From the speech of Comrade Kalinin. February 25, 1937

Marx-Engels |  Lenin  | Stalin |  Home Page

From the speech of Comrade Kalinin. February 25, 1937

Source: Questions of History, 1992, No. 10, pp. 6-7

Molotov. Comrade Kalinin has the floor.

Kali's.

Comrades, the question of the terrorist work of Rykov and Bukharin has been so fully covered from all sides that it seems to me that there is no longer any reason to dwell on all the materials that were distributed to the members of the Central Committee. Tt. Voroshilov, Andreev and Molotov gave such an analysis that doing this review again would be a repetition. Therefore, I will focus only on two specific facts from Bukharin's activities - this is a written statement to the Central Committee. When you read it, you see one ambiguity after another, a fake document, moreover, it still strives to spit, on each occasion saying “I don’t want to say this, it shouldn’t be like that”, but the created atmosphere, etc., puts it in an exceptional position . And when you read the entire statement, it leaves you with the impression that the person has smeared over a number of individual people and departments, and the investigation itself, and the people demonstrating, and the Central Committee.

And when Bukharin was shouted here during his speech that you were qualified as a lawyer, Bukharin said: "Well, my position here is such that I must defend myself." I think, and the comrades who retorted, probably also think that when they talk about a lawyer’s approach, this does not mean that Bukharin should not defend himself, that’s not the point, and this means that Bukharin uses the lawyer’s methods in his defense who wants to protect the client at all costs, even if his case is completely hopeless (Voices from the seats. Correct.), who uses all methods, all sorts of methods, for which a priori the client is guilty or innocent is indifferent, he must be justified and therefore, he uses all sorts of artificial means and methods to influence. And here, if Bukharin had approached this question in the Central Committee in a Bolshevik way, it means that he stated a priori that there are two sides here: here is the Central Committee, here is Bukharin. But in fact, to tell the truth, here all the members of the Central Committee come out sharply and there is not a single one who would not come out against Bukharin with incredible harshness, and does not every member of the Central Committee want Bukharin to jump out clean from this matter? (Voice from the spot. How will he jump out? Postyshev. A bit late.)

I'm not talking about that. This is a different issue. But after all, this was the reason for postponing the plenum for a whole month, they thought that maybe there would be some new circumstances. After all, for us Bolsheviks, you yourself perfectly understand that every new enemy in the Soviet Union is a minus. What is there to say? Therefore, people, of course, had a sincere desire to have fewer accusations against them, but contrary to this desire, the accusations, well, literally pile up like a mountain. And Bukharin's tactics - in his statement, and in his speech, and in all his behavior - it always leads the line of fighting the Central Committee - "nothing happens." And the hunger strike crowns this line. Well, she was ridiculed and, I think, deservedly ridiculed. But we want to sincerely check. Why do we approach cautiously, want to check why we do not trust you? Because we have been fools so many times, we don’t want to be fools again. (Laughter. Kosior. We didn't want to.) You understand, read all the documents that were announced by vols. Molotov, Voroshilov, Andreev, after all, how many times did they think: well, it will pass, well, we will educate, well, somehow it will come out. But nothing comes of it. (Kosior. It turns out he is humpbacked.)

Yes, it turns out, humpbacked. No way, no way. And this desire - not to be fooled - requires us to carefully check. Comrades, after all, for a communist, the party is dearest of all, and if Bukharin had come up as a communist here, at the last plenum, then, it seems to me, this is how he should have structured his statement, both written and oral, he should have said: Comrades, I am guilty of this and that, ”I would list all the facts. “I don’t remember such and such cases, such and such cases are lies. Help me, help me, Bukharin, tell me how to get out of this dirty swamp.” This is the only way for a communist who wants to work together with the party after this huge history of betrayal, betrayal of the Party, after this huge struggle with the Party.

Now is not the time to say that we are ideologically responsible for our students. Now the question is that they organized terror, that they practically led this struggle. Therefore, in his speeches, Bukharin had to strike precisely at this, but we did not hear this from Bukharin and Rykov. This is where Bukharin's advocacy approach manifests itself. Now make an analogy. If Bukharin, at the most tragic moment of his life, both party and personal, sends such documents to the Central Committee, makes such speeches, undertakes such political actions as a hunger strike, then what are his tactics in conversations with his students? We must at least multiply all these methods of his tactics tenfold. So is it or not? (Kosior. Approximately.) And after that, to say that I did not know where the students went is ridiculous. There is nothing to be surprised at this, it is a political law, There was no other choice for the students. If you make an analogy of all these things with Bukharin's latest behavior and transfer this behavior of his to his attitude towards his students, of course, there is no other way out. (Kosior. What you sow, you will reap.)

Rykov says that the smoke that resulted from the struggle against the party of all Bukharin's supporters cannot exist without fire. This is right. Maybe there was more fire than smoke. Rykov's speech, essentially speaking, is a speech of recognition. Of course, individual meetings, individual conversations can be interpreted in different ways, they can be refuted. But when we evaluate two conversations, we draw an analogy with what conversation took place at such and such a moment. If there was a proven conversation, let's say, with Kotov, it was of such and such a nature, then another conversation, unproven, the conversation with Uglanov should be the same as the conversation with Kotov. Rykov refutes the connection with the Trotskyists, refutes his terrorist actions. But for me the most convincing refutation of this is the testimony of Beloborodov, and not in that that Beloborodoe met Rykov by chance. It is clear that a chance meeting is a possible thing, but that Bakhutov brings Rykov together with Beloborodov. But, excuse me, comrades, for what purpose was it necessary to meet, to make an appointment, to strive for a meeting with Beloborodov?

This meeting is not just a chance meeting. Rykov appointed this meeting, Bakhutov, also a well-known person on the right side, participated in the organization of this meeting. And when we know that the right-wingers in the person of Rykov were connected with the major leaders of the Trotskyist center, as the Trotskyists say, then we must look at this meeting differently. Besides, the Trotskyists are not only talking about this meeting, but they are also saying what they said. I personally think that Beloborodoe showed correctly here, could not show it wrong, there was no need for him to show it wrong. If we have even a little bit of political reason, then just for a greeting, for an empty meeting, Rykov would not have started this meeting with Beloborodov, with this most odious, most irreconcilable figure (before the trial) on the part of the Trotskyists. Rykov met with him. This ray of flame, it immediately illuminates. He highlights that all those of his employees who talk about Rykov's terrorism are right. Rykov cannot get away from this. There is nowhere for him to go. He cannot get away from it. The question must be posed directly - for what purpose did Rykov want to meet with Beloborodov, agreed on this with Bakhutov, and Bakhutov lags behind with the others who accompanied Rykov, lags behind him, and he and Beloborodov speak two or two.

In the light of these two facts - Bukharin's behavior only at the plenum and the fact that I have cited - these two facts are enough to say that sin (and by sin I do not mean what he says, that we are politically responsible for our students, this is an old thing, everyone knows about it, it has already set the teeth on edge), they have a sin and it lies in the fact that they are participants. I personally would not want such "participants" to be in the ranks of the party. This is a disgrace to the party. You understand this. But as they say, facts are stubborn things, and you can’t run away from such facts. Now the question will be put before me - what to do? I think that the facts speak for themselves what the Central Committee needs to do. (Shkiryatov. Well?) There is no other way out. (Shkiryatov. He evaded answering. He himself raised the question, but did not give an answer to it.) There is nothing to give,