Marx-Engels | Lenin | Stalin | Home Page
From the transcript of the December plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks in 1936.N. I. Bukharin to I. V. Stalin, members and candidates of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. December 7, 1936
Questions of History, 1995, No. 1 Pages. 11-17
APRF, f. 3, op. 24, d. 260, l. 14-30 (copy); l. 31–50 (autograph).In the accompanying note to the letter, Bukharin asked: “Dear comrade. Stalin! I ask you to order my present statement to the plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks to be duplicated and distributed at the plenum (or sent to the participants in advance), and then attached to the transcript of the plenum. With com. pref. N. Bukharin. 10 am, 7 Dec. 1936 Moscow. (APRF, f. 3, op. 24, file 260, l. 13.)
December 7, 1936, 10 a.m. morning.
In the speeches at the 4th meeting of the plenum of the Central Committee, especially in the speech of Comrade Kaganovich, accusatory arguments against me were developed from various points of view: both from the general political (software-platform), and from the organizational, and from the tactical, using the appropriate evidence and based on a number of general considerations. As far as I could keep this argumentation in mind, I oppose it both in the interests of an objective analysis of the case, on which Comrade Stalin especially insisted, and in the interests of my own defense, with my own argumentation.
I. Program-platform .
In a number of speeches, the question of the counter-revolutionary platform was raised. Tov. Kaganovich put forward the argument that all the former opposition groups, which, in the course of the continuation of the struggle, have now turned into counter-revolutionary gangs in their development, all of them, including the present Trotskyist terrorists, have one platform, copied from the Rights and formulated back in ancient years (the struggle against industrialization, collectivization, etc.). From this follows the conclusion - it is no wonder that all of them have united on it even now, including, which implies my guilt from beginning to end, and myself. This is an argument of guilt from the “software side”. First of all, I remind you that in his concluding remarks at the trial, Comrade Vyshinsky put forward, on the basis of his own data, the thesis of "bare power" 11. I also remind you that in my letter to the members of the PB of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I objected to such a formulation of the question of the Trotskyists-Zinovievites, considering it completely insufficient and superficial .
What does Comrade Kaganovich offer as an explanation that at the same time serves as an accusation against me? The old (1928/29) platform of the right! Tell me, however, is it possible to assume that anyone on the threshold of 1937 simply repeats whatever the directives of 1928/29 were? Of course, this assumption does not stand up to scrutiny. But it also contradicts the immediate facts. As for the Trotskyists, they have the press, documents, even their own so-called, so to speak, the Fourth International. Their platform, from beginning to end, breathing counter-revolutionary malice against the USSR and our Party, is very modern, and it explains both their defeatist tactics and their terror. It proceeds from the thesis about the transformation of the “bureaucracy” of the USSR into a new exploiting class (the completion of Thermidor), from a furious denial of our foreign policy (both along the lines of the USSR and along the lines of the Comintern), rejection of the tactics of the Popular Front as a betrayal, rejection of our entire position in relation to the defense of the fatherland, etc. Against the supposedly completely degenerated power - they have the slogan of overthrow, defeatist tactics during the war and alliances with anyone for this purpose. With such frenzied anger towards the very foundations of our policy (and even more so towards its personal bearers) and with the centralization of our power, they also put the question of terror on the order of the day. Finished traitors, but with an actual program for the topic of the day. With such furious anger towards the very foundations of our policy (and even more towards its personal bearers) and with the centralization of our power, they also put the question of terror on the order of the day. Finished traitors, but with an actual program for the topic of the day. With such furious anger towards the very foundations of our policy (and even more towards its personal bearers) and with the centralization of our power, they also put the question of terror on the order of the day. Finished traitors, but with an actual program for the topic of the day.
I am ignorant of what the right-wingers who have remained right-wing think, for the simple reason that, as said, I have not had and do not have connections with them. As for me personally, even with complete distrust of my words, it still cannot be assumed that I could simply pass by two five-year plans. In reality, however, I have not a single atom of disagreement with the party line, which has been proved and verified by the gigantic mass experience of all recent years, and throughout all recent years I have defended this line with all vehemence and conviction. This Comrade Kaganovich considers excluded in advance! I categorically deny any kind of solidarity - both in the past and in the present - with the Ryutin platform (which, judging by the speeches, is said in Sosnovsky's testimony). I did not even read the Ryutin platform and could not discuss it at the “center of organization”, because there was no “center of organization” at that time, that is, in the late autumn of 1932. Tov. S. Kosior is surprised that they showed me the platform, but I did not read it. The matter is explained very simply. Showed it to me, if I'm not mistaken, Stalin himself. I leafed through this platform, read the table of contents, then had a conversation with Stalin about who could write it. So, within these limits, plus the subsequent analysis of the case at the Central Committee, of course, I had a certain idea about it. But they want to impose on me, as if I considered this dirty concoction to be my gospel, which I repeatedly discussed. And when I defend myself against this, Comrade Molotov calls me a self-advocate. What can I do if I have to defend myself against monstrous slanders alone, and only myself? On the basis of the above data, I have always considered the Ryutin platform to be a dirty counter-revolutionary concoction.
But let's go further. After all, Ryutin's work, as you know, dates back to 1932, and since then there have been gigantic changes throughout the country and throughout the world. Who can now even stand for platforms so archaic? This means that the general argument about the platform in the form in which Comrade Kaganovich developed it is incorrect. Only the proposition remains correct that all types of opposition, if they do not stop in time in their development, turn into counter-revolution, which leads to the restoration of capitalism. Meanwhile, on the basis of these incorrect general arguments, Comrade Kaganovich draws his conclusion that it can be considered established (!!) the fact (!!) that Bukharin has completely identified himself with the platform of the Trotskyist-Zinoviev gang, and that this is true both for 28 and for 32, and for 33, and for 1934! How can such conclusions be drawn?
II. Organizational communications and terror.
A number of "arguments" were put forward against me, which spoke of my alleged "participation" in the villainous work of the Trotskyites-Zinovievites. In their speech, comrade Kaganovich (and comrade Stalin in their remarks-questions) dwelt on the testimony of Uglanov, Yakovlev, Kulikov.
But first of all, once again about my confrontation with Sokolnikov. Tov. Yezhov and comrade Kaganovich assert here that they got the impression from this headquarters that I knew about the terrorist installations. Knew - means had a known attitude. I was told after the bet that they had such an impression that I had nothing to do with the case. It seems to me that the following clarifications about legal and non-legal grounds cannot apply to impressions. But I affirm that nothing could be obtained from this confrontation, since Sokolnikov admitted that he did not talk to me about politics. Why could there be “impressions”?
It is impossible not to note the categorical nature of Comrade Yezhov's statements, who said that the "rightists", i.e. myself included, were certainly aware of all the terrorist and other plans of the Trotskyist-Zinoviev bloc. Tov. Stalin spoke only of doubts of a "Party nature." I understand that under the circumstances one can suspect. But I do not understand how it is possible on this basis to give categorical formulations in the spirit of Comrade Yezhov. Here it is already considered proven that which is still subject to proof and can be completely rejected.
Now about the right, about the testimony of Uglanov, Yakovlev, Kulikov. In my letter to a member of the PB of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, I stated that around the end of 1933 I broke off even personal relations with Tomsky and Rykov, I visited Tomsky probably only once and Rykov for the last time, I think, in 1934. Thus, even personal ties, once so close, were severed. For this alone, the existence of the former "troika" is a myth and slander at the same time. I proposed to examine this question from all its material ends.
Now a question about Uglanov. I saw Uglanov for the last time on the eve of my departure for a vacation in Central Asia, in 1932, insisting on complete harmony with the party, warning against all sorts of vacillations, which I feared because of Uglanov's instability. Since then, I have had absolutely no news from Uglanov and about Uglanov, neither written nor oral, neither direct nor indirect. Consequently, no matter what Uglanov shows, it cannot have any significance for me for the second half of 1932, for 33, 4, 5 years. If Uglanov testified that he, Uglanov, as Comrade Kaganovich said, was preparing the assassination of Kirov, then this terrible fact proves to what extent Uglanov has sunk, continuing the struggle and not stopping. In vain does Comrade Kaganovich describe Uglanov as a firm man: U[glanov] is an incredible hysteric with enormous hesitations. He was an ardent anti-Trotskyist during the period of the common struggle with Trotsky. He was the first to leave the right, together with Kulikov at the November 29 plenum. He apparently returned to factional work again and then "evolved" towards the Trotskyists and Zinovievites.
But why am I here? Am I responsible for all the people who were once with me? Then why are the comrades who were in “democratic centralism” and who have departed from it not responsible for Drobnis, who were ever with Trotsky, for Trotsky, who were with Zinoviev, for Zinoviev-Kamenev, etc., etc. ? Of course, I do not in the least want to offend these comrades who are now sitting at the plenum. On the contrary, I want to show the absurdity of such a formulation of the question. Consequently, for guilt it is also necessary that the accused commit this guilt, i.e., that he be connected with anti-Party people by the criminal connection of common tasks, goals, deeds. But where is there even a shadow of evidence in relation to me? Or is it not true that I have not seen Uglanov since the summer of 1932, and also his closest friends? No, this is true, and therefore Uglanov's "evolution" has nothing to do with my evolution:
If comrade Stalin raises the question of an investigation, then comrade Kaganovich openly asserts on a grand scale that "we", including myself, "failed to carry out the vile murder of Kirov." What it is? What right - political, legal and moral - does Comrade Kaganovich have to utter such words? And it's called "Debriefing"! Comrade Kaganovich gives the following argument as "proof": Tomsky visited Zinoviev, and as a "philosopher" I had to "smell" Zinoviev's terrorism. I won't repeat my relationship with Tomsky again. But why, for example, Comrade Kaganovich did not "smell out" his deputy, Livshits? But he didn’t “smell”! This is not a reproach, but a statement of the general misfortune that resulted from the special virtuosity of disguise. Hence, it is impossible to prove someone's guilt with such arguments. It's too easy.
Approximately the same applies to the testimony of Yakovlev and Kulikov, I have already spoken about the Ryutin platform. I had absolutely no idea in recent years about where they are, what they do in general, not to mention politics. That this is so can, I think, be objectively proved by appropriate questions. Thus, the whole construction about some kind of right center headed by Bukharin and others and his immediate circle and about the transition of this "center" to the Trotskyist rails falls to the ground. All this is nonsense and nonsense. It is not nonsense or nonsense—the possibility of Uglanov and Co.'s "independent" evolution, but already without any relation and without any connection with me: they became disillusioned with the "changed" Bukharin and began to look for others. I do not deny this - it is possible.
To postpone the meetings of 1928 in my apartment of some members of the Central Committee, by the way, these meetings were open, in the Kremlin, where everything was registered, for the last years - this means mixing everything and everything. By the way, Comrade Kaganovich operates everywhere with the same categories: his platforms and people stand in the same place, and at the same time, arguments are taken from different eras. For example, the same Uglanov was, I repeat, the main figure in Moscow against Trotsky, and Trotsky hated him furiously in his time. If now Uglanov has become close to the Trotskyists, then this is only confirmation of his extreme instability, from which various consequences could result.
Tov. Kaganovich, speaking of various connections, often uses this kind of proof for proof: if X saw Y, and Y saw Z, and Z saw E and at the same time, say, handed him a list of candidates for the new government, then X about this knew. In fact, this may or may not be, and such a device cannot serve as a general proof.
Tov. Kaganovich also dwelt on the Slepkovites. But, as is well known, they were arrested as early as the autumn of 1932, and however instructive the history of this group, which has slipped into counter-revolution, may not be material for direct judgments about the activities of recent years. And it is this question that needs to be unraveled.
I do not undertake to answer for Tomsky and cannot, after our relations have broken. Regarding the meeting between Comrade Stalin and Tomsky in 1928, even before the formation of the right opposition, I remember very briefly, I remember, hearing Tomsky at that time, and his story could not be distinguished by clarity, because during the meeting Tomsky, as he said, was in absolutely insane state. To inform Stalin additionally about what T[omsky] said to the same Stalin would be at least strange. I didn't attach any importance to T[omsky's] threat. But, apparently, Comrade Stalin himself did not attach any more importance to it than to a drunken trick. It is also important to note that T[omsky] never returned to this topic in any of his conversations with him .. I simply cannot say anything about his mood after our actual break, except for poorly substantiated hypotheses, as well as about his conversations with Zinoviev. Only here comrade Kaganovich obviously exaggerates when he speaks of T[omsky's] ties with Zinoviev until 1936, for already from the end of 1934 Zin[oviev], as is known, was under lock and key.
Tov. Kaganovich dwelled in detail on the fact that during my confrontation with Sokolnikov, the following became clear: I told S[okolnikov] at one of the meetings of the PB about the inadmissibility of writing an article that he asked to be published in Izvestia under a pseudonym, so to speak, " illegally,” and mentioned that I had said the same thing to Rykov about such legality. From this Comrade Kaganovich drew the conclusion: I spoke with Sokolnikov as his accomplice! Meanwhile, the question is explained very simply: almost at the same meeting of the PB, I asked Rykov, as a newspaperman, to give at least one article about Narkomsvyaz, who is scolded by everyone, but who is silent, as if he were on some kind of illegal existence. Comrade Kaganovich turns this verbal metaphor into proof of the existence of an ideological and organizational commonality between me and S[okolnikov]! Hence the answer to the question of Comrade Kaganovich is clear, why I said about Rykov, and, for example, not about him, Kaganovich. Yes, because I asked Rykov for an article, Comrade Kaganovich has “excellent press” with us, as the British say, 2) because Rykov’s commissariat, and not K[aganovich]cha’s, was dumb, as if illegal. That's all.
T. Kosior, in his speech, contrary to more natural accusations, on the contrary, reproached me for the fact that I did not see my former like-minded people, and it was necessary to see them in order to convince them. But—tell me—wouldn’t if I did that, I wouldn’t be charged with maintaining the old groups, and in response to an indication of the nature of the conversations, wouldn’t they tell me that “we don’t believe,” “we know,” etc.?
Returning once again to the Ugolanov "group", one can raise the question of what the question was raised in the remarks, etc. Stalin, what explains the testimony of these people concerning me. Don't know. But I think that it is necessary to check whether there was among them or nearby some kind of "leader" who operated with other people's names. In any case, I again and again draw attention to the fact that I had no connection with these people and with Uglanov, and I had not the slightest idea about them since 1932.
III. Clogging of devices, personal relationships, etc. as circumstantial evidence.
Two more rows of arguments are put forward against me: 1) about the clogging of the apparatus in which I worked; 2) about personal, friendly relations. I'll start with Izvestia. First of all, I reject the reproach that I did not take part in the last cleaning of this apparatus (I took such part in the previous ones). I couldn't do it. After all, the PB deliberately did not include me in the composition of the relevant commission for a very understandable reason: after all, I myself was taken under suspicion. The commission conducted its work in complete secrecy from me, and therefore I considered it loyal not to ask anything from it, and I think that in my position it was absolutely correct.
Now specifically about people. Tov. Molotov said that Lyam, the editorial secretary, turned out to be a bastard of bastards, and I held on to him. I don't know what he's accused of. Molotov will not talk in vain, and, consequently, Lyam turned out to be a scoundrel. But I have to explain to the plenum: 1) that Lyam worked at Izvestia long before I came, only almost 10 years in one place; 2) that he was an excellent newspaperman; 3) that he behaved in the highest degree in the party, only once he was accused of words that he did not utter; 4) that when I was on vacation in Tashkent, where he worked together with Starchakov for quite a long time, I asked the local leading public of the Party, I was given a good review. He went through all the purges. The charges against him were swept aside in the purges. Finally, I can refer to the fact that Mekhlis several times asked me to "give way" to him Lyam and negotiated with Lyam about work in Pravda. And Mekhlis selects people very strictly.
Starchakov, whose feuilleton about the Meyerhold Theater Comrade Molotov praised to me as exceptionally exemplary criticism (“exactly what we need”), a long-term intimate friend of Alexei Tolstoy and Lyam, also with good reviews from Tashkent. I didn't notice anything about him. Arrested. I don't know what he's accused of. Was in Izvestia long before me,
Ya. Fin, an employee of the secretariat, voted for Tomsky during the trade union history. Was in "Izvestia" long before my arrival. As an old newspaper worker, he worked professionally very well. All employees always supported him. I did not hire him, and I did not have sufficient grounds to expel him.
In the Foreign Department at Radek's, I once made a direct mistake: I caught the German Gaus - he served with us in the Intelligence Agency, enjoyed the attention of Radek - on digital static material whitewashing Germany. I set up a wild scandal for him, but I didn’t kick him out, fearing a quarrel with Radek, with whom I had constant difficult conflicts on editorial matters. In general, I almost handed over the Foreign Department to Radek, for I was afraid of losing him, I trusted him. This is, of course, the worst mistake.
Radek himself enjoyed great confidence in me: I believed that he was checked from all sides, since he had access to the most secret things, he often received directives directly from the party leadership, received the most delicate assignments abroad: a trip to Poland, etc.
Tov. Molotov reproaches me for not getting to the core of Radek. But no one cracked him. When I said at the plenum that I trusted Radek because "everyone trusted and you trusted," Comrade Kaganovich replied: "We gave him a job, but that's completely different." This I cannot understand. Once they gave such a job, it means they trusted. It is impossible to give a complex diplomatic mission without trust. And since they trusted, and even in such things, I had no doubts. When Comrade Kaganovich said: “You knew that R[adek] was an active Trotskyist, that he was connected with this gang, why you and Radek were great friends, you trusted Radek.” But they trusted Pyatakov, and Smirny, and Livshits, and many others. Unfortunately, it is! If people are so trusted, then friendships are not shameful. Another thing is that everything here was a mistake. But this is not an evil will! It is now extremely difficult for me myself to realize that I have fallen for the bait of an exceptionally thin and corrupt double-dealer. Tov. Molotov in his speech, by the way, makes Sokolnikov my friend. But I was close to Sokolnikov only in emigre times, that is, about 20 years ago.
I return to Izvestia. I will not dwell on other cases. I will only say about Sosnovsky. I did invite him, after the resolution of the PB on his reinstatement in the party and with the personal permission of Comrade Stalin, to whom I turned with this question. So, it was impossible to say that I "accumulated" Sosnovsky on the sly. Unfortunately, I was wrong here.
The Academy of Sciences turned out to have a large number of Trotskyist bastards. Because of my position, they tried to make me responsible for almost the entire Academy, against which I protested. Here I had a few errors with inviting people. This section of the front is generally very clogged. That is why, for example, Zhdanov's 14 Historical Commission turned out to have a sufficient number of people who left, and the entire historical front of young historians almost does not exist. I do not think to assert that I had enough vigilance, foresight and knowledge of people in order, as Comrade Kaganovich put it, to sniff out enemies. We (including myself) did not know how deep double-dealing had penetrated. This is my fault. But I will protest in every possible way when the conclusion is drawn from this about complicity in Trotskyist banditry.
IV. The state of affairs at the plenum of the Central Committee.
The accusations brought against me at the plenum seem to me simply monstrous in nature. But I want to draw attention to other aspects of the matter. What happens? According to Comrade Kaganovich's explanations, it appears that the plenum raises the question not legally, but politically. It follows from the course of the debate that we are talking about a general political assessment of such and such accused or suspects, and then, after the decision of the plenum, confrontations, a detailed analysis of the facts, etc. will follow.
What is a political assessment from this point of view? It is expressed in resolutive proposals: withdraw from the Central Committee, expel from the Party, bring to trial, etc. This is (or something else, discriminatory) decision of the highest party station. What then remains for further investigation? It is clear: to justify at all costs a binding decision, binding on the investigator, binding on the judicial investigator, binding on the judge (if the case comes to court), binding - oddly enough - even for the defendant, if he is still a member of the party. The investigation cannot whitewash someone who has been politically vilified by the highest party authority.
It would seem that if one seeks the whole truth objectively, then: 1) first one must check and analyze with all care (with all face-to-face confrontations, etc.), 2) then, on the basis of these facts, draw political conclusions. Doesn't it work the other way around? But what does this lead to? This can, firstly, lead to fatal errors on the merits. Secondly, it leads to the terrible difficulty of self-defense.
Even at the plenum itself, the situation was as follows: materials (not verified by stakes) - everyone has them, but the accused do not have them; the accused stands under the stupefaction of the sudden, exceptionally monstrous accusations brought against him for the first time. With a predetermined disposition known in advance (the very fact of raising the question, unverified materials, the speaker's tendency, the press, directive slogans like Molotov's about "accomplices and accomplices" 15) everyone says: “I am convinced”, “there is no doubt”, etc. They say to the accused in the face: but we do not believe, every word of yours needs to be checked. And on the other side, the words of the accused accusers are taken at face value. So the defense here is really hard. Of course, in the general atmosphere of the present day, no one will dare to speak in favor of the accused. What next? And at later stages, after a binding party decision, etc., this defense is almost impossible.
How difficult it was at the plenum, it was evident from a small example, when Comrade Yezhov told me that Yakovlev dragged me everywhere and everywhere. In fact, I did not make a single report at all at that time. And the same, after all, is also in other questions.
I'm not writing this for controversy. I have no time for controversy, because the tragedy of my situation is felt in its entirety only by me, who knows to the end my absolute innocence and, nevertheless, is put under the blow of the sword. Is it possible, therefore, to ask the plenum to confine itself to a directive on a further Party (not official, i.e., without annulling the statement of the prosecutor's office) examination of the case, in order to adopt Party organizational conclusions after a thorough analysis of the facts, and not on the basis of one political intuition? This is what I ask the plenum of the Central Committee.
N. Bukharin.
PS Please attach this response statement to the transcript of the plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks.
APRF, f. 3, op. 24, d. 260, l. 14-30 (copy); l. 31–50 (autograph).
Notes:
11. This refers to the final speech of Vyshinsky on August 23, 1936 at the trial of the "Trotsky-Zinoviev terrorist center." He said: "Without the masses, against the masses, but for power, power at all costs, the thirst for personal power - that's the whole ideology of this company sitting in the dock." (True, 23.VIII.1936.)
12. On August 27, 1936, in a letter to members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and Vyshinsky, Bukharin wrote: “But I think that the Trotskyist-Zinoviev scoundrels were lying when they talked about only power without a line. Trotsky has his own, profoundly mean and, from the point of view of socialism, profoundly stupid line... this is the thesis about the enslavement of the proletariat by the "Stalinist bureaucracy", this is spitting on the Stakhanovites, this is the question of our state, this is spitting on the project of our Constitution, our foreign policy, etc.” (Source, 1993, N 2, p. 8.)
13. Some details about this meeting are reported by Sapozhnikov in a note dated October 1, 1936: in the autumn of 1929, a White Guard narrator that the “peaceful” Tomsky, allegedly driven to despair by Comrade. Stalin, threatened him with bullets ... ”(APRF, f. 3, op. 24, d. 245, l. 158.)
14. By a resolution of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on March 3, 1936, A. A. Zhdanov was appointed chairman of the jury of the competition for the best textbook for elementary school in an elementary course in the history of the USSR.
15. In a speech by Molotov on November 29, 1936, at the Extraordinary VIII All-Union Congress of Soviets, it was said: “In the wolf pack of enemies of communism, the Trotskyists, who have the same goals with the bourgeoisie, now occupy not the last place ... We understand the malice and unscrupulousness of these for everything ready-made degenerates who hate our party and all honest builders of socialism with a rage worthy of renegades. It is known that they have supporters and accomplices also from right-wing renegades. (True, November 30, 1936)