the Trotskyite bandits have been waging their struggle against the USSR. They stuck at nothing--neither wrecking, nor diversions, nor espionage, nor terrorism, nor treason to their country.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 460
This trial, at which the accused themselves have confessed their guilt; this trial at which side-by-side with the leaders of the so-called parallel Trotskyite center--the accused Pyatakov, Sokolnikov, Radek and Serebryakov, sit in the same dock prominent Trotskyites like Muralov, Drobnis, Boguslavsky and Livshitz; where side-by-side with these Trotskyites sit mere spies and secret service agents like Rataichak, Shestov, Stroilov and Hrasche--this trial has shown to what depths these people have sunk, in what an abyss counter-revolutionary Trotskyism, which long ago became transformed into the advanced and most vicious unit of international fascism, has become completely submerged.
This trial... has once again revealed the face of real, genuine Trotskyism--this old enemy of the workers and peasants, this old enemy of socialism, loyal servant of capitalism.
...this trial has reminded and shown us all the main stages of the historical path traversed by the Trotskyites and Trotskyism, which spent more than 30 years of its existence on preparing for ITS FINAL CONVERSION INTO A STORM DETACHMENT OF FASCISM, INTO ONE OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF THE FASCIST POLICE.
The accused themselves have told us whom they served. But this was told us still more eloquently by their deeds, by their sordid, sanguinary criminal deeds.
Many years ago our Party, the working-class, our whole people, rejected the Trotskyite-Zinovievite platform as an anti-Soviet, anti-socialist platform. Our people banished Trotsky from our country; his accomplices were expelled from the ranks of the Party as traitors to the cause of the working-class and socialism. Trotsky & Zinoviev were routed, but they did not subside; they did not lay down their arms.
The Trotskyites went underground, they donned the mask of repentance and pretended that they had disarmed. Obeying the instructions of Trotsky, Pyatakov and the other leaders of this gang of criminals, pursuing a policy of duplicity, camouflaging themselves, they again penetrated into the Party, again penetrated into Soviet offices, here and there they even managed to creep into responsible positions of state, concealing for a time, as has now been established beyond a shadow of doubt, their old Trotskyite, anti-Soviet wares in their secret apartments, together with arms, codes, passwords, connections, and cadres.
Beginning with the formation of an anti-Party faction, passing to sharper and sharper methods of struggle against the Party, becoming, after their expulsion from the Party, the principal mouthpiece of all anti-Soviet groups and trends, THEY BECAME TRANSFORMED INTO THE VANGUARD OF THE FASCISTS OPERATING ON THE DIRECT INSTRUCTIONS OF FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES.
The connections the Trotskyites had established with the Gestapo and the fascists were exposed by the trial of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite center last year. The present trial has gone even further in this respect. It has provided exceptionally convincing material which has once again confirmed the existence of these connections and has brought it out more definitely; it has fully confirmed and definitely brought out, by due process of law and in its fullest scope, THE TREACHEROUS ROLE OF TROTSKYISM, WHICH HAS UTTERLY AND UNRESERVEDLY PASSED INTO THE CAMP OF THE ENEMY, WHICH HAS BECOME TRANSFORMED INTO ONE OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF THE "SS" AND THE GESTAPO.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 463
The intensified resistance of the classes hostile to the proletarian dictatorship encouraged the Trotskyite-Zinovievite gang; moreover, it was inspired and instigated to commit crimes against the USSR by the capitalist system which still exists and encircles the USSR.
... It is well known that the interventionists prepare to strike their blow against the Soviet Union every year. THE FRAGMENTS OF THE COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY TROTSKYITE-ZINOVIEVITE GROUP KNEW THAT SIDE-BY-SIDE WITH THEM WERE OPERATING OTHER CHAMPIONS OF THE RESTORATION OF CAPITALISM, OTHER DETACHMENTS OF CAPITALIST AGENTS IN OUR COUNTRY: THE "INDUSTRIAL PARTY," KONDRATYEV'S "TOILING PEASANTS' PARTY," A KULAK PARTY, THE "UNION BUREAU OF THE MENSHEVIKS," the activities of which were examined by the Supreme Court--all these organizations exposed as organizations of wreckers and groups of diversionists who welcomed Trotsky's struggle against our Party, against the Soviet government, knowing that in the Trotskyites they really had champions of the overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat like themselves, only more cynical and more insolent.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 465
It is not an accident that the Trotskyites are playing this role of vanguard of the anti-Soviet fascist forces. The dissent of Trotskyism into the anti-Soviet underworld, its conversion into a fascist agency, is merely the culmination of its historical development.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 466
Comrade Stalin's forecast has fully come true. Trotskyism has indeed become the central rallying point of all the forces hostile to socialism, the gang of mere bandits, spies and murderers who placed themselves entirely at the disposal of foreign secret services, became finally and irrevocably transformed into lackeys of capitalism, into restorers of capitalism in our country.
Things were already moving towards this when TROTSKY, AS WAS THE CASE IN 1922, PROPOSED THAT OUR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES, OUR TRUSTS, BE PERMITTED TO MORTGAGE OUR PROPERTY, INCLUDING OUR BASIC CAPITAL, TO PRIVATE CAPITALISTS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN CREDITS, WHICH THE SOVIET STATE REALLY NEEDED AT THAT TIME.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 468
The repudiation of the socialist character of our revolution, the repudiation of the possibility of building socialism in our country, determined and predetermined the hostile attitude of the Trotskyites towards the cause of socialist construction in the USSR.
This, however, did not prevent the Trotskyites from masking themselves with the name of socialism, anymore than it has prevented many enemies of socialism from masking themselves with this name today.
This has always happened in history. We know that the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, these most bitter enemies of socialism, always masked themselves with the name of socialism. But this did not prevent them from grovelling at the feet of the capitalists, the landlords and the White generals. We remember how the Mensheviks in Petlura's "Rada" government invited the troops of Wilhelm II to the Ukraine, how they traded in the liberty and honor of the Ukrainian people;
How under the sign board of Tchaikovsky's socialist-Revolutionary government, the interventionists were operating in Archangel;
How the so-called "socialist" "government of the Committee of the Constituent Assembly" led to the rule of Kolchak;
How the Menshevik government of North Jordania faithfully served the foreign interventionists!
All these gentlemen called themselves socialist, they all masked themselves with the name of socialism; but we all know that there have never been more consistent, more cruel and brutal enemies of socialism than the Mensheviks and "Socialist-Revolutionaries."
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 470
The "Opposition Bloc," the so-called "New Opposition" headed by Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev, and assisted by nearly all the accused sitting in the dock here--Pyatakov, Radek, Serebryakov, Sokolnikov, Muralov, Drobnis, Boguslavsky--at that time tried to take advantage of these difficulties to make another attempt to stab the Soviet state in the back and as violently as possible.
...THE TROTSKYITE-ZINOVIEVITE GANG IN 1926-27 put for proposals which, if adopted, would have undermined and broken the alliance between the workers and the peasants, would have undermined the foundation of the Soviet state. They PUT FORWARD SUCH PROPOSALS AS INCREASING THE PRESSURE ON THE PEASANTRY, AS INSURING "PRIMITIVE SOCIALIST ACCUMULATION" BY RUINING AND ROBBING THE PEASANTRY; THEY ADVANCED A NUMBER OF DEMANDS WHICH IT CONCEDED WOULD HAVE BROKEN THE BOND BETWEEN TOWN AND COUNTRY AND THEREBY WOULD HAVE MADE REAL INDUSTRIALIZATION UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 471
Comrade Judges, when today we hear in Court, in the testimony of the ringleaders of this gang, of the ringleaders of the Trotskyite underground organization, when we hear confessions that they really did receive from Trotsky directives for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR, that they accepted this line, and that, in carrying it out, they conducted wrecking, diversive, and espionage work, A QUESTION MAY ARISE WHICH, INDEED, SOME PEOPLE HAVE ACTUALLY RAISED, NAMELY: HOW CAN THESE PEOPLE WHO FOUGHT FOR SOCIALISM FOR SO MANY YEARS, PEOPLE WHO BLASPHEMOUSLY CALLED THEMSELVES BOLSHEVIK LENINISTS, BE ACCUSED OF THESE MONSTROUS CRIMES? DOES IT NOT PROVE THAT THE ACCUSATION IS UNFOUNDED, THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE BEING ACCUSED OF CRIMES THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY BE ACCUSED OF BECAUSE OF THE VERY NATURE OF THEIR PAST SOCIALIST, REVOLUTIONARY, BOLSHEVIK ACTIVITIES?
I WILL REPLY TO THIS QUESTION.... WE ACCUSE THESE GENTLEMEN OF HAVING BETRAYED SOCIALISM. AND WE SUPPORT THIS CHARGE NOT ONLY WITH EVIDENCE OF WHAT THEY COMMITTED TODAY--THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE INDICTMENT--BUT WE SAY THAT THE HISTORY OF THEIR FALL BEGAN LONG BEFORE THEY ORGANIZED THE SO-CALLED "PARALLEL" CENTER, THIS OFFSHOOT OF THE CRIMINAL TROTSKYITE-ZINOVIEVITE UNITED BLOC. ORGANIC CONNECTION IS PROVED. HISTORICAL CONNECTION IS PROVED....
FROM THE PLATFORM 1926, FROM ANTI-SOVIET STREET DEMONSTRATIONS, FROM ILLEGAL PRINTING PLANTS, FROM ALLIANCE WITH WHITE-GUARD OFFICERS TO WHICH THEY TOO RESORTED AT THAT TIME, TO DIVERSION, ESPIONAGE, TERRORISM, AND TREASON IN 1932-36, THERE IS ONLY ONE STEP. AND THIS STEP THEY TOOK!
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 472
PYATAKOV, RADEK, SOKOLNIKOV, SEREBRYAKOV, DROBNIS, MURALOV, LIVSHITZ, BOGUSLAVSKY, SHESTOV--HAVE ALL, FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, FOUGHT AGAINST THE CAUSE OF SOCIALISM, AGAINST THE CAUSE OF LENIN AND STALIN.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 473
...Take Rataichak. Whether he is a German or a Polish spy is not clear, but that he is a spy there cannot be any doubt!; and as is appropriate to his profession, a liar, a swindler and a rascal.... He is Chief of the Central Administration of the Chemical Industry....
... Even if Pyatakov had committed no other crimes, the mere fact that he allowed this man to come within a kilometer of the chemical industry would be sufficient to earn him the severest punishment.
... Rataichak, this super-wrecker, develops his criminal talents, starts out on a long voyage of crime, unfurls his sails to the full, causes explosions, destroys the fruits of the labor of the people, kills people.
Or take Drobnis, an old professional Trotskyite, this exterminator of workers in accordance with the formula "the more victims the better." Or take Knyazev, the Japanese spy who has wrecked dozens of trains. Or Livshitz, ex-Assistant People's Commissar of Railways, and simultaneously Pyatakov's assistant in criminal affairs on the railways.... Finally, take the Trotskyite "soldier" Muralov, one of Trotsky's most loyal and steadfast aides--he, too, confessed that he was a wrecker and diversionist. And beside him is Arnold, alias Ivanov, alias Vasilyev, alias Rask, alias Kulpenen, and how many more names he had nobody knows. This hardened scoundrel, who had gone through fire and water, a rascal and an adventurer, also turns out to be a trusted Trotskyite agent--and a first class bandit. Or take Hrasche, a man not only of three dimensions, but at least of three citizenships, who himself described his principal occupation by the eloquent, but not very pleasant word, spy; and he added that as a spy, he was not supposed to have any opinions.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 474
Speaking of cadres, special reference must of course be made to their ringleaders, their chieftains. WE WILL START, OF COURSE, WITH PYATAKOV, WHO, AFTER TROTSKY, WAS THE FIRST CHIEFTAIN OF THIS BRIGAND GANG. Pyatakov did not stray into the company of the Trotskyites accidentally. Pyatakov, who up to now has persistently and skillfully camouflaged himself, has always been an old enemy of Leninism, an old enemy of our Party and an enemy of the Soviet power. Let us trace Pyatakov's political path.
In 1915 he and Bukharin advanced an anti-Leninist platform on the question of the right of nations to self-determination.... Incidentally, he insultingly called Lenin a "talmudist of self-determination."
In 1916 this person...comes out as a mature ideologist of Trotskyism. He argues that the social revolution can be conceived only as the combined action of the proletarians of all countries.... Here Pyatakov repeats in full the Trotskyite thesis that it is impossible to build socialism one country.... He opposes Lenin. Lenin exposes the anti-Marxian character of this Pyatakov pronouncement. Lenin already at that time describes this article by Pyatakov as one capable of striking "a very serious blow at our movement and at our Party,"...
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 475
The year 1917. Pyatakov again opposes Lenin's thesis on the right of nations to self-determination. He calls this right an "empty right" which diverts the revolutionary struggle to a false path.... In 1917 Pyatakov opposed Lenin's April theses.
In 1918 he again opposes Lenin.... The Pyatakovs and Radeks attached no value to the Soviet power. In their fight against Lenin they went to such savage lengths that they talked about removing the then existing Council of People's Commissars and substituting for it a Council of People's Commissars consisting of people who belonged to the coterie of the "Lefts." It was Pyatakov & Co. who in 1918, in a period of extreme danger for the land of Soviets, carried on negotiations with the Socialist-Revolutionaries with a view to bringing about a counter-revolutionary coup d'etat and arresting Lenin so that Pyatakov might occupy the post of head of the government, of chairman of the Council of People's Commissars. It was through the arrest of Lenin, through a coup d'etat, that these political adventurers wanted to lay for themselves the road to power.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 476
And what are they doing now? By attempting to overthrow the Soviet power and to exterminate the leaders of our Party and of the Soviet government--Comrade Stalin and his comrades in arms--they wanted to lay a road for the restoration of capitalism with the aid of foreign interventionists, aggressors' bayonets, with the aid of terrorism, diversion, espionage, wrecking, and every other grave crime against the state. Historical continuity is proved. Jointly with Trotsky, Pyatakov rose against Lenin in the stern days of Brest. Jointly with Trotsky, Pyatakov rose against Lenin at the time our Party was effecting the complicated swing towards the New Economic Policy. Jointly with Trotsky, Pyatakov opposed Lenin's plan to build socialism in our country, opposed the industrialization and collectivization of our country....
Much of what I have said about Pyatakov can be said about the accused Radek. More than once, both before and after the revolution, Radek opposed Lenin. In 1926, this Radek, in a debate at the Communist Academy, jeered and sneered at the theory of building socialism in our country....
Radek is one of the most outstanding, and, to do him in justice, one of the most able and persistent Trotskyites. While Lenin was alive he fought Lenin, and after Lenin's death he fought Stalin.... He is one of the men who is most trusted by and intimate with the big chief of this gang, Trotsky.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 477
Sokolnikov. In 1918 he, too, was opposed to Lenin. Even in that year he threatened Lenin that he would resign over a political dispute. In 1920 he signed Bukharin's anti-Leninist trade union platform. In 1924 he signed the "cave platform," the one that was drawn up in a cave near Kislovodsk. In 1925 Sokolnikov, slandering the Soviet state, asserted that our foreign trade, our internal trading establishments, were state capitalist enterprises. Similarly, he argued that the State Bank was also a state capitalist enterprise, that our monetary system was permeated with the principles of capitalist economy.
... And now, Sokolnikov has confessed before the whole world that the Trotskyite center, of which he was one of the leaders, calculated precisely on getting the support of the kulaks, or rather, the miserable remnants of the kulaks.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 478
Thus, Sokolnikov arrived at a frankly kulak program, the avowed defense of kulak interests, thus completing his fall.
Two words about Serebryakov, the fourth member of this anti-Soviet Trotskyite center. He signed Bukharin's program during the trade union discussion in 1920; he was an active member of the Opposition in 1923; he was an active member of the Opposition in 1926-27. Actually, as he himself has confessed in court, he had never departed from Trotskyism....
As old Trotskyites we know Muralov, Drobnis, Boguslavsky and Livshitz. We know that they devoted a number of years to the fight against Lenin and socialist construction in our country. Is it not clear that their participation in Trotskyite wrecking, diversion and terrorist groups, their treason to the country, were prepared and were the direct results of all their past Trotskyite activities,...
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 479
... To the straight question put to Pyatakov: "Were the members of your organization connected with foreign spies?" Pyatakov replied: "Yes, they were." And he related how this connection was established on the direct instructions of Trotsky. This was confirmed by Radek, the "parallel" center's expert on "foreign affairs." This was confirmed by Livshitz, Knyazev, Shestov and a number of other accused--direct and deliberate agents of secret services. This is what this gang is, which called itself a "political force," which wanted to be taken for such. It is not a political party, but a gang of spies, bandits, terrorists and diversionists.
...The roots of this gang must be sought in the secret recesses of the foreign espionage agencies which bought in these people, which kept them, paid them for their loyal, flunkey service.
Pyatakov urges his subordinates to organize explosions and acts of diversion, preferably those causing loss of human life. Drobnis argues that "the more victims the better" for the Trotskyites. Shestov organizes murders. Livshitz, Knyazev and Turok organize the wrecking of trains. And Radek engages in "foreign politics"; and just as the aim of Livshitz and Knyazev was to derail trains, so the aim of Radek's "foreign policy" was to derail the cause of socialism, to open the gates to the foreign enemy, to the enemy aggressor. Each one of them stands before you, immersed in this bloody morass of crime.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 480
They blow of mines, they burned down workshops, they wrecked trains, they mutilated and killed hundreds of our best people, sons of our country. Eight hundred workers in the Gorlovka Nitrate Fertilizer Works,...
Shestov organizes a bank robbery. Shestov arranges for the foul murder of engineer Boyarshinov, who seem likely to expose their criminal activities.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 481
These "politicians" thought nothing of pulling up rails and causing train collisions. They thought nothing of gassing a mine and of sending a dozen or several score of workers to their deaths....of burning down a factory, of blowing up little children who had got into a dynamite dump.
... WITH A GRAVE AIR PYATAKOV, RADEK, AND SOKOLNIKOV TALKED ABOUT AN "AGREEMENT" WHICH TROTSKY CONCLUDED, OR WHICH TROTSKY HAD ARRIVED AT WITH GERMANY AND JAPAN. These gentlemen gravely told us that they calculated on utilizing these countries in their own interest. But how can one seriously talk about this when this very "parallel" center is simply a wretched little gnat compared with a wolf.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 482
Agreement! They should have said simply: surrender to the mercy of the conqueror. Of course it was not an agreement, but surrender to the mercy of the conqueror.
...it should have been clear that the agreement about which Pyatakov, Trotsky and Radek spoke, was not an agreement, but embroidered capitulation, the Trotskyite surrender to the mercy of the conquerors, that this was bondage, that to accept such an agreement meant crawling into the wolf's mouth while consoling oneself with the idea that the wolf is not wicked and will not gobble one up.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 483
Why are the foreign intelligence services able to find agents among the Trotskyites? Because the whole past and present history of the Trotskyites is proof of their irreconcilable hostility to the Soviets....
Do not the articles which Pyatakov and Radek wrote about their accomplices Zinoviev Kamenev, these despicable traitors, these downright bandits who killed our unforgettable Kirov, testify to the extreme degree of moral depravity they have reached? Are not the articles in which Radek and Pyatakov, with an air of outraged righteousness, demanded that their own allies, friends and accomplices be shot the acme of cynicism and mockery at the last remnants of human conscience, at the last conceptions of morality?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 484
We know that Radek, who wrote this article, had known about the preparations for the foul murder of Kirov long in advance.... He wrote about the "Trotskyite-Zinovievite fascist gang and its Hetman--Trotsky" (these are his own terms), that "the stench of corpses" pervaded the courtroom in which that case was tried and he exclaimed with passion: "Crush the Vipers...".
This is what Radek wrote. Radek thought he was writing about Kamenev and Zinoviev. A slight error! This trial will rectify Radek's error. He was writing about himself!
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 485
... What did he write then [in 1929]. He wrote that he had received instructions from Trotsky to organize raids on Trade Representations to obtain money that Trotsky needed for his anti-Soviet operations.... And when we are now told that in 1935 Trotsky persuaded Pyatakov, or rather, did not persuade but ordered him, to organize the embezzlement of Soviet money with the assistance of the firms of the Demag and Borsig, at the time when Sedov was arranging connections with the firm of Dehlmann for the same purpose, we see that history does repeat itself.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 486
... He [Trotsky] cursed his friends in order to divert attention from himself....
And what about Pyatakov? Pyatakov also wrote articles for the newspapers in connection with the exposure of the gangster-terrorist united Trotskyite-Zinovievite center. Pyatakov raved and fumed about the despicable counter-revolutionary activities, surrounded, as he wrote, by the unbearable stench of duplicity, lies and deception. What will Pyatakov say now to brand his own moral degradation, his own "stench of lies, duplicity and deception"?
PYATAKOV WROTE [IN PART]:
"ONE CANNOT FIND THE HUMAN WORDS FULLY TO EXPRESS ONE'S INDIGNATION AND DISGUST. THESE PEOPLE HAVE LOST THE LAST SEMBLANCE OF HUMANITY. THEY MUST BE DESTROYED, DESTROYED LIKE CARRION WHICH IS POLLUTING THE PURE, BRACING AIR OF THE LAND OF SOVIETS; DANGEROUS CARRION WHICH MAY CAUSE THE DEATH OF OUR LEADERS, AND HAS ALREADY CAUSED THE DEATH OF ONE OF THE BEST PEOPLE IN OUR LAND --THAT WONDERFUL COMRADE AND LEADER KIROV."
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 487
IN 1933 TROTSKY DEMANDED
a) The dissolution of the majority of the collective farms as being fictitious;
b) Dissolution of the state farms as being unprofitable;
c) Abandonment of the policy of liquidating the kulaks;
d) Reversion to the concessions policy and the leasing as concessions of a number of our industrial enterprises as being unprofitable.
... This investigation has proved that on the basis of this program, Radek, Pyatakov and their accomplices started and carried on negotiations with the foreign aggressors, with their representatives, in anticipation of military aid from them, and promising them various economic and political advantages, including the surrender of parts of the Soviet territory....
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 494
IS IT SURPRISING THAT OUR PEOPLE REJECT SUCH A PROGRAM OF TREACHERY; THAT IF A PROPAGANDIST TOOK THIS PROGRAM TO OUR FACTORIES AND WORKS, TO OUR COLLECTIVE FARMS AND OUR RED ARMY BARRACKS, HE WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY SEIZED AND HANGED AT THE NEAREST LAMPPOST. AND IT WOULD SERVE HIM RIGHT, FOR TRAITORS DESERVE NO OTHER FATE THAN THE GALLOWS. THIS PROGRAM IS A PROGRAM OF BLACK TREASON. TO IT WE OPPOSE OUR PROGRAM, THE PROGRAM OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT. IT IS USELESS TRYING TO MAKE IT APPEAR THAT THIS IS A STRUGGLE, A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN TWO FACTIONS, ONE OF WHICH WAS LUCKY AND CAME INTO POWER, AND THE OTHER WAS UNLUCKY, "OUT OF LUCK," AND DID NOT GET INTO POWER.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 495
As was established at the preliminary investigation and at this trial, one of the points of the program of the anti-Soviet, Trotskyite center was the acceleration of war, and the defeat of the USSR in this war. Through war and defeat to come to power, to capture power, and to utilize it for the purpose of restoring capitalism.
... In his conversation with Pyatakov in December 1935, Trotsky, according to Pyatakov, spoke openly about war being inevitable in the very near future.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 496
Trotsky and the anti-Soviet Trotskyite center tried by hook and crook, by every means in their power, to hasten the aggressor's attack upon the USSR.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 497
We have seen during the trial what this Trotsky-Pyatakov formula meant in action: it meant spoiling and destroying machines, installations, and whole enterprises; the burning and blowing up of whole workshops, mines and factories; the wrecking of trains and the loss of human life.
... Our history contains revolting pages of atrocious conspiracies against the Soviets. We remember the " Shakhty case" and as living witnesses of those trials, we remember the "Industrial Party" case and the case of the Menshevik Union Bureau. But it will be hardly an exaggeration to say that in the art of wrecking, cynicism and despicable diversionist practice, the Trotskyites have left their forerunners far behind; that in this sphere they have excelled the most hardened and incorrigible criminals....
... They did not shrink from committing these crimes; on the contrary, they tried to organize them on the widest possible scale, tried to increase the number of victims as much as possible. And Pyatakov is wrong when he says that he regarded "this" as inevitable. He did not have the courage to tell the whole truth here, which Drobnis, sitting behind him, told.
The center did not regard the explosions, arson, train wrecking involving loss of human life, as something unavoidable. The organization of crimes of this kind was part and parcel of the center's plan. Drobnis said:
"It will even be better if there is loss of life in the mine, as it will undoubtedly cause disaffection among the workers, and this is what we want."
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 500
Comrade Judges, during this trial a number of atrocious scenes passed before your eyes, and I must now recall them to your mind. I must recall the explosion in the Tsentralnaya Pit which resulted in the death of 10 workers and severe injury to 14 workers. I must also remind you of the train collision at Shumikha Station which resulted in the death of 29 Red Army men and the injury of another 29 Red Army men.
It is characteristic that in committing these crimes the conspirators very coolly and deliberately covered up their traces, that is, they tried to cover them up. We saw that in the case of the poisoning of the workers in December 1935 at Section 6 in the Severny Khodok district, in Peshekhonov and other members of the Trotskyite wrecking organization drew up a report which concealed the fact that the poisoning had been deliberate. Here, in this court, Knyazev and Turok had to confirm that a number of train disasters they organized went unpunished because they cynically, skillfully, and successfully destroyed all the clues.
We know that these people did not scruple to deliberately misinform the investigation authorities as to who was responsible for the train disasters they organized, that they knew how to throw the blame on absolutely innocent people, as was the case with the switch girl, Chudinova.
Here they worked according to a monstrous gangster system which spares nobody, which did not scruple to strike not only against those whom they were actually fighting, but against everybody who crossed their criminal path.
It must be said that the organization and execution of diversive and wrecking acts was greatly facilitated by the fact that THESE PEOPLE HAD SUCCEEDED, BY DECEIVING US, IN SECURING A NUMBER OF RESPONSIBLE KEY POSITIONS IN INDUSTRY AND ON THE RAILWAYS. The expert technical commissions which reported their findings here, very precisely and definitely established that all the so-called breakdowns, and explosions, and fires, which it was at first attempted to represent as being the result of accidents, were in fact willfully and deliberately engineered by the wreckers. It has been established that at the Gorlovka Nitrogen Fertilizer Works three acts of diversion were carried out in a relatively short period of time under the direction of the accused Rataichak. These included two explosions which caused the loss of human life, besides entailing very heavy material damage to the state.
COMRADE JUDGES, IN ORDER TO FULLY APPRECIATE THE UTTER MONSTROSITY OF THESE CRIMES WE MUST NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT NOT ONLY WERE THESE CRIMES COMMITTED, BUT THAT THEY WERE COMMITTED BY PEOPLE WHO WERE ENTRUSTED WITH THE PROTECTION OF THE INTERESTS OF OUR STATE AGAINST EVERY KIND OF ENCROACHMENT. RATAICHAK, WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST TO PROTECT OUR CHEMICAL INDUSTRY FROM ANY ENCROACHMENT AND TO SAFEGUARD IT FROM ALL DAMAGE, ACTUALLY BETRAYED IT. HE ACTED LIKE A DOWNRIGHT TRAITOR. IF HE COMMITTED SUCH A CRIME IN TIME OF WAR HE WOULD BE LIABLE TO BE SHOT ON THE SPOT, IMMEDIATELY ANNIHILATED.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 501
I would like to deal briefly with the experts' answers. I asked the experts to reply to a number of questions concerning the explosion which took place in the hydrogen department of the Gorlovka Fertilizer Works in November 1935. To the direct question whether there had been any possibility of averting this explosion, the experts replied: certainly there had been.... ALL THAT WAS REQUIRED WAS TO ADHERE TO THE SAFETY REGULATIONS.... THE EXPERTS REPLIED: "MALICIOUS INTENT IS INDISPUTABLE."
WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE EXPERTS WE VERIFIED THE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED, AND ALTHOUGH WE KNOW THAT ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF CERTAIN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES THE CONFESSION OF AN ACCUSED PERSON IS REGARDED AS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF GUILT AND THE COURT DOES NOT CONSIDER ITSELF OBLIGED TO CALL CORROBORATING EVIDENCE, WE, HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO OBSERVE STRICT IMPARTIALITY, NOTWITHSTANDING THE CONFESSIONS OF THE CRIMINALS THEMSELVES, VERIFIED THEIR STATEMENTS ONCE AGAIN FROM THE TECHNICAL SIDE AND OBTAINED A CATEGORICAL REPLY CONCERNING THE EXPLOSION OF NOVEMBER 11, THE FIRES IN THE PROKOPYEVSK MINE, AND THE FIRES AND EXPLOSIONS AT THE KEMEROVO PLANT. MALICIOUS INTENT WAS ESTABLISHED WITHOUT ANY POSSIBILITY OF DOUBT.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 502
Accused Knyazev, on the direct instructions of the "parallel" Trotskyite center, organized and caused the wreck of a number of trains, mainly troop trains, causing considerable loss of life. There was the wreck at Shumikha Station in which 29 Red Army men were killed and 29 Red Army men were injured; there was the wreck on the Yakhnino--Ust-Katav section, the wrecking of troop trains and freight trains. Knyazev organized these, as was revealed, not only on the instructions of the "parallel" Trotskyite center and, in particular, of Livshitz, but also on the direct instructions of the agent of a foreign power--the agent of the Japanese intelligence service Mr. H.--, who was really one of the mainsprings of Knyazev's and Turok's criminal activities.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 503
Knyazev testified that in agreement with this Mr. H. he gave and carried out commissions to organize, in the event of war, the burning down of military stores, army provision bases and sanitary centers. Knyazev confirmed that the Japanese intelligence service emphatically stressed the necessity of organizing diversive acts by employing bacteria on the outbreak of war for the purpose of infecting troop trains and also army provision bases and sanitary centers, with highly virulent bacilli.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 504
... We must bear in mind that the history of the world chemical industry in general dates from the end of the 18th-century. Consequently, the modern world chemical industry had about 150 years of development. But our Soviet chemical industry has had 10 years of development. And during these 10 years it has traveled the distance that it took world capitalist economy 150 years to travel. We have achieved successes which have brought us in the production of sulfuric acid and soda to third place in world output, only Germany and United States being head of us. In super-phosphates, we occupy first place after the United States; in nitrate fertilizers our country is moving up to fourth place in world output.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 505
... our industry is growing at a tremendous rate and is overfulfilling its production plans.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 506
... Knyazev, Livshitz, Rataichak, Shestov, Stroilov, Pushin, and Hrasche are direct agents of the German and Japanese intelligence services.
WE ARE IN POSSESSION OF DOCUMENTS PROVING THAT TROTSKY, AT LEAST TWICE, AND MOREOVER, IN A FAIRLY OPEN AND UNDISGUISED FORM, GAVE A LINE FOR TERRORISM,... I REFER, FIRSTLY, TO THAT LETTER OF 1932, IN WHICH TROTSKY ISSUED HIS TREACHEROUS AND SHAMEFUL CALL "REMOVE STALIN," AND SECONDLY, TO A LATER DOCUMENT, THE TROTSKYITE BULLETIN OF THE OPPOSITION NOS. 36-37, OF OCTOBER 1933, IN WHICH WE FIND A NUMBER OF DIRECT REFERENCES TO TERRORISM AS A METHOD OF FIGHTING THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 507
In front of us sit terrorists who not only organized terrorist acts on their own accord, but also organized them in agreement with the Trotskyite-Zinovievite bloc with whom they were competing to a certain extent. Look: the published records of the trial of the United Zinovievite-Trotskyite center show that the Zinovievites were spurred on by the fear that the Trotskyites might "get ahead of them" in their criminal activity. Have we not heard the same thing at this trial? Did not the Trotskyites of the "parallel" center consider it to be their duty, as Radek admitted here, to hold the Zinovievites in hand, not to permit the Zinovievites to push them out of power when they were distributing portfolios?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 509
...Drobnis also prepared for a terrorist act against Comrade Yezhov.... And so Muralov, who will under no circumstances agree to having the preparation of an attempt on the life of Comrade Ordjonikidze attributed to him,*** this very Muralov firmly and frankly admits that he did indeed organize a terrorist act against Comrade Molotov,... Muralov not only organized the terrorist act, but actually tried to carry it out through the medium of Shestov and Arnold.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 510
ARTICLE 320 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SPEAKS OF THE NECESSITY OF SUBMITTING TO THE COURT A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS WHICH IT MUST DECIDE IN PASSING ITS VERDICT. OF THESE QUESTIONS I THINK THE MOST MATERIAL AND IMPORTANT ARE THE FIRST TWO: THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DEEDS ATTRIBUTED TO THE ACCUSED WERE ACTUALLY COMMITTED; AND SECONDLY, WHETHER THESE DEEDS ARE CRIMINAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LAW. THE PROSECUTION REPLIES TO BOTH THESE QUESTIONS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. YES, THE CRIMES ATTRIBUTED TO THE ACCUSED WERE COMMITTED... AND THESE DEEDS ARE CRIMINAL WITHIN THE FULL MEANING OF THE LAW. THERE CANNOT BE THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT ABOUT THESE TWO QUESTIONS. But what proof have we in our arsenal from the point of view of juridical procedure?
...We have a conspiracy, we have before us a group of people who conspired to bring about a coup d'etat, who organized themselves and for a number of years carried on.a conspiracy which connected the conspirators with foreign fascist forces. How can the question of proof be presented under these circumstances? THE QUESTION CAN BE PUT THIS WAY: A CONSPIRACY, YOU SAY, BUT WHERE ARE THE DOCUMENTS? YOU SAY THERE IS A PROGRAM, BUT WHERE IS THE PROGRAM? HAVE THESE PEOPLE A WRITTEN PROGRAM ANYWHERE? THEY ONLY TALK ABOUT IT.
YOU SAY THERE IS AN ORGANIZATION, THAT THERE IS SOME SORT OF A GANG, BUT WHERE ARE THEIR DECISIONS, WHERE IS THE MATERIAL EVIDENCE OF THEIR CONSPIRATORIAL ACTIVITIES--RULES, MINUTES, THE SEAL, AND SO FORTH AND SO ON?
I AM BOLD ENOUGH TO ASSERT, IN KEEPING WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SCIENCE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, THAT IN CASES OF CONSPIRACY SUCH DEMANDS CANNOT BE PUT. YOU CANNOT DEMAND THAT CASES OF CONSPIRACY, OF COUP D'ETAT, BE APPROACHED FROM THE STANDPOINT: GIVE US MINUTES, DECISIONS, MEMBERSHIP CARDS, THE NUMBERS OF YOUR MEMBERSHIP CARDS; YOU CANNOT DEMAND THAT CONSPIRATORS HAVE THEIR CONSPIRATORIAL ACTIVITIES CERTIFIED BY A NOTARY. NO SENSIBLE MAN CAN PUT THE QUESTION IN THIS WAY IN CASES OF STATE SECURITY. IN FACT WE HAVE A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS TO PROVE OUR CASE. BUT EVEN IF THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE, WE WOULD STILL CONSIDER IT RIGHT TO SUBMIT OUR INDICTMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED AND WITNESSES AND, IF YOU WILL, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. IN THE PRESENT CASE I CAN QUOTE A BRILLIANT AUTHORITY ON THE LAW OF EVIDENCE SUCH AS THE OLD, WELL-KNOWN ENGLISH JURIST, WILLIAM WILLS, WHO IN HIS BOOK ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SHOWS HOW STRONG CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CAN BE, AND HOW, NOT INFREQUENTLY, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CAN BE MUCH MORE CONVINCING THAN DIRECT EVIDENCE.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 512
...BUT WE ALSO HAVE OBJECTIVE PROOF. I SPOKE ABOUT A PROGRAM AND SUBMITTED TO YOUR ATTENTION, TROTSKY'S BULLETIN, IN WHICH THIS VERY PROGRAM IS PRINTED....
We rely on a number of proofs which in our hands may serve as a test of the assertions of the indictment, of the theses of the indictment. First, there is the historical connection which confirms the theses of the indictment on the basis of the Trotskyites past activity. We also have in mind the testimony of the accused, which in itself represents enormous importance as proof. ...we did not confine ourselves merely to the Court hearing the statements of the accused; we did all we possibly could to verify the statements.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 513
...ALL THAT THEY SAID ABOUT THEIR ACTIVITIES HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY THE EVIDENCE OF THE EXPERTS, BY THE PRELIMINARY INTERROGATION, BY CONFESSIONS, AND TESTIMONY, AND NONE OF THIS CAN BE SUBJECT TO ANY DOUBT WHATEVER.
I THINK THAT ALL THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ENABLE ME TO SAY THAT IF THERE IS ANY SHORTCOMING IN THE PRESENT TRIAL, IT IS NOT THAT THE ACCUSED HAVE SAID WHAT THEY HAVE DONE, BUT THAT, AFTER ALL, THE ACCUSED HAVE NOT REALLY TOLD US ALL THEY HAVE DONE, ALL THE CRIMES THEY HAVE COMMITTED AGAINST THE SOVIET STATE.
IF WE ARE TO SPEAK OF SHORTCOMINGS OF THE PRESENT TRIAL, I SEE ONLY ONE DEFECT: I AM CONVINCED THAT THE ACCUSED HAVE NOT SAID HALF THE TRUTH WHICH CONSTITUTES THE HORRIBLE TALE OF THE AWFUL CRIMES THEY COMMITTED AGAINST OUR COUNTRY, AGAINST OUR GREAT MOTHERLAND!
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 514
I accuse the people who are sitting here before us of having, in 1933, on Trotsky's instructions, organized what they called a "parallel" center consisting of the accused in the present case Pyatakov, Radek, Sokolnikov, and Serebryakov, but what was really the operating active Trotskyite center; that this center, on Trotsky's instructions, through the medium of the accused Sokolnikov and Radek, entered into communication with representatives of certain foreign states for the purpose of organizing a joint struggle against the Soviet Union; and that this center undertook, in the event of its coming into power, to grant these states a number of political and economic privileges and territorial concessions; that this center, through the medium of its members and other members of the criminal Trotskyite organization, engaged in espionage on behalf of these states, supplying foreign intelligence services with extremely important and extremely secret materials of utmost state importance; that for the purpose of undermining the economic power and defense capacity of our country this center and its accomplices organized and carried out a number of diversive and wrecking acts which resulted in the loss of human life and caused considerable damage to our Soviet state.
COMRADE JUDGES, THE PRINCIPAL CHARGE THAT IS MADE IN THE PRESENT TRIAL IS THAT OF TREASON TO THE COUNTRY.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 514
BRAUDE (Counsel for Knyazev): ...In this case, Comrade Judges, there is no dispute about the facts. Comrade Procurator [Vyshinsky] was quite right when he said that from all points of view, from the point of view of the documents available in the case, from the point of view of the examination of the witnesses who were summoned here, and the cross-examination of the accused, all this has deprived us of all possibility of disputing the evidence. All the facts have been proved, and in this sphere the defense does not intend to enter into any controversy with the Procurator....
The gravity of Knyazev's position is made still more grave by the fact that he is a person who is almost physically, directly guilty of these wholesale, sanguinary murders and wrecking of trains.... He who is closest to the concrete facts of a crime, he who stands closest to the concrete crime, appears to be most guilty. And yet the brain of this crime, the principal motive force of Knyazev's crime, is not within him, but...primarily, in another force. It is the one who created that disgusting phenomenon known as Trotskyism, the one who is betraying his country and organizing terrorist acts; it is the one who established contact with foreign espionage organizations--it is the contemptible Trotsky. He is the principal culprit in these disasters....
...Comrade Procurator has already said that the Trotskyite organization never had, has not, never will have, and we can be absolutely certain that it never will have, the slightest mass basis....
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 517-518
KOMMODOV (Counsel for Pushin): In the course of his testimony Pyatakov stated that Trotsky in 1931 devised that the mass struggle should be discontinued. This of course was not because he had no liking for it. On the contrary, this out and out demagogue wanted such a struggle. But this required the masses, and the masses were not to be had. In the course of the examination, Comrade Vyshinsky asked Sokolnikov on whom they had expected to rely within the country in their struggle against the Soviet power. On what forces? Sokolnikov did not reply at once. Using the method of exclusion, he began to discard the sections of the population upon whom it would have been impossible for them to rely. And what happened? He excluded the whole working class, he excluded the whole working peasantry, and I would add for my own part, he would have to exclude the whole working intelligentsia. What then remained? Sokolnikov reflected, and said: We placed our hopes on the remnants of the routed kulaks. This is what, after many years of struggle against the Soviet power, the Trotskyite counter-revolutionaries came to; this was all they were left with. Comrade Judges, they were left with the kulak remnants.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 533
LAST PLEA OF PYATAKOV
SAYS PROSECUTOR PROVED HIS CASE BUT DENIES HE IS STILL A TROT; SAYS HE HAS SHAKEN HIS VILE, LOATHSOME, FASCIST TROT PAST; ADMITS HE COMMITED CRIMES AND TREASON AND WAS A FASCIST AGENT;
SAYS HE KNOWS TROTSKY WILL DENY ALL CONNECTION WITH HIM; SAYS TROTSKY IS TOO SCARED TO SHOW UP IN COURT AND ANSWER THE CHARGES HE MAKES;
REGRETS THE MAIN OFFENDER TROTSKY IS NOT WITH HIM IN THE DOCK
I HAVE WAIVED MY RIGHT TO A SPEECH IN MY DEFENSE BECAUSE THE STATE PROSECUTION WAS CORRECT IN ITS ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS; IT WAS CORRECT ALSO IN ITS ESTIMATION OF MY CRIME. But I cannot agree, I cannot reconcile myself to one assertion made by the State Prosecutor, namely that even now I remain a Trotskyite.*** Yes, I was a Trotskyite for many years. I worked hand-in-hand with the Trotskyites, but the sole motive, the only motive that prompted me to make the statements that I have made, was the desire, even now, even at TOO LATE A DATE, TO GET RID OF MY LOATHSOME TROTSKYITE PAST.
...DO NOT DEPRIVE ME OF THE RIGHT TO FEEL, ONLY TO FEEL THAT EVEN THOUGH TOO LATE I HAVE NEVERTHELESS SHAKEN OFF THIS FILTH, THIS VILENESS.
For the most painful thing for me, Citizen Judges, is not the just sentence which you will pass. It is the realization, above all to myself, the realization at the investigation, the realization before you and the whole country, that as a result of the whole preceding criminal underground struggle I HAVE LANDED IN THE VERY HEART, IN THE VERY CENTER OF THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION--COUNTER-REVOLUTION OF THE MOST VILE, LOATHSOME, FASCIST TYPE, TROTSKYITE COUNTER-REVOLUTION.
It would be wrong to think that when my Trotskyite activities began, I knew what all this would lead to. It would be wrong to think--this does not in the slightest degree diminish my objective criminal actions--but it would be wrong to think that I subjectively set myself counter-revolutionary aims and realized that WE WOULD FINALLY COME TO SUCH A MORASS OF INFAMY AND CRIME.
Yes, I did once make an attempt to break with Trotskyism. That was in 1928-30, and this attempt was not carried through to completion. I DID NOT SHAKE OFF ALL THE REMNANTS OF MY PAST; THERE REMAINED A POISONED SPLINTER OF THE REMNANTS OF TROTSKYITE IDEAS. There remained a splinter which did not at first entail any great practical consequences for me, but afterwards there grew up around it that festering sore which brought me to the path of crime, treachery, and treason. This sore has been lanced.
DO NOT THINK, CITIZEN JUDGES THAT DURING THESE YEARS, YEARS SPENT IN THE SUFFOCATING UNDERWORLD OF TROTSKYISM, I DID NOT SEE WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE COUNTRY.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 539
For I understood not only what was going on around me. I SAW--NOT THAT THIS IN THE LEAST DIMINISHES THE INFAMY OF MY CRIMES NOR THEIR OBJECTIVE SIGNIFICANCE-- I SAW THAT WE, THE SMALL GROUP OF TROTSKYITES, AS THE STATE PROSECUTOR HAS TRULY SAID, WERE THE VANGUARD OF FASCIST COUNTER-REVOLUTION, that we could not really alter by one jot the objective course of the development of industry and economic life by our wrecking actions. AND WHEN TOWARDS THE END OF 1935 AND IN 1936 WE...FOUND OURSELVES IN THE VERY THICK OF HIGH TREASON, TREACHERY AND THE MOST BAREFACED FASCIST COUNTER-REVOLUTION, WHEN IT WAS CLEAR EVEN TO US THAT WE WERE TURNING INTO AN AGENCY OF FASCISM, THEN I WAS NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO HAD A DESIRE TO DEPART from this....
I was arrested. My arrest had a useful effect in the sense that I gave full and exhaustive depositions about the activities of Trotskyism. But it had its effect only in the sense that whereas previously I had tried, in a wrong way, to scramble somehow out of this pit, my arrest confronted me with the choice of either remaining an enemy to the last, of remaining an unregenerate, unconfessed Trotskyite up to my last hour, or of taking the course which I have taken.
I understand that this cannot serve as a motive for clemency. I am merely explaining to the Court what it was which finally prompted me to give those exhaustive statements which, I hope, may have given some aid in unraveling this foul tangle.
IT IS NOT FEAR THAT HAS BEEN MY MOTIVE FOR RE-COUNTING MY CRIMES. WHAT CAN BE WORSE THAN THE VERY CONSCIOUSNESS AND CONFESSION OF ALL THOSE CRIMES--THE MOST GRIEVOUS AND NOXIOUS CRIMES, WHICH IT FELL TO MY LOT TO COMMIT?
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 540
Any punishment which you may adjudge will be lighter than the very fact of confession. THAT IS WHY I COULD NOT RECONCILE MYSELF TO THE ASSERTION MADE BY THE STATE PROSECUTOR TO THE EFFECT THAT EVEN NOW, IN THE DOCK, I HAVE REMAINED THE TROTSKYITE THAT I WAS.***
And while not I alone have been brought before the Soviet Court, while I BEAR FULL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOVIET LAW BEFORE THE SOVIET COURT FOR MY CRIMES, WHILE WE ARE ANSWERING IN FULL MEASURE FOR ALL OUR ACTIONS, THE MAN FOR WHOSE SAKE WE DID THIS, AT WHOSE DIRECT INSTRUCTIONS AND INSTIGATION WE HAVE PERPETUATED ALL THIS, WILL NOT, I THINK--FOR I KNOW HIM FULL WELL--FIND ANY OTHER COURSE THAN TO DISASSOCIATE HIMSELF FROM WHAT WE HAVE DONE TOGETHER WITH HIM AND UNDER HIS LEADERSHIP, TO SLANDER US, TO LIE, TO ACCUSE US OF COWARDICE AND ANYTHING ELSE HE MAY PLEASE.
Trotsky will not act otherwise. I know him too well to doubt that. Instead of refuting me face-to-face here in court or hurling at me the accusations which he will undoubtedly make, instead of being confronted with us, it is of course easier, simpler, less dangerous for him to continue his wrecking work.
Personally I am very little affected by this, Citizen Judges. I ONLY DEEPLY REGRET THAT HE, THE MAIN CRIMINAL, THE UNREGENERATE AND HARDENED OFFENDER, TROTSKY, IS NOT SITTING BESIDE US IN THE DOCK.
I AM TOO KEENLY CONSCIOUS OF MY CRIME, AND I DO NOT VENTURE TO ASK YOU FOR CLEMENCY. I WILL NOT EVEN MAKE BOLD TO ASK FOR MERCY.
In a few hours you will pass your sentence. And here I STAND BEFORE YOU IN FILTH, CRUSHED BY MY OWN CRIMES, BEREFT OF EVERYTHING THROUGH MY OWN FAULT, A MAN WHO HAS LOST HIS PARTY, WHO HAS NO FRIENDS, WHO HAS LOST HIS FAMILY, WHO HAS LOST HIS VERY SELF.
Do not deprive me of one thing, Citizen Judges. Do not deprive me of the right to feel that in your eyes, too, I have found strength in myself, albeit too late, to break with my criminal past.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 541
LAST PLEA OF RADEK
CONFESSES TO COMMITTING TREASON;
SAYS HE DID NOT JOIN THE TROTS BECAUSE OF TROTSKY’S ROTTEN THEORIES;
ADMITS HE IS GUILTY OF TREASON;
PERCEIVED TROTSKY HIMSELF HAD LOST HOPE AND WAS TELLING THEM TO WIN ANYWAY THEY COULD;
SAYS ALL THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SAID ABOUT THE TROTSKYITES WORKING TO RESTORE CAPITALISM IS INCONTROVERTIBLY TRUE; 15 PEOPLE WERE TESTIFYING AGAINST ME;
SAYS HE TORMENTED THE INTERROGATOR RATHER THAN BEING TORTURED;
ADMITS HIS GUILT;
SAYS THE TROT GROUP WAS THE CENTER FOR ALL COUNTER-REV FORCES;
SAYS HE LEARNED FROM EXPERIENCE THAT TROTSKYISM IS THE INSTRUMENT OF WARMONGERS
Citizen Judges, after I HAVE CONFESSED TO THE CRIME OF TREASON to the country there can be no question of a speech in defense. THERE ARE NO ARGUMENTS BY WHICH A GROWN MAN IN FULL POSSESSION OF HIS SENSES COULD DEFEND TREASON TO HIS COUNTRY. Neither can I plead extenuating circumstances. A MAN WHO HAS SPENT 35 YEARS IN THE LABOR MOVEMENT CANNOT EXTENUATE HIS CRIME BY ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN HE CONFESSES TO A CRIME OF TREASON TO THE COUNTRY. I cannot even plead that I was led to err from the true path by Trotsky.
I JOINED THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION NOT FOR THE SAKE OF TROTSKY'S PETTY THEORIES, THE ROTTENNESS OF WHICH I REALIZED AT THE TIME OF MY FIRST EXILE, and not because I recognize his authority as a leader, but because there was no other group upon which I could rely in those political aims which I had set myself.... I did not go because I was drawn into the struggle, but as a result of my own appraisal of the situation, as the result of a path I had voluntarily chosen.
...I HAVE ADMITTED MY GUILT...AND I HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE BEEN SHOT THRICE RATHER THAN TO HAVE HAD TO ADMIT IT--BUT I MUST ADMIT MY GUILT.... I HAVE CONFESSED TO TREASON TO THE COUNTRY....
... This trial has revealed two important facts. The intertwining of the counter-revolutionary organizations with all the counter-revolutionary forces in the country--that is one fact.... Wrecking work can be established by technical experts; the terrorist activities were connected with so many people that the testimony of these people, apart from material evidence, presents an absolute picture. But the trial is bicentric, and it has another important significance. It has revealed the smithy of war, and has shown that the Trotskyite organization became an agency of the forces which are fomenting a new world war.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 541-542
...I stood near enough to the government and to the leading Party circles to know that not only the precautionary measures of the organs of public security, but the masses of the people themselves had become so vigilant that the idea that the Soviet power could be cast to the ground by terrorism--even with the help of the most devoted and desperate terrorist groups--was utopian, that we might sacrifice human life, but that this would not overthrow the Soviet power.
A second aspect of the matter. I PERCEIVED THAT TROTSKY HIMSELF HAD LOST FAITH. THE FIRST VARIANT WAS A CONCEALED WAY OF SAYING: "WELL, BOYS, TRY TO OVERTHROW THE SOVIET POWER BY YOURSELVES, WITHOUT HITLER. WHAT, YOU CANNOT? TRY THE SEIZE POWER YOURSELVES. WHAT, YOU CANNOT?" TROTSKY HIMSELF ALREADY FELT HIS COMPLETE INTERNAL IMPOTENCE AND STAKED ON HITLER. THE STAKE WAS NOW ON HITLER. THE OLD TROTSKYITES HAD HELD THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD UP SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY, AND THAT IT WAS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO FORCE THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST. NOW THEY WERE TOLD THAT A REVOLUTION IN THE WEST WAS IMPOSSIBLE, AND SO DESTROY SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY, DESTROY SOCIALISM IN THE USSR. YET NOBODY COULD HELP BUT SEE THAT SOCIALISM IN OUR COUNTRY HAD BEEN BUILT.
The second aspect was defeat.
...And to me it was clear: 1934 was a period when I, a man inclined to pessimism, considered defeat and ruin inevitable; but in 1935 all the chances were in favor of a victory for this country, and whoever before pretended to himself that he was a defeatist by necessity, in order to save what could be saved, was now bound to say to himself: I am a traitor who is helping to subjugate the country--which is strong, growing and progressing. For what purpose? So that Hitler might restore capitalism in Russia.
ALL THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SAID ABOUT THE FACT THAT NOT ONLY TROTSKY'S DIRECTIVES BUT ALL THE WORK OF THE TROTSKYITES AIMED AT THE RESTORATION OF CAPITALISM IS INCONTROVERTIBLY TRUE. The directives themselves were directives for the complete restoration of capitalism, and they did not drop from the skies: they were a summary of the fact that when people fire at the general staff of the revolution, when people undermine the economy of the country, they are undermining socialism and, that by doing so, they are working for capitalism.
In this Trotskyite organization there were people of various kinds, people of various shades and, as it appeared, people who were directly connected with foreign intelligence services. I did not know this at the time.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 545-547
WHEN I FOUND MYSELF IN THE PEOPLE'S COMMISSARIAT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS, THE CHIEF EXAMINING OFFICIAL REALIZED AT ONCE WHY I WOULD NOT TALK. HE SAID TO ME: "YOU ARE NOT A BABY. HERE YOU HAVE 15 PEOPLE TESTIFYING AGAINST YOU. You cannot get out of it, and as a sensible man you cannot think of doing so. If you do not want to testify it can only be because you want to gain time and look it over more closely. Very well, study it." FOR 2 1/2 MONTHS I TORMENTED THE EXAMINING OFFICIAL. THE QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED HERE WHETHER WE WERE TORMENTED WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION. I MUST SAY THAT IT WAS NOT I WHO WAS TORMENTED, BUT I WHO TORMENTED THE EXAMINING OFFICIALS AND COMPELLED THEM TO PERFORM A LOT OF USELESS WORK. FOR 2 1/2 MONTHS I COMPELLED THE EXAMINING OFFICIAL, BY INTERROGATING ME AND BY CONFRONTING ME WITH THE TESTIMONY OF OTHER ACCUSED, TO OPEN UP ALL THE CARDS TO ME, SO THAT I COULD SEE WHO HAD CONFESSED, WHO HAD NOT CONFESSED, AND WHAT EACH HAD CONFESSED.
This lasted for 2 1/2 months. And one day the chief examining official came to me and said: "You are now the last. Why are you wasting time and temporizing? Why don't you say what you have to say?" And I answered: "Yes, tomorrow I shall begin my testimony." And the testimony I gave contains not a single correction from first to last. I unfolded the whole picture as I knew it, and the investigation may have corrected one or another personal mistake about the connections of some person with another, but I affirm that not a single thing I told the examining officials has been refuted and that nothing has been added.
I HAVE TO ADMIT ONE OTHER GUILT. HAVING ALREADY CONFESSED MY GUILT AND HAVING DISCLOSED THE ORGANIZATION, I STUBBORNLY REFUSED TO TESTIFY WITH REGARD TO BUKHARIN. I knew that Bukharin's position was just as hopeless as my own, because our guilt was the same, if not juridically, then in essence. But we are close friends, and intellectual friendship is stronger than any other kind of friendship.
And so, citizen judges, I will conclude my last plea with this. We shall answer in accordance with the full severity of the Soviet law, considering that whatever your verdict may be it will be a just one. But we want to meet it like conscious people. We know that we have no right to address the masses--it is not for us to teach them. But to those elements who are connected with us we would like to say three things.
THE FIRST THING: THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION BECAME A CENTER FOR ALL COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY FORCES; the Right organization which was connected with it and which was about to merge with it, is just such another center for all the counter-revolutionary forces in the country. The government authorities will be able to cope with these terrorist organizations. On the basis of our own experience we have not the slightest doubt of this.
But there are in the country semi-Trotskyites, quarter-Trotskyites, one-eighth-Trotskyites, people who helped us, not knowing of the terrorist organization but sympathizing with us,... We are living in times of great strain, we are on the verge of war. Before this court and in this hour of retribution, we say to these elements: whoever has the slightest rift with the Party, let him realize that tomorrow he may be a diversionist, tomorrow he may be a traitor if he does not thoroughly heal that rift by complete and utter frankness to the Party.
Secondly, we must say to the Trotskyite elements in France, Spain and other countries--and there are such--that the experience of the Russian Revolution has shown that Trotskyism is a wrecker of the labor movement. We must warn them that if they do not learn from our experience, they will pay for it with their heads.
And finally, we must say to the whole world, to all who are struggling for peace: TROTSKYISM IS THE INSTRUMENT OF WARMONGERS. WE MUST SAY THAT WITH A FIRM VOICE, BECAUSE WE HAVE LEARNED IT BY OUR OWN BITTER EXPERIENCE. It has been extremely hard for us to admit this, but it is an historical fact, for the truth of which we shall pay with our heads.
We cannot, nor can I, ask for clemency, we have no right to it.... Life in the next few years, in the next five or ten years, when the fate of the world will be in the balance, can have meaning only under one condition, and that is if one is able to take part in the work of life, even in the roughest.... We are a fairly closely-knit crew; but when Muralov, Trotsky's closest follower, of whom I was convinced that he would rather perish in prison than say a single word; when he gave testimony and explained that he did not want to die in the consciousness that his name would be a banner for every counter-revolutionary scoundrel--that is the profoundest result of this trial.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 549-551
LAST PLEA OF SOKOLNIKOV
ADMITS HIS GUILT;
SAYS WHAT THE PROSECUTOR ALLEGES IS TRUE;
SAYS HE FOUND ALLIES IN THE FASCISTS WHO SEIZED HOLD OF THEM AND MADE THEM PUPPETS;
SAYS HE AGREES WITH THE PROSECUTOR WHEN HE SAYS THEY ALL DESERVE THE DEATH PENALTY;
SAYS TROTSKY HAS BEEN EXPOSED AS AN ALLY OF CAPITALISM AND THE VILEST AGENT OF FASCISM
I do not want to use my last plea for the purpose of denying or refuting any of the materials of the investigation or the conclusions of the indictment and the State Prosecutor. I ADMITTED MY GUILT AND MY CRIME AT THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION; I fully admit them here and have nothing to add. I would only like to ask the Court to believe me when I say that I am concealing nothing, that I have told not half the truth, but the whole truth.
...I must say that my public utterances of 1925 and 1926 undoubtedly already contained all the principal elements of a program of capitalist restoration. My utterances at that time were subjected to annihilating criticism at the 14th Congress of the Party, and were rebutted by the Party as a whole. This for a certain time brought me to my senses. But I must confess that I had not rid myself completely of the views I had then expressed, and in 1932 I became a recidivist.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 551
I returned completely to these old views and again took up the fight on their behalf. What factors determined this circumstance? It was determined by the fact that at that time, in 1932, all the principal oppositionist, anti-Party groups adopted a common position. The close alliance was restored between the Zinovievites and Trotskyites on the basis of the program of the Rights; and the closest contact had been established with the Rights in 1932-33, although they did not formally join the bloc at that time, but later. And this circumstance, I must say, held great weight with me....the fact that the Rights...advocated the line of capitalist restoration, reliance on the kulaks, the fight against industrialization and the fight against collectivization, the fact that the Rights entered the struggle--this fact had great weight with me.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 552
It should be said that having started out with anti-Party views, we found ourselves obliged to combat socialism, we found ourselves in the position of fighting our Party, in contradistinction to the masses of the people who followed the Party.
Our program was anti-Party, anti-socialist. And therefore it immediately developed and turned out to be an anti-people program. WHAT THE STATE PROSECUTOR SAID HERE YESTERDAY IS AFTER ALL TRUE. We could not tell this program to anybody except the immediate members of the center. We did not even dare to embody it in a single document, we did not dare to spread it, because the mere revelation of such a program would spell the bankruptcy of our bloc
Our program was anti-people. We could not count on the support of the masses.... We found that we had no weapon except conspiracy. There was no possibility whatever of a mass struggle. But even for conspiracy our own forces proved inadequate. Even for conspiracy.
If we could count on our criminal plans, our program, receiving support in the country at least from coteries of conspirators, who might within the country represent a menace to the existence of the Soviet government, to the existence of the Soviet system, perhaps we might have developed conspiratorial tactics--there have been examples of this in the past. But we could not command sufficient forces even for conspiracy, and we were obliged to seek forces, to seek allies outside our organization and outside our country. We were obliged to seek any allies we could come across, and we came across such as were the bitterest enemies of those with whom we had started the struggle.
And so we passed from conspiracy to adventures, and these adventures immediately led us into the fascist pitfall because WE HAD FOUND ALLIES IN THE FASCIST ORGANIZATION, AND THEY SEIZED HOLD OF US AND WE BECAME THEIR PUPPETS.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 553
WE IMAGINED THAT WE COULD UTILIZE HOSTILE FORCES, BUT AS A MATTER OF FACT WE FOUND OURSELVES TO BE AN ABSOLUTELY IMPOTENT, CONTEMPTIBLE AND VILE PUPPET IN THEIR HANDS. But I must say that when, in 1932, I agreed to become a member of the reserve center, I of course did not realize the whole of this picture.... I had no idea how all this would turn out; I had no idea what the reserve center would do....
Of course, I think that nobody will assume that throughout these years of struggle I, for example, experienced no waverings, participated in the struggle without any internal discord, without internal difficulties. All these did exist....
I would like also to say, Citizen Judges, that when I was arrested, when I was informed of the facts in possession of the investigating authorities regarding the existence of the parallel center, I realized that this was complete defeat, that is, that the complete defeat of the bloc had arrived. But the first motive that induced me to give testimony, to confess my guilt, was precisely the fact that I realized that this was the end of the activities of the bloc, that any attempt to preserve any remnants of this bloc, and so on, might only lead to further and still worse decay; that it would be complete madness and that I must have the courage to admit my defeat and to answer for what I had done, so as, if possible of course, to repair the evil that had been done.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 554
But I arrived at this point during the course of the investigation, all the more that during the investigation I became acquainted with a number of materials regarding the work of the organization of which I, as a member of the center, for conspiratorial reasons was not given complete information, just as the other members of the center did not have complete information. And I must say that the rank-and-file members of the bloc, and even certain of the prominent provincial members of course, did not know everything. But we, the members of the center, also did not know everything....
... Regarding Trotsky's role in the work of our organization I can add nothing to the information and the evaluations which were here given by the members of the center--Pyatakov and Radek. I think that these evaluations have been sufficiently frank, and I fully share them. But I cannot add anything of my own, because I was not in direct communication with Trotsky, I was not directly connected with him, and received information through third persons.
YESTERDAY THE STATE PROSECUTOR CONCLUDED HIS SPEECH BY SAYING THAT WE ALL SITTING IN THE DOCK DESERVE THE DEATH PENALTY. I CANNOT DISPUTE, I HAVE NO GROUNDS FOR DISPUTING, THE CONCLUSION OF THE STATE PROSECUTOR; THAT CONCLUSION OF COURSE IS JUSTIFIED TO THE MAXIMUM....
I express the conviction, or at any rate the hope, that not one person will now be found in the Soviet Union who would attempt to take up the Trotskyite banner. I think that Trotskyism in other countries too has been exposed by this trial, and that TROTSKY HIMSELF HAS BEEN EXPOSED AS AN ALLY OF CAPITALISM, AS THE VILEST AGENT OF FASCISM,...
...I repeat that I think that the Trotskyite organization, that Trotskyism itself is dead, has come to be hated by the masses, has been buried and cannot rise again.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 551-555
LAST PLEA OF SEREBRYAKOV
ADMITS HE IS GUILTY OF THE CRIMES CHARGED AND SAYS HE HAS BROKEN WITH THE COUNTER-REV. BANDITRY OF TROTSKYISM
...I FULLY AND WHOLLY ADMIT THE JUSTICE OF WHAT CITIZEN PROCURATOR SAID YESTERDAY ABOUT MY MOST GRIEVOUS CRIMES AGAINST THE COUNTRY, AGAINST THE LAND OF THE SOVIETS, AND AGAINST THE PARTY. It is painful to realize that I, who entered the revolutionary movement in my early years and was an honest and devoted Party member for two decades ended by becoming an enemy of the people and find myself here in the dock....
I gave sincere testimony during the investigation and in Court because I really had definitely and finally broken with the counter-revolutionary banditry of Trotsky and Trotskyism.
LAST PLEA OF BOGUSLAVSKY
SAYS THE TRIAL DISCLOSED A HIDEOUS PICTRE OF CRIME, TREACHERY, BLOOD AND TREASON AND HE ADMITS HE IS A BETRAYER AND A TRAITOR;
SAYS TROTSKY HAS VENOMOUS FANGS;
SAYS THE INSPIRER AND ORGANIZER OF ALL THIS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OF OURS WAS TROTSKY;
SAYS HE HAS COMMITTED LOATHSOME CRIMES
THE TRIAL HAS DISCLOSED A HIDEOUS PICTURE OF CRIME, TREACHERY, BLOOD AND TREASON. AND IN THIS PICTURE I OCCUPY A DEFINITE PLACE.... I STAND BEFORE YOU TODAY AS A STATE OFFENDER, A BETRAYER, A TRAITOR.
I cannot but ask myself the same question for the thousandth time, this time before you, Citizen Judges,...how did it happen?... It requires an answer, and when I pondered over this question many many times I gave myself the following answer.
I see several causes which I consider necessary to set forth to you here, Citizen Judges.
It began with a trifle which seems innocent enough at first sight. In 1923 a group of Trotskyites, headed by Trotsky, some of whom are sitting together with me in the dock, drew up the so-called "letter of the 46" which already contained all the elements of what we ended up with. I recall my feelings, and I believe they were not mine alone, when I signed that letter. HERE WERE BEFORE ME AUTHORITATIVE COMRADES--BOLSHEVIKS, HOLDING EXTREMELY RESPONSIBLE POSTS, RESPONSIBLE POSITIONS IN THE PARTY AND THE GOVERNMENT. And I forgot what Lenin had repeatedly taught the party, that one must not believe authority alone or words alone; he taught us conscientiously to examine all documents pertaining to the dispute in order to form our opinion. I personally regard this blind faith in so-called authorities as responsible for my fall, which is not only profound but irrevocable.
The second cause is also failure to remember one of Lenin's bequests, one fundamental in Party life, to the effect that once you stray from the road, once you commit an error, you must not persist in and insist on your mistakes, for, as the State Prosecutor rightly stated yesterday, THIS CAN AND DOES LEAD, AS IT DID IN OUR CASE, TO THE FASCIST COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY SWAMP.
And finally the third cause.... This is the system of deceit, the system of constant deceit, and I must say that it was not only in 1934 and in 1935, when they concealed the so-called instructions, that deceit on the part of Trotsky and his close associates was disclosed. Well, when one analyzes that whole period of the struggle one sees that this deceit was practiced very often. I must tell this to the court.... I must tell the court that, for example, to many of us Trotskyites, myself included who were in Moscow at the time and fairly close to Trotsky and his closest companions in arms, to us the transfer of what was already then an anti-Soviet struggle to the streets on Nov. 7, 1927, was a surprise. They concealed this from us and we were faced with the fact of the demonstration, we were faced with the fact, with the necessity of fighting for that senseless, criminal anti-Soviets step, for the first attempt to transfer the struggle to the streets.... TROTSKY IS STILL ALIVE AND HIS VENOMOUS FANGS HAVE NOT YET BEEN EXTRACTED, TODAY HE CONTINUES TO DECEIVE NOT ONLY HIS OWN ADHERENTS BUT ALSO TRIES, FORTUNATELY WITHOUT SUCCESS, TO DECEIVE THE WORKERS. In our country he fails in this, but may he not succeed to some extent in doing so in other countries and thus the exposure of this deceit is an urgent necessity.... But I consider it necessary to draw your attention to this system of deceit and warn everyone who is not yet convinced of this deceit that this system is fatal just as it proved fatal for me.
It is self-evident that there is nothing else to be said, save that THE INSPIRER AND ORGANIZER OF ALL THIS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OF OURS WAS TROTSKY, and the task of his exposure, complete and final, is the basic task besides the task of finding the specific criminals, his accomplices here in our country.
...The Party knew me as a devoted fighter both with a gun on my shoulder in the partisan and Red Guard detachments and on the front of Soviet construction,...
...This work has been undone many times over by the loathsome crimes I have committed....
LAST PLEA OF DROBNIS
ADMITS HE COMMITTED CRIME AFTER CRIME AND WAS CLEARING THE WAY FOR TROTSKY WHO WAS SELLING OUT SOCIALISM;
SAYS HE LIVED IN THE STUFFY, STINKING, FOUL, EVIL-SMELLING TROTSKYITE UNDERWORLD AND BREATHED ITS POISONED AIR; SAYS HE WENT TO WESTERN SIBERIA TO PERPETUATE LOATHSOME AND HEINOUS CRIMES;
SAYS HE HAS PURGED HIMSELF AND WASHED ROTTEN PUTRID TROTSKYISM FROM EVERY RECESS OF HIS MIND AND DEALT WITH IT RUTHLESSLY
I COMMITTED CRIME AFTER CRIME AND WAS CLEARING THE WAY FOR TROTSKY, WHO WAS BETRAYING AND SELLING THE LAND OF SOCIALISM and the working-class wholesale and retail, hastening the advent of a bloody war.
All of this happened because FOR YEARS I CONTINUED TO LIVE IN THE STUFFY, STINKING, FOUL, EVIL-SMELLING TROTSKYITE UNDERWORLD. I BREATHED THIS POISONED AIR and even when, for example, I went to Central Asia and evaded real activities, I lacked the resolution and will power to break with it finally. At the first summons of the reserve center I went to Western Siberia as a reinforcement in order to perpetuate loathsome and heinous crimes, without making it clear to myself for what purpose I was doing it.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 556
BLINDED, I DID LOATHSOME AND HEINOUS THINGS AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE WHERE I WORKED. I saw the enthusiasm and devotion of the workers, it attracted me, but a sinister force held me back.
ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT WERE THE PURGATORY WHICH ENABLED ME COMPLETELY TO SWEEP AWAY, TO RID MYSELF OF, ALL THAT FILTH....
...I ask you to believe me that I HAVE PURGED MYSELF AND WASHED ROTTEN PUTRID TROTSKYISM FROM EVERY RECESS OF MY MIND. I HAVE DEALT WITH IT RUTHLESSLY. The investigating authorities can confirm that I sometimes even urged them on this connection and gave myself no respite, in order to have done with this finally and irrevocably.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 560
LAST PLEA OF MURALOV
SAYS HE HAS NO GOOD WEAPONS WITH WHICH TO DEFEND HIMSELF; ADMITS TO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY;
SAYS HE WAS A FAITHFUL SOLDIER OF TROTSKY, WHO WAS A FOE OF THE LABOR MOVEMENT, AN AGENT OF THE FASCISTS, AND AN ENEMY OF THE WORKING-CLASS AND THE SOVIET UNION
I refused counsel and I refused to speak in my defense because I am used to defending myself with good weapons and attacking with good weapons. I HAVE NO GOOD WEAPONS WITH WHICH TO DEFEND MYSELF.
...But I assure the Court that neither at the investigation nor here in Court did I conceal anything in my testimony, that I GAVE EXHAUSTIVE INFORMATION REGARDING MY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND GAVE THE PROPER APPRAISAL.
...It would be unworthy for me to accuse anyone of having drawn me into the Trotskyite organization.... I do not dare to blame anyone for this. I myself am to blame. This is my guilt. This is my misfortune.
For over a decade I WAS A FAITHFUL SOLDIER OF TROTSKY, THAT FOE OF THE LABOR MOVEMENT, THAT AGENT OF THE FASCISTS, ENEMY OF THE WORKING-CLASS AND THE SOVIET UNION, who deserves every contempt.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 560-561
LAST PLEA OF NORKIN
ADMITS TO HAVING COMMITTED CRIMES;
WANTS TO CONVEY HIS SEETHING CONTEMPT AND HATRED FOR TROTSKY
During the investigation I TOLD EVERYTHING ABOUT MY CRIMES WITHOUT CONCEALING ANYTHING. I fully repented. All my testimony is utterly sincere and accurate.... In case this plea of mine in Court is the last act of my life, I want to take advantage of it to convey my seething contempt and hatred for Trotsky.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R, p. 561
LAST PLEA OF SHESTOV
SAYS HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY TROTSKYITE TERRORIST, DISRUPTIVE AND FASCIST ORGANIZATION FOR 13 YEARS;
SAYS HE SPENT 5 YEARS TRYING TO KILL SOVIET LEADERS;
SAYS THAT FOR FIVE YEARS HE CARRIED ON ACTIVE DESTRUCTIVE AND DISRUPTIVE WORK IN THE COAL PITS AND MINES AND WAS A TRAITOR, AN AGENT OF THE MOST REACTIONARY DETACHMENT OF GERMAN FASCISM;
SAYS HE ABANDONED HIMSELF FULLY AND WHOLEHEARTEDLY TO COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY TERRORIST AND ESPIONAGE ACTIVITIES;
SAYS THAT WHEN HE LOOKS BACK HE IS APPALLED BY WHAT HE DID; WANTS THE DEATH PENALTY;
SAYS HE IS A TRAITOR
Judges! FOR 13 YEARS I WAS A MEMBER OF THE COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY TROTSKYITE TERRORIST, DISRUPTIVE AND FASCIST ORGANIZATION. FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS I WAS ACTIVELY PREPARING AND ATTEMPTED TO KILL THE LEADERS OF THE TOILING PEOPLE, the leaders of the working-class and of those oppressed in the capitalist world. FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS I CARRIED ON ACTIVE DESTRUCTIVE AND DISRUPTIVE WORK IN THE COAL PITS AND MINES of the Kuznetsk Basin. FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS I WAS A TRAITOR, I WAS AN AGENT OF THE MOST REACTIONARY DETACHMENT OF THE WORLD BOURGEOISIE, AN AGENT OF GERMAN FASCISM.
... I WILL NOT CONCEAL THAT FROM 1923 ON, STEP-BY-STEP, STAGE BY STAGE, I CLIMBED HIGHER AND HIGHER AND CAME CLOSE TO THE ORGANIZER OF THE FASCIST AGENTS--TROTSKY AND TO HIS CLOSEST LIEUTENANTS--SEDOV, SMIRNOV, AND PYATAKOV.... I ABANDONED MYSELF FULLY AND WHOLEHEARTEDLY TO COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY TERRORIST AND ESPIONAGE ACTIVITIES. In 1923 I first betrayed the working-class.... IN THAT STRUGGLE I EMPLOYED EVERY LOATHSOME, EVERY FILTHY AND EVERY DESTRUCTIVE METHOD. I STAND BEFORE YOU UTTERLY EXPOSED. I told of everything that brought me to the dock. I did not surrender on the first day of my detention. For five weeks I denied everything, for five weeks they kept confronting me with one fact after another, with the photographs of my dastardly work and WHEN I LOOK BACK, I MYSELF WAS APPALLED BY WHAT I HAD DONE.
...I AM NOT ASKING FOR MERCY. I DO NOT WANT CLEMENCY. THE PROLETARIAN COURT MUST NOT AND CANNOT SPARE MY LIFE. Here before you, in the face of the whole working people, in the face of those oppressed by capitalism in all countries, to the best of my ability I shot to pieces the ideology that held me captive for 13 years. And now I have only one desire, to stand with the same calmness on the place of execution and WITH MY BLOOD TO WASH AWAY THE STAIN OF A TRAITOR TO MY COUNTRY.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 561
LAST PLEA OF STROILOV
ADMITS ALL HIS CRIMES WERE PROVEN;
ADMITS HE BETRAYED HIS COUNTRY AND WAS A GERMAN AGENT CARRYING OUT ITS LOATHSOME ASSIGNMENTS;
SAYS HE BECAME AN AGENT OF THE TROTSKYITES, WHOSE ASSIGNMENTS WERE IN NO WAY DIFFERENT FROM AND OFTEN EXCEEDED THE ASSIGNMENTS OF GERMAN INTELLIGENCE;
SAYS HE CAN’T MINIMIZE HIS GUILT OR THE GRAVITY OF HIS CRIMES; SAYS THE PARTY AND GOVT TREATED HIM QUITE WELL REGARDLESS; TRIED TO SEVER HIS TIES WITH FOREIGN AGENTS BUT THE TROTS WOULD NOT LET HIM;
ADMITS HE COMMITTED MANY WRECKING CRIMES WHICH ARE GRAVE AND EXTENSIVE
ALL MY CRIMES AND THE FULL WEIGHT OF MY GUILT FOR WHICH THERE CAN BE NO JUSTIFICATION ARE FULLY PRESENTED AND PROVED BY MY OWN CONFESSIONS AS WELL AS BY THE EXHAUSTIVE ANALYSIS MADE BY THE STATE PROSECUTOR IN HIS SPEECH. HAVING BETRAYED MY COUNTRY, IN SMALL MATTERS AT FIRST, I SANK LOWER AND LOWER, BECOMING AN AGENT OF THE GERMAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE AND CARRYING OUT ITS LOATHSOME ASSIGNMENTS. Together with this, although I had never been in the Party, although I had never been a Trotskyite, I ALSO BECAME AN AGENT OF THE TROTSKYITES, WHOSE ASSIGNMENTS WERE IN NO WAY DIFFERENT FROM AND OFTEN EXCEEDED THE ASSIGNMENTS OF THE GERMAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE.
ALTHOUGH ALL MY CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES RESULTED FROM THIS TWIN PRESSURE UPON ME I CANNOT IN ANY DEGREE MINIMIZE MY CRIMES AND THE GRAVITY OF MY GUILT which is very great before the country. IT IS FURTHER AGGRAVATED AND INTENSIFIED BY THE FACT THAT THE PARTY AND GOVERNMENT TREATED ME VERY WELL. This was expressed in my social position, it was also expressed in the encouragement I received and a number of awards that were given me.
It was expressed in the fact that I was appointed to the most responsible position in the country held by a non-Party engineer. I was given such favorable material and living conditions as were several times above the concept of a well-to-do life even in the literal sense. But at the beginning of 1934 I TRIED TO SEVER MY CRIMINAL TIES WITH THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE OF A HOSTILE STATE AND I ENCOUNTERED FIERCE RESISTANCE ON THE PART OF THE SIBERIAN CENTER OF THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION WHICH URGED ME TO CONTINUE THE JOINT WORK.
At the time I was puzzled by this kinship between the German intelligence service and Trotskyites, as I had no knowledge of either the so-called platform or the so-called political goal which had been set by the parallel center.
Here in Court it became clear to me that they are kindred people, kindred in their methods of work, people who resolved to sell piecemeal the territory of the Soviet Union.
I SHALL NOT ENUMERATE ALL MY CRIMES IN THE WAY OF WRECKING ACTIVITIES. THEY ARE GRAVE AND EXTENSIVE and they were all enumerated in the preliminary investigation and by the Procurator. At the bottom of the list I SEE THE TREMENDOUS SUM-TOTAL OF MY CRIMES. I see the tremendous bill which the Soviet land presents to me.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 563-564
LAST PLEA OF ARNOLD
ADMITS HE COMMITTED CRIMES AGAINST THE SOVIET LEADERS;
SAYS HIS CRIIMES WERE ABOMINABLE AND LOATHSOME;
SAYS HE ADMITTED EVERYTHING AND GOT RID OF THE FILTH IN HIM
...I TOOK PART IN CRIMES AGAINST THE FOREMOST LEADERS OF THE PARTY AND GOVERNMENT, raising my hand against them. And I am very glad that I did not succeed in this. I REALIZED MY LOATHSOME CRIME, AND IMMEDIATELY LEFT PROKOPYEVSK. I TRIED TO REDEEM MY ABOMINABLE ACTION BY WORK.
At the preliminary investigation and here in Court I have made a clean breast of everything, and THERE IS NO MORE OF THAT FILTH LEFT IN ME.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 566
LAST PLEA OF LIVSHITZ
SAYS HE TOOK THE COURSE OF TREACHERY AND TREASON;
SAYS HE WENT FROM UNDERGROUND WORK TO WRECKING, DIVERSION AND TREASON;
SAYS TROTSKY IS THE ORGANIZER, INSPIRER, AND RESTORER OF CAPITALISM IN THE SU;
SAYS HE REACHED THE EXTREME LIMIT BY WORKING IN VILE TREACHEROUS WORK WITH TROTSKY FOR THE MOST RABID AND DARKEST FORCES OF FASCISM TO PREPARE FOR WAR AND THE DEFEAT OF THE USSR;
WANTS A CHANCE TO REDEEM HIS MONSTROUS CRIMES
...I enjoyed the confidence of the Party, I enjoyed the confidence of Stalin's comrade-in-arms, Kaganovich, I trampled this confidence in the counter-revolutionary Trotskyite quagmire, and TOOK THE COURSE OF TREACHERY AND TREASON AGAINST THE COUNTRY.
How did this happen? How was I engulfed in the counter-revolutionary quagmire? Beginning with disagreement with the Party and support of Trotsky on the most important, the most decisive question of our proletarian revolution--on the building up of socialism in our country--I descended step-by-step, driven by the logic of the struggle, from factional work to underground work, and FROM UNDERGROUND WORK TO WRECKING, ACTS OF DIVERSION AND TREASON AGAINST THE COUNTRY. I cannot maintain, I cannot plead that I did not know the whole program of Trotsky and of the center, although in reality I did not know the whole program as it has been disclosed at this trial. THE FACT REMAINS THAT TROTSKY IS THE ORGANIZER, THE INSPIRER OF THE RESTORATION OF CAPITALISM IN OUR COUNTRY. Together WITH THE MOST RABID AND DARKEST FORCES OF FASCISM, TROTSKY IS PREPARING WAR AND DEFEAT OF THE USSR IN THIS WAR, AND IN THIS VILE TREACHEROUS WORK I AIDED HIM. SO I REACHED THE EXTREME LIMIT.
... This entitles me to ask the proletarian Court, the Soviet Court to spare me my life, to GIVE ME A CHANCE TO REDEEM AT LEAST A PART OF MY MONSTROUS CRIMES by honest work.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 566-567
LAST PLEA OF KNYAZEV
SAYS VYSHINSKY CHARACTERIZED HIS CRIMES JUSTLY;
SAYS HE DID 2 1/2 YEARS OF CRIMINAL WORK IN THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION;
ADMITS HE PREPARED FOR WAR IN ORDER TO CLEAR THE PATH FOR THE COMING TO POWER OF THE SCOUNDREL TROTSKY;
WAS SURPRISED ABOUT WHAT HE HEARD FROM OTHER DEFENDANTS AND WOULD HAVE TURNED THEM IN HAD HE KNOWN;
SAYS HE CONFESSED EVERYTHING UP TO THE VERY LAST, WITHOUT ANY COMPULSION TO DO SO
Yesterday I listened to the speech of the State Prosecutor [Vyshinsky] with the utmost attention and intensity.
Notwithstanding the fact that it was severe, speaking honestly I must frankly and courageously say that IT WAS JUST, AS WAS THE WAY THE CITIZEN PROSECUTOR CHARACTERIZED MY CRIMES AGAINST THE PARTY AND THE COUNTRY. I can only say one thing here: that not at a single step, not for one moment during my 2 1/2 YEARS OF CRIMINAL WORK IN THE TROTSKYITE ORGANIZATION, in my connections with the Japanese, have I ever pursued personal aims and personal interests. On this score my conscience is clear. YES,... I WORKED TO PREPARE FOR WAR. TO PUT SIMPLY, I WORKED FOR THE APPROACH OF WAR, IN ORDER TO CLEAR THE PATH, TO PAVE THE WAY FOR THE COMING TO POWER OF THE SCOUNDREL TROTSKY. During these 2 1/2 years I have experienced many painful moments, but what I heard in Court about how our center engaged in wholesale and retail selling of the territory of the Soviet Union--notwithstanding all my painful experiences, I MUST SAY OUTRIGHT THAT MY HAIR STOOD ON END.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 567
I am not a politician, it is true, but not a political ignoramus either. I understand perfectly well what it means to surrender the Ukraine, what it means to surrender the Maritime province and the Amur region...to surrender the Baku and Grozny oilfields and the railways, and then the whole of Russia would be a first-class colony of German fascism.
...If any of us, who worked in the provinces, who trusted the center, had found out about this--this is no place for tragic words--but I declare outright that these realist politicians would have lost their beards pretty quickly. OBVIOUSLY, WE WOULD HAVE GONE TOGETHER TO THE PEOPLE'S COMMISSARIAT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS. But as it is, it is they who came for us.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 568
At this trial, both at the preliminary investigation and here in Court, I HAVE SINCERELY TRIED TO CONFESS EVERYTHING UP TO THE VERY LAST, WITHOUT ANY COMPULSION TO DO SO, from the first day when the investigation began.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 569
LAST PLEA OF TUROK
SAYS HE TOOK THE PATH OF DIRECT COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY WRECKING ACTS AND TREASON TO THE COUNTRY;
SAYS HE CARRIED OUT IN PRACTICE THE CRIMINAL PROGRAM WHICH WAS GIVEN BY TROTSKY FROM ABROAD;
SAYS IT IS VERY HARD TO ASK THE PROLETARIAN COURT FOR CLEMENCY SINCE HE WS A TRAITOR AND A BANDIT
Judges, I took the Trotskyite path in 1931, and of course from this path, when working in the Urals in 1934, I LOGICALLY TOOK THE PATH OF DIRECT COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY WRECKING ACTS AND TREASON TO THE COUNTRY.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 569
Since that time I have actively participated in that counter-revolutionary practical work, CARRYING OUT IN PRACTICE THE CRIMINAL PROGRAM WHICH WAS GIVEN BY TROTSKY FROM ABROAD and by our center.
I must say here that if in 1931 I adhered to Trotskyism by chance, in 1934 my active and infamous work was no longer a matter of chance. That is why it was active.
Citizen judges, I, whom the Prosecutor in his speech has called a bandit, comparing me and my companions in the dock and in crime with those who lurk on the highways with bludgeon and dagger--moreover this description was not the result of a chance phrase chosen by the Prosecutor but was the result of those criminal acts which I committed-- I, OF COURSE, FIND IT VERY HARD TO ASK THE PROLETARIAN COURT, AND THROUGH IT, IN EFFECT, THE SOVIET PEOPLE, FOR CLEMENCY TO ME, A TRAITOR AND A BANDIT.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 570
LAST PLEA OF RATAICHAK
SAYS IT IS PAINFUL TO SPEAK OF ALL HIS CRIMES AS A MEMBER OF THE TROTSKYITE COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY ORGANIZATION;
SAYS THE PROSECUTOR’S DESCRIPTION OF ALL THE ACTS IS CORRECT; SAYS WORK WAS CARRIED OUT BY OTHERS AT HIS INSTRUCTIONS; SAYS HE WAS CONTAMINATED WITH THE ROTTENNESS OF THE TROTSKYITE MORASS;
SAYS HE BECAME AN AGENT OF TROTSKY, OF FASCISM;
SAYS HE CARRIED OUT A NUMBER OF MONSTROUS ACTS AND OTHERS DID SO AT HIS INSTRUCTIONS;
SAYS THAT WITH OUR HANDS WE WERE VIRTUALLY DESTROYING WHAT HAD BEEN CREATED BY THE HONEST BUILDERS OF SOCIALISM; SAYS HIS ACTIONS WERE CRIMINAL AND COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY
Citizen Judges, IT IS PAINFUL TO SPEAK OF ALL THE CRIMES COMMITTED BY EACH ONE OF US, THE MEMBERS OF THE TROTSKYITE COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY ORGANIZATION. It is particularly painful to speak now, after THE STATE PROSECUTOR'S EXHAUSTIVE AND CORRECT DESCRIPTION OF ALL THE ACTS COMMITTED by this counter-revolutionary organization, by all the accused seated here in the dock and by each one of them individually.
At the investigation I made exhaustive and sincere depositions about THE WHOLE WORK WHICH WAS CARRIED OUT BY OTHERS AT MY INSTRUCTIONS. I mentioned all the members of this vile organization who were known to me, in order not to leave any tail-ends or remnants whatever, not to leave any people who were even in the slightest degree CONTAMINATED WITH THE ROTTENNESS OF THIS TROTSKYITE MORASS. Prior to my connection with the Trotskyite organization, I never engaged in espionage nor in adventurism. In linking my fate with this counter-revolutionary organization, I BECAME THE AGENT OF TROTSKY, BECAME THE AGENT OF FASCISM. It is very hard to draw the border-line here, for there is no borderline between the agents of Trotsky and the agents of fascism.
I CARRIED OUT A NUMBER OF ACTS, AND PERSONS CONNECTED WITH ME CARRIED THEM OUT AT MY INSTRUCTIONS-- MONSTROUS ACTS OF CRIME against the Party, against the Soviet power, against the Soviet people. In 1935 it had already become perfectly clear that this whole struggle was not a struggle against the leaders of the Party and the government, was not a struggle for a change in the policy of the Party and the government, but that it was a struggle, a real struggle against the whole Russian people who were building their new life. WITH OUR HANDS WE WERE VIRTUALLY DESTROYING WHAT HAD BEEN CREATED BY THE HONEST BUILDERS OF SOCIALISM. We have been undermining, destroying what the Russian people had been creating during many long years of severe struggle for a change in their life, for the building up of socialism in the Soviet Union. It has become perfectly clear that this struggle is utterly futile, and THAT OUR ACTIONS, OUR CRIMINAL COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY ACTIONS, CANNOT IN THE LEAST CHANGE THE STRUGGLE OF THE HONEST TOILERS OF THE SOVIET UNION FOR THE COMPLETION OF SOCIALIST CONSTRUCTION.
... My guilt, and also that of many of us who are sitting in the dock, is aggravated by the fact that I OCCUPIED A QUITE RESPONSIBLE POST, A LEADING POST IN ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT BRANCHES OF INDUSTRY. My guilt is still further aggravated by the fact that I unquestionably and continually enjoyed exceptional confidence on the part of our People's Commissar of Heavy Industry, on the part of the Party and the government. Naturally, as a man who occupied a responsible position, I must bear greater responsibility than a rank-and-file member or participant in all these crimes.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 570-571
LAST PLEA OF HRASCHE
SAYS HE BETRAYED THE TOILING PEOPLE WITH STRIKING CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES;
SAYS HE FULLY CONFESSED HIS CRIMES AND DOES NOT BELITTLE HIS GUILT;
SAYS THAT IN HIS CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES HE HAS HAD VARIOUS MASTERS, INCLUDING THE FASCIST INTELLIGENCE SERVICE AND THE TROTSKYITES;
SAYS HE PASSED FROM ONE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE TO ANOTHER AND FINALLY THE TROTSKYITE, FASCIST SECRET AGENT, MEYEROWITZ DELIVERED HIM INTO THE HANDS OF THE TROTSKYITE RATAICHAK;
SAYS HE FELT ASHAMED OF HIS VILE TREACHERY;
SAYS HE MADE A FULL AND FRANK CONFESSION OF HIS CRIMES
Judges, I waived my right to make a speech in defense, nor in my final plea do I want to expatiate on how I came to such a life, how I DESCENDED TO BETRAYING THE INTERESTS OF THE TOILING PEOPLE. THE FACTS OF MY CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES ARE TOO STRIKING, and any attempt even to explain them can of course only aggravate my lot. I ask the Court to believe me when I say that I HAVE WHOLLY AND FULLY CONFESSED MY CRIMES AGAINST THE TOILERS OF THE SOVIET UNION, THAT I HAVE CONCEALED NOTHING AND HAVE NOT TRIED TO BELITTLE MY GUILT.
...IN THE COURSE OF MY CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES I HAVE HAD VARIOUS MASTERS, INCLUDING THE FASCIST INTELLIGENCE SERVICE AND THE TROTSKYITES. Believe me, there was an attempt on my part to take another course, but ONE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE FOLLOWED BEHIND THE OTHER, I PASSED FROM THE CLUTCHES OF ONE TO THOSE OF THE OTHER, AND FINALLY THE TROTSKYITE, FASCIST SECRET AGENT, MEYEROWITZ DELIVERED ME INTO THE HANDS OF THE TROTSKYITE RATAICHAK. But for all that I was not a Judas Trotskyite. I HAD TO FEEL ASHAMED OF MYSELF FOR MY VILE TREACHERY, and could not, as the Trotskyites are doing, conceal it beneath a kind of ideological superstructure, beneath a kind of political platform.
I ask the Court to take this into account, as also MY FULL AND FRANK CONFESSION OF MY CRIMES, and if possible to give me a chance by honest labor to mitigate the harm I have done by my criminal activities.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 572
LAST PLEA OF PUSHIN
ADMITS HE COMMITTED HEAVY CRIMES
Citizen Judges, at the investigation and in Court I have told with complete frankness everything that I know about the activities of the counter-revolutionary Trotskyite organization, TOLD ALSO ABOUT MY OWN HEAVY CRIMES. I have not concealed anything from the Court, desiring in my sincere account to give an outlet to the agonizing feeling of my guilt before my country, a feeling which accumulated in me more and more as I began to understand the true essence and aims of the counter-revolutionary Trotskyite organization, and which found vent in frank confession.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 573
The preliminary and Court investigations have established that:
In 1933, in accordance with direct instructions given by the enemy of the people, Trotsky, who was deported from the USSR in 1929, there was formed in Moscow, apart from the so-called "united Trotskyite-Zinovievite terrorist center," consisting of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Smirnov and others, an underground parallel anti-Soviet, Trotskyite center, members of which were accused in the present case: Pyatakov, Radek, Sokolnikov and Serebryakov.
In accordance with instructions received from the enemy of the people, Trotsky, THE PRINCIPAL AIM OF THE PARALLEL ANTI-SOVIET TROTSKYITE CENTER WAS TO OVERTHROW THE SOVIET POWER IN THE USSR AND TO RESTORE CAPITALISM AND THE POWER OF THE BOURGEOISIE BY MEANS OF WRECKING, DIVERSIVE, ESPIONAGE AND TERRORIST ACTIVITIES DESIGNED TO UNDERMINE THE ECONOMIC AND MILITARY POWER OF THE SOVIET UNION, TO EXPEDITE THE ARMED ATTACK ON THE USSR, TO ASSIST FOREIGN AGGRESSORS AND TO BRING ABOUT THE DEFEAT OF THE USSR.
In full conformity with this principal aim, the enemy of the people Trotsky, abroad, and the parallel anti-Soviet Trotskyite center, represented by Radek and Sokolnikov, in Moscow, entered into negotiations with certain representatives of Germany and Japan. DURING THE COURSE OF NEGOTIATION WITH ONE OF THE LEADERS OF THE NATIONAL-SOCIALIST PARTY OF GERMANY, RUDOLF HESS, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE, TROTSKY, PROMISED IN THE EVENT OF A TROTSKYITE GOVERNMENT COMING TO POWER AS THE RESULT OF THE DEFEAT OF THE SOVIET UNION, TO MAKE A NUMBER OF POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, AND TERRITORIAL CONCESSIONS TO GERMANY AND JAPAN AT THE EXPENSE OF THE USSR, INCLUDING THE CESSION OF THE UKRAINE TO GERMANY AND OF THE MARITIME PROVINCES AND THE AMUR REGION TO JAPAN. At the same time, the enemy of the people, Trotsky, undertook in the event of seizing power to liquidate the state farms, to dissolve the collective farms, to renounce the policy of industrialization of the country and to restore on the territory of the Soviet Union social relations of capitalist society....
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 574
IN FULFILLMENT OF THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE TROTSKY, SEVERAL TIMES RECEIVED BY RADEK, AND ALSO PERSONALLY BY PYATAKOV DURING A MEETING WITH THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE TROTSKY, IN DECEMBER 1935 IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE CITY OF OSLO, MEMBERS OF THE ANTI-SOVIET TROTSKYITE PARALLEL CENTER, PYATAKOV, RADEK, SOKOLNIKOV AND SEREBRYAKOV DEVELOPED WRECKING, DIVERSIVE, ESPIONAGE, AND TERRORIST ACTIVITIES.
Local Trotskyite centers were set up in certain large cities in the Soviet Union to exercise direct guidance of anti-Soviet activities in the provinces. In particular, a West-Siberian anti-Soviet Trotskyite center, consisting of Muralov, Boguslavsky and Drobnis was set up in Novosibirsk on the direct instructions of Pyatakov.
Diversive and wrecking work in industry, chiefly in enterprises of importance for defense purposes, and also on the railways, was performed by the accused in the present case at the behest of the enemy of the people Trotsky, and on the instructions and with the direct participation of agents of the German and Japanese intelligence services, and consisted in disrupting plans of production, lowering the quality of product, organizing fires and explosions at factories or factory departments and mines, organizing train wrecks, and damaging rolling stock and railway tracks.
In organizing diversive activities, the accused were guided by the instructions of the enemy of the people Trotsky "to strike palpable blows at the most sensitive places," supplemented by directions from Pyatakov, Livshitz, and Drobnis not to shrink before loss of human life, because, "the more victims, the better, since this will rouse the anger of the workers.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 575
In the chemical industry, the accused Rataichak and Pushin, on the instructions of Pyatakov, performed wrecking work with the object of disrupting the State production plan, delaying the construction of new factories and enterprises and spoiling the quality of the construction work on new enterprises.
In addition, in 1934-1935, the accused Rataichak and Pushin organized three diversive acts at the Gorlovka Nitrogen Fertilizer Works, and two of them were accompanied by explosions which caused the death of workers and heavy material loss.
Diversive acts were also organized at the instigation of the accused Rataichak at the Voskressensk Combined Chemical Works and the Nevsky Plant.
In the coal and chemical industries of the Kuznetsk Basin, the accused Drobnis, Norkin, Shestov and Stroilov, on the instructions of Pyatakov and Muralov, carried on wrecking and diversive work with the object of disrupting the output of coal, delaying the building and development of new mines and chemical works, to create conditions of work harmful and dangerous to the workers by allowing gas to accumulate in the galleries and pits, while on Sept. 23, 1936, on the instructions of Drobnis, members of the local Trotskyite organization caused an explosion at the Tsentralnaya Pit in the Kemerovo mine, as a result of which ten workers lost their lives and 14 workers received grave injuries.
On the railways, the diversive and wrecking activities carried on by the accused Serebryakov, Boguslavsky, Livshitz, Knyazev and Turok in accordance with the stand of the anti-Soviet Trotskyite center, aimed to disrupt the State plan of freight loading, especially for the most important freight (coal, ore, grain), to damage the rolling stock (cars and locomotives) and the railway track, and to organize the wrecking of trains, especially of troop trains.
At the instructions of Livshitz, and being commissioned therefore by an agent of the Japanese intelligence service, the accused Knyazev in 1935-1936 organized and brought about the wrecking of a number of freight trains, passenger trains, and troop trains involving loss of life; as a result of the wreck of a troop train at the Shumikha Station on October 27, 1935, 29 Red Army men were killed and 29 Red Army men injured.
On the direct instructions of the enemy of the people Trotsky, Pyatakov and Serebryakov, members of the anti-Soviet Trotskyite center, made preparations, in the event of an armed attack on the USSR, to carry out a number of diversive acts in industries of importance for defense purposes and also on important railway trunk lines.
On the instructions of Pyatakov, the accused Norkin made preparations to set fire to the Kemerovo Chemical Works upon the outbreak of war.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 576
On the instructions of Livshitz, the accused Knyazev proceeded to carry out the commission given him by Mr. H., an agent of the Japanese intelligence service, to organize during wartime the blowing up of railway structures, the burning of military stores and army provision bases, the wrecking of troop trains, and also the deliberate infection of trains designed for the transportation of troops, provision supply depots and sanitary centers of the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army with highly virulent bacilli.
In addition to diversive and wrecking activities, the accused Livshitz, Knyazev, Turok, Stroilov, Shestov, Rataichak, Pushin, and Hrasche, at the orders of the Trotskyite anti-Soviet center, engaged in securing and handing over secret information of utmost State importance to agents of the German and Japanese intelligence services.
The accused Rataichak, Pushin, and Hrasche were connected with agents of the German intelligence service, Meyerowitz and Lenz, to whom, in 1935-1936, they handed over strictly secret material relating to the condition and operation of chemical plants; Pushin in 1935 handed over to Lenz, agent of the German intelligence service, secret information on the output of products by all the chemical plants of the Soviet Union in 1934, the program of work of all the chemical plants in 1935, and the plan for the construction of nitrogen works, while the accused Rataichak handed over to the same Lenz absolutely secret material on the output in 1934 and the program of the work of chemical enterprises supplying the army for 1935.
The accused Shestov and Stroilov were connected with agents of the German intelligence service named Schebesto, Flessa, Floren, Sommeregger and others, and handed over to them secret information about the coal and chemical industries of the Kuznetsk Basin.
The accused Livshitz, Knyazev, and Turok regularly transmitted to Mr. H., agent of the Japanese intelligence service, strictly secret information regarding the technical condition and mobilization capacity of the railways of the USSR, and also regarding transportation of troops.
AT THE DIRECT BEHEST OF THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE TROTSKY, THE ANTI-SOVIET TROTSKYITE CENTER FORMED SEVERAL TERRORIST GROUPS IN MOSCOW, LENINGRAD, KIEV, ROSTOV, NOVOSIBIRSK, SOCHI, AND OTHER CITIES OF THE USSR, WHICH ENGAGED IN MAKING PREPARATIONS FOR TERRORIST ACTS AGAINST THE LEADERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION AND THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT, COMRADES STALIN, MOLOTOV, KAGANOVICH, VOROSHILOV, ORDJONIKIDZE, YEZHOV, ZHDANOV, KOSSIOR, EICHE, POSTYSHEV, AND BERIA; certain terrorist groups (in Moscow, Novosibirsk, in the Ukraine and in Transcaucasia) were under the personal direction of the accused Pyatakov and Serebryakov, members of the anti-Soviet Trotskyite center.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 577
In organizing terrorist acts, the anti-Soviet Trotskyite center endeavored to take advantage of visits paid to the provinces by leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet government.
Thus in the autumn of 1934, Shestov, at the behest of Muralov, endeavored to carry out a terrorist act against Molotov, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, during his visit to the Kuznetsk Basin, for which purpose a member of the local Trotskyite terrorist group, the accused Arnold, attempted to cause an accident to the automobile in which Comrade Molotov rode.
Furthermore, on the instructions of Pyatakov and Muralov, the accused Shestov made preparations for a terrorist act against Eiche, Secretary of the West-Siberian Territory Committee of the CPSU, while the accused Arnold at the instigation of Shestov made preparations for a terrorist act against Ordjonikidze.
Thus the military collegium of the supreme court of the USSR has established that:
I. Pyatakov, Serebryakov, Radek and Sokolnikov were members of the anti-Soviet Trotskyite center and, at the direct behest of the enemy of the people Trotsky, now abroad, with the object of expediting an armed attack on the Soviet Union, assisting foreign aggressors in seizing territory of the Soviet Union, overthrowing the Soviet power and restoring capitalism and the power of the bourgeoisie, directed the treacherous, diversive, wrecking, espionage and terrorist activities of the anti-Soviet Trotskyite organization in the Soviet Union--i.e., have committed crimes covered in the Criminal Code.
II. Pyatakov and Serebryakov, mentioned in clause I, as well as Muralov, Drobnis, Livshitz and Boguslavsky, members of an anti-Soviet Trotskyite organization, organized and personally directed the treasonable, espionage, diversive and terrorist activities of the members of the anti-Soviet Trotskyite organization--i.e., have committed crimes covered by the Criminal Code.
III. Knyazev, Rataichak, Norkin, Shestov, Turok, Pushin, and Hrasche, while members of an anti-Soviet Trotskyite organization, carried out the instructions of the anti-Soviet Trotskyite center concerning treasonable, espionage, undermining, wrecking, and terrorist activities--i.e., have committed crimes covered by the Criminal Code.
IV. Arnold, while a member of an anti-Soviet Trotskyite organization, at the instigation of the accused Muralov and Shestov, attempted to carry out terrorist acts against Comrades Molotov and Ordjonikidze--i.e., has committed crimes covered by the criminal code.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 578-579
PYATAKOV, SEREBRYAKOV, as members of the anti-Soviet Trotskyite center who organized and directly guided treasonable, espionage, undermining, wrecking and terrorist activities, to the supreme penalty--to be shot.
MURALOV, DROBNIS, LIVSHITZ, BOGUSLAVSKY, KNYAZEV, RATAICHAK, NORKIN, SHESTOV, TUROK, PUSHIN, AND HRASCHE as organizers and direct executors of the above-mentioned crimes, to the supreme penalty--to be shot
SOKOLNIKOV, RADEK as members of the anti-Soviet Trotskyite center, responsible for its criminal activities, but not directly participating in the organization and execution of acts of a diversive, wrecking, espionage and terrorist nature each to imprisonment for a term of ten years.
ARNOLD to imprisonment for a term of ten years
STROILOV in view of the facts mentioned in point V of the defining section of the present verdict--to imprisonment for a term of eight years.
SOKOLNIKOV, RADEK, ARNOLD, AND STROILOV, who are condemned to imprisonment, shall be deprived of political rights for a period of five years each.
The personal property of all the condemned shall be confiscated.
Enemies of the people, Trotsky, and his son, Sedov,...having been convicted by the testimony of the accused Pyatakov, Radek, Shestov, and Muralov, and by the evidence of Romm and Bukhartsev, who were examined as witnesses at the trial, as well as by materials in the present case, of personally directing the treacherous activities of the Trotskyite anti-Soviet center, in the event of their being discovered on the territory of the USSR, are liable to immediate arrest and trial by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR.
Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre--1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R , p. 579