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.

From the speech of I. V. Stalin. December 4, 1936
Questions of History, 1995, No. 1 Pages. 9 -11

Kaganovich.... And finally, in 1934, Zinoviev invites Tomsky to his dacha for tea. Tomsky goes to him. Apparently, this tea party was preceded by something else, because after the tea party, Tomsky and Zinoviev drive in Tomsky's car to choose a dog for Zinoviev. You see, what kind of friendship, even a dog is going to choose. Helps. (Stalin. What kind of dog - hunting or watchdog?) This could not be established. After choosing a dog, Tomsky again goes to Zinoviev for tea. Regarding this tea party, Tomsky asks Rykov: Zinoviev invites me to his dacha. To go or not to go? Rykov tells us that he answered him: "You don't have to go." But Tomsky still went. (Stalin. Did they get the dog after all?) Got it. They were looking for a four-legged companion, since they were no different from him, they were the same dogs ... (Stalin. Was there a good dog or bad, unknown? Laughter.) This was difficult to ascertain at the confrontation.

... And Rykov, in response to the same question, declares:

“I had some cooling off towards him. We met in 1934–1935.”

And we know that he met with Tomsky not only in 1934-35, but even until recently; even when Tomsky was brought to justice, Tomsky asked you for advice. You yourself stated this at the confrontation. Don't shake your head. (Rykov. No, sorry, I didn't say that.) Please, I'll read it, I'll repeat what you said at the confrontation. This is absolutely correct.

Rykov. When I was at Tomsky's apartment in the spring of this year... (Voice from the floor. What year?) This year, 1936, he told me that during the period when we did not see him, he received requests from the Central Committee for Zinoviev's documents and during the same period he answered this... (Stalin. Did Zinoviev and Tomsky visit?) Me? (Stalin. Have you been to Tomsky?) In the spring of this year, but I have no news of Zinoviev. did not tell.

Kaganovich. Allow me to read. "... (Reads.) But I was against this invitation." You see, the mere fact that he asks Rykov, and Rykov says that he is against it, is this not a political act, is this a personal relationship? (Budyonny. Why didn't Tomsky ask Kaganovich if he could go?) Tomsky didn't ask you if he should meet Malkin or anyone else there, he asked you about the meeting with Zinoviev. You say that you categorically objected to him ...

Stalin. I wanted to say two words that Bukharin did not understand at all what was going on here. Not understood. And he does not understand in what position he found himself, and why the question was raised at the plenum. Doesn't understand it at all. It strikes at sincerity, requires trust 7 . Okay, let's talk about sincerity and trust.

When Kamenev and Zinoviev declared in 1932 that they renounced their mistakes and recognized the Party's position as correct, they were believed. They believed it because they assumed that an ideological struggle is characteristic of a communist, former or present, that this ideological former or present communist fights for his idea. If a person openly said that he adheres to the party line, then, according to the well-known traditions established in Lenin’s party, the party believes that this means that the person values ​​\u200b\u200bhis ideas and he really renounced his mistakes and took the position of the party. They believed they were wrong. You made a mistake, Comrade Bukharin. Yes Yes. When Smirnov and Pyatakov declared that they were repudiating their views, they openly declared this in the press, we believed them. They also proceeded from the fact that people grew up in the Marxist school, obviously, they value their position, their ideas, they do not hide them, fighting for them. They believed, they gave the Order of Lenin, they moved forward and made a mistake. Is that right, Comrade Bukharin? (Bukharin. True, true, I said the same thing.)

When Sosnovsky filed an application that he renounces his mistakes, substantiated this, and substantiated it well from the Marxist point of view, we believed and really said to Bukharin: “You want to take him to Izvestia, all right, he writes well, take it, let's see what happens." Wrong. After that, believe in the sincerity of people! We came to the conclusion: you can not take the word of the former oppositionists. (Animation in the hall. Voices from the seats. Correct, correct!) One cannot be naive, but Ilyich taught that to be naive in politics means to be a criminal. We don't want to be criminals. Therefore, we came to the conclusion: you can not trust a word of any former oppositionist.

A few facts. Pyatakov, when his wife was arrested, was sent a telegram, he was somewhere in the south, I think in Kislovodsk. From there, he briefly answered that he could not find arguments against his wife, but since Moscow considered it necessary to arrest her, then it was necessary. I arrived. We gave him all the evidence to read. He said that Zinoviev, Kamenev and Mrachkovsky slandered him in their testimony. Others, who had just been arrested or brought to trial, said the same. He came to us and said: “Well, what can I say against these people, how can I justify myself? They lie, they want to ruin me.” We tried to say to him: “All right, but you acted as a public prosecutor against the Socialist-Revolutionaries. Act as a public prosecutor against them" 8.- "OK, with pleasure". He was getting ready. But we thought about it and decided that it would not work. But this trial for a moment began to convince us that, perhaps, the person was right. What does it mean to expose him as a public accuser? He will say one thing, the accused will object to him, they will say: “Where did you get into, into the accusers. Have you worked with us?!” And what would it lead to? This would turn the process into a comedy and derail the process.

Therefore, they told Pyatakov: “No, although we raised the question of you. became a public prosecutor, but this case will not come out. He was sad: “How can I prove that I am right? Give it to me, I will personally shoot all those whom you sentence to death, all this dirt, all this bastard. What more proof do you need? Announce in the press after the verdict and after the verdict is executed that Comrade Pyatakov carried out the execution of the verdict.” This circumstance should also shake us somewhat. But, on the other hand, we have never announced who carries out the sentence. And we decided: to announce - no one will believe that we did not force him to do it. We said that this case would not work out, it was embarrassing, no one would believe that you volunteered for this case, and not under duress. And besides, we never announced faces who carry out sentences. “What should I do, let me out. Let me write an article against the Trotskyists.” “Very well, write it.” Wrote, defeated Trotsky and the Trotskyists 9 .

And what happened now, you look! After that, we interviewed at least 50 people. After all, they turned out all the insides of Pyatakov. This is a monstrous man! Why did he go to be a public prosecutor? Why did he go to the point of shooting his comrades himself? It turns out that they have a rule like this: if your like-minded Trotskyist is arrested and began to extradite people, he must be destroyed. You see what a hell of a thing turns out. After that, believe in the sincerity of the former oppositionists! One cannot take the word of the former oppositionists even when they undertake to shoot their friends with their own hands.

Until recently, until yesterday, Radek kept writing letters to me. We delayed the matter of his arrest, although there were as many slanders as you like from different sides. Everyone, from top to bottom, is slandering Radek. We held up the case of his arrest, and then arrested him. Yesterday and the day before yesterday I received a long letter from him in which he writes: a terrible crime is being committed. He is a sincere man, devoted to the Party, who loves the Party, loves the Central Committee and so on and so forth, they want to let him down. This is wrong. You can shoot or not, that's up to you. But he would like his honor not to be put to shame. What did he show today? Here, Comrade Bukharin, what is happening. (Bukharin. But I can't admit anything today, tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow. Noise in the hall.) I don't say anything about you personally. Maybe you're right, maybe not. But you can’t speak here and speak, that you have no confidence, no faith in my, Bukharin's, sincerity. It's all old. And the events of the last two years have clearly shown this, because it has been proven in practice that sincerity is a relative concept. As for trust in the former oppositionists, we gave them so much trust... (Noise in the hall. Voices from the seats. That's right!) We should be punished for the maximum trust, for the boundless trust that we showed them.

Here is sincerity for you and here is trust for you! That is why we are raising this question at the plenum of the Central Committee. But because Bukharin can be offended and indignant, should we hide it? No, in order not to hide this, we must raise the question at the plenum. Moreover, the former oppositionists took an even more difficult step in order to maintain at least a grain of confidence on our part and once again demonstrate their sincerity - people began to engage in suicide. After all, this is also a means of influencing the party. Lominadze committed suicide, he wanted to say by this that he was right, that he was being interrogated in vain and that he was being suspected in vain. And what turned out? It turned out he was in a block with these people. That's why he killed himself to cover his tracks.

So this political assassination is a means by former oppositionists, enemies of the Party, to bring the Party down, break its vigilance, deceive it for the last time before death by suicide and put it in a foolish position.

Furer. What letter he left after his suicide, after reading it, you can just shed a tear. (Kosior. No matter how.) And a person more or less politically experienced will understand that this is not the case here. We know Furer what he was capable of. And what did it turn out? “He is right, he loves the party, he is pure, but at the thought that someone in the party might think that he, Furer, once connected with the Trotskyists, his nerves cannot stand it, his honor does not allow him to stay alive ". (Kosior. They slandered him!) But what happened? It turned out - you can't imagine worse.

Tomsk. I would advise you, Comrade Bukharin, to think about why Tomsky committed suicide and left the letter "clean". But you can see that he was far from clean. As a matter of fact, if I am clean, I am a man, a person, and not a rag, I don’t even say that I am a communist, then I will shout to the whole world that I am right. To kill me - never! And it's not all clean. (Voices from the seats. Right!) The man went to murder because he was afraid that everything would be revealed, he did not want to be a witness to his own universal shame. And Furer, and Lominadze ... (Mikoyan. And Khandzhyan.) And Khandzhyan, and Skrypnik, and Tomsky. Here you have one of the latest sharpest and easiest means by which, before death, leaving this world, you can spit on the party for the last time, deceive the party. Here you have, Comrade Bukharin, the background of the latest suicides. And you, comrade Bukharin, want so we can take your word for it? (Bukharin. No, I don't want to.) Never, by no means. (Bukharin. No, I don't want to.)

And if you don't want that, then don't be indignant that we raised this question at the plenum of the Central Committee. It is possible that you are right, it is hard for you, but after all these facts that I talked about, and there are a lot of them, we must figure it out. We must objectively, calmly sort things out. We do not want anything but the truth, we will not let anyone die from anyone. We want to find the whole truth objectively, honestly, courageously. And we can not be intimidated by either tearfulness or suicide. (Voices from the seats. That's right! Prolonged applause.)

Notes:

7. Objecting to this assertion of Stalin, Bukharin wrote to him on December 15 as follows: "You said at the plenum: 'Bukharin strikes at sincerity here.' You are mistaken: I do not hit anything. I am in such a state of mind that it is already half-life ... I am dying because of scoundrels, because of human bastards, because of disgusting villains ”(APRF, f. 3, op. 24, d. 262, l. 27) .

8. Such a proposal was made to Pyatakov by Ordzhonikidze.

9. Pyatakov G. Ruthlessly destroy contemptible murderers and traitors.— Pravda, 21.VIII. 1936.