Zinoviev, interrogation July 28 1936, from the Volkogonov Papers

_________

TRANSCRIPT OF INTERROGATION

OF ZINOVI’EV, Grigorii Vasil’evich

Of 28 July 1936

Question: In your face-to-face confrontation with KAREV you admitted your participation in the united Trotskyite-Zinovievite center. Confess about the question of the organization of the bloc of Zinovievites with the Trotskyites in 1932.

Answer: Despite my formal declaration of my break at that time with Trotsky, in fact there was no break with Trotskyism up to the day of our arrest.

Neither I, nor Kamenev, nor Bakaev, nor the others who thought as we did never rejected Trotskyite ideas. I would even say that up to the present day we are all chained to Trotskyism like a convict to a wheelbarrow. Moreover, after Trotsky’s exile abroad we had, so to speak, a division of labor between him and us. This consisted of the fact that TROTSKY abroad, like a hardened White Guardist, openly spoke out against the Soviet government and mainly against Stalin. While I with my associates carried out this despicable subversion against the Soviet government and Stalin from inside the Soviet Union, in the underground. TROTSKY very quickly understood that he had cursed us for nothing, thinking that we had betrayed him, since we have been working for him, TROTSKY, right up to our arrest.

Question: You are not answering the question asked. What interests us most of all is with whom among the Trotskyites were you directly connected organizationally?

Answer: The counterrevolutionary organization which I led was since 1932 until my arrest in 1932 directly in contact with SMIRNOV, MRACHKOVSKII and TER-VAGANIAN. I and EVDOKIMOV maintained the connection with SMIRNOV and MRACHKOVSKII, and I and KAMENEV that with TER-VAGANIAN.

It must be said that at one time I personally was afraid that this contact with I.N. SMIRNOV, MRACHKOVSKII, and others, might compromise us, if it were discovered. However, as a result of conversations with EVDOKIMOV, who insisted upon the establishment of direct contact with the Trotskyites, I decided that there was no danger of failure, since these people are experienced conspirators, not blabbermouths, and that they would not give up anyone.

All this preceded the creation of a united Trotskyite-Zinovievite center, with SHATSKIN and LOMINADZE drawn into it.

Question: When was this united center created and who entered into it?

Answer: The united center was created in the summer of 1932. In the makeup of the center, by agreement with SMIRNOV and MRACHKOVSKII, from the Trotskyites came SMIRNOV and MRACHKOVSKII, with TER-VAGANIAN and SAFONOV to replace them in case of their downfall. From the Zinovievites – I and KAMENEV, with EVDOKIMOV and BAKAEV as replacements in case of downfall. Besides that, as I have already confessed, SHATSKIN and LOMINADZE joined the center.

Question: What preceded the creation of the united Trotskyite-Zinovievite center and upon what bases was this center created?

Answer: Around the beginning of 1932 I and my associates assumed that a crisis was arising in the Soviet Union, a sharpening of contradictions and an unavoidable struggle. In any case, that is how we evaluated certain agricultural difficulties.

This circumstance activated a number not only of my proponents but also Trotskyites, Rights, Leftists, former participants in the “Workers’ Opposition”, and so-called individuals.

As a result there took place systematic meetings and negotiations between representatives of differing tendencies hostile to the Party and the state concerning the necessity of unity for joint struggle with the Soviet government.

Towards the end of the summer, or rather at the beginning of the Fall of 1932, it became obvious to us that our hopes had not proven to be justified, the individual agricultural problems and hardships that we had inflated had been overcome by the Party. It was a fact that the general line of the Party was winning.

There was clearly exposed the total lack of principle and ideas that led us to the naked terrorist struggle for power.

The basis of the creation of the united Trotskyite-Zinovievite center was, in the main, the complete conviction of the Trotskyites and Zinovievites that now it was possible to fight against Stalin only by means of terror.

In the organization the common saying was widespread: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

This determined our cadres, our organizational possibilities, and our outlooks. We were prepared to unite on the basis of terror with any enemy of Stalin.

Question: How did the question of terror stand practically in the united center?

Answer: As I have already confessed, EVDOKIMOV.conducted negotiations about the unification of our and the Trotskyite organization in 1932 with SMIRNOV.

White telling me about the results of his negotiations with SMIRNOV EVDOKIMOV reported that SMIRNOV, MRACHKOVSKII and the group connected with them considered that under present conditions the struggle was possible only by means of the forcible removal of the leadership of the VKP(b) and of Stalin above all, and that SMIRNOV had a direct order of TROTSKY’S about this.

At that same time EVDOKIMOV reported to me that SMIRNOV had received the directive concerning the transition to terror from TROTSKY during his trip abroad on economic matters.

Question: Did all members of the center agree with the decision concerning terror as a means of struggle with the leaders of the VKP(b) and of the Soviet government?

Answer: Yes, all the members of the center whom I have named.

Question: What concretely was done by the united center to carry out the terrorist plans?

Answer: At that time, in 1932, the center took a decision to organize terrorist acts against Stalin in Moscow and Kirov in Leningrad.

In the autumn of 1932 at my dacha in Il’inskoe, with KAMENEV, BAKAEV, EVDOKIMOV, and KAREV present, I gave to BAKAEV the assignment of preparing a terrorist act against Stalin, and to KAREV, against Kirov.

Question: But didn’t the Trotskyites participate in the practical preparation of the terrorist act?

Answer: The Trotskyites were carrying on work in preparation of a terrorist act parallel with us. However, BAKAEV was instructed, in the selection of those who would carry out the terrorist acts, to also recruit Trotskyites at his discretion. KAREV in turn was also connected in Leningrad with Trotskyites, whose names I do not know.

Question: Who, aside from BAKAEV and KAREV, was a direct participant in the terror?

Answer: To the participation in the preparation and accomplishment of a terrorist act against Stalin BAKAEV at that time in 1932 recruited REINGOL’D, BOGDAN, RABINOVICH and PIKEL’.

Question: But was GERTIK aware of the terrorist activity of the organization?

Answer: I do not know about that.

Question: Can it be that you did not know about the terrorist nature of GERTIK’s contact with KOTOLYNOV in Leningrad?

Answer: No, I did not know that.

Question: Wh led the terrorist work in Leningrad after the arrest of KAREV?

Answer: Independently from KAREV GERTIK and KUKLIN maintained contact with the participants of the organization in Leningrad. However, I do not know what they did in practice.

Question: You confess that GERTIK was in touch with the participants of the organization in Leningrad. We wish to turn once more to the question of GERTIK’s ties to KOTOLYNOV. We know for certain that GERTIK in 193? [year not legible – GF] returned from Leningrad to Moscow and spoke about the terrorist character of his ties to KOTOLYNOV. You must have known about this?

Answer: Yes, I admit that in 1934, I can’t remember the month but in the middle of the year, EVDOKIMOV told me about one of GERTIK’S trips to Leningrad, during which GERTIK got into contact with KOTOLYNOV. In addition, as a result of this meeting KOTOLYNOV told GERTIK that he was taking a direct role in the preparation of the murder of KIROV.

Question: Did you know about the trips to Leningrad during 1934 of KAMENEV, member of the center of the terrorist organization?

Answer: Yes, I know about this.

Question: With which of the participants of the organization did KAMENEV maintain contact in Leningrad?

Answer: In 1934 KAMENEV told me that in Leningrad he met with IAKOVLEV Moisei, a member of the organization, to whom he confirmed the decisions of the united Trotskyite-Zinovievite center to organize the murder of Kirov. IAKOVLEV had been drawn into terrorist activity already by KAREV, before the latter’s arrest.

Question: Was IAKOVLEV carrying out the work of preparation for the murder of com. Kirov together with the RUMIANTSEV-KOTOLYNOV group or independently?

Answer: IAKOVLEV was preparing the murder of Kirov in parallel with the RUMIANTSEV-KOTOLYOV group.

Question: Who besides KAMENEV and GERTIK was carrying out terrorist work in Leningrad on the instructions of the united Trotskyite-Zinovievite center?

Answer: I don’t know of anybody else.

Question: What do you know about the practical work that BAKAEV was conducting in Moscow to prepare the murder of Stalin?

Answer: Soon after the decision of the united Trotskyite-Zinovievite center, which was transmitted by me to BAKAEV, I and KAMENEV were exiled from Moscow in connection with the Riutin case. This brought BAKAEV’S practical work to a halt for a time, since under the conditions when we were caught red-handed, to contrive the organization of a terrorist act was obviously pointless.

In the Spring of 1934 BAKAEV once again set out to accomplish the terrorist act, concerning which the order of the center was transmitted to him by me and KAMENEV through EVDOKIMOV.

I know from EVDOKIMOV’S information (I did not meet with BAKAEV out of conspiratorial considerations) that BAKAEV was carrying out the work together with REINGOL’D and FAIVILOVICH, and the Trotskyite DREITSER, who was in contact with MRACHKOVSKII, was carrying out the direct work of preparing the terrorist act together with him.

EVDOKIMIOV reported to me that this fighting group would carry out its work in preparing terror successfully.

Question: You are not confessing everything you know about the criminal plans and intentions of the united Trotskyite-Zinovievite center.

Answer: I just admit that the organization that was led after 1932 by the united Trotskyite-Zinovievite center was a terrorist organization of a strictly conspiratorial type.

We went over onto the path of a very carefully considered and deeply conspiratorial plot. We considered ourselves “Marxists” and, recalling the formula: “An uprising is an art”, we refashioned it differently: the conspiracy against the Party (we said – “against Stalin!”) is an art.

The united Trotskyite-Zinovievite center after 1932 became the “surrogate” in the Soviet Union of the SRs and the Mensheviks, and the open White Guardists. Now we raised the banner of terror against Stalin.

Since this period the united Trotskyite-Zinovievite center hs been the general staff of Russian fascism in its Trotskyite-Zinovievite edition.

Question: It has been established by the investigation of your case that the center of the organization meticulously worked out the plan for a conspiracy. Confess about this question.

Answer: The political goal of the conspiracy was the overthrow of the CC of the VKP(b) and of the Soviet government and the creation of our own CC and our own government, which would consist of Trotskyites, Zinovievites and Rights.

We were planning an anti-government coup.

Concretely, the plan for the coup came down to the following:

We considered that the murder of Stalin (and also of the other leaders of the Party and government) would cause confusion in the ranks of the leadership of the VKP(b).

We assumed that KAMENEV, ZINOV’EV, I.N. SMIRNOV, RYKOV, SOKOL’NIKOV, TOMSKII, EVDOKIMOV, SMILGA, MRACHKOVSKII and others would, given such a turn of events, return to leading Party and governmental posts.

We considered KAMENEV, RYKOV, SOKOL’NIKOV, SMILGA and PIATAKOV the best economists in the country.

They were to form an economic general staff. We planned to make SOKOL’NIKOV the People’s Commissar for Finance.

As secretaries of the CC we had in mind SMIRNOV I.N., SEREBRIAKOV, and EVDOKIMOV. TOMSKII was supposed to head the trade unions. TROTSKII, KAMENEV, and I, according to this plan, were to concentrate in our hands the whole leadership of the Party and the state.

I must add that a plan was developed for hiding the traces of the crimes that were under preparation by the united Trotskyite-Zinovievite center. The forcible removal of the leaders of the Party and government had to be very carefully disguised as White Guardist acts or acts of “personal vengeance.”

Question: This does not exhaust the plan of the conspiracy?

Answer: One of the very first tasks that entered into the plan of the conspiracy was the task of opening the road to TROTSKY for the most triumphal possible return to the USSR.

It would of course be untruthful if I now tried to put all the blame for my own crimes onto TROTSKY. But it would also be untruthful if I did not confess that the person role of TROTSKY in all the crimes of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite center was even greater than my own, that the directives of TROTSKY from abroad had a determining significance for the united Trotskyite-Zinovievite center, that the chiefest of chief leaders of all our crimes and of the conspiracy was TROTSKY.

In the summer of 1932, when the [plan for the ] coup was completed, that made us direct enemies of the people, the directive of TROTSKY’S about the necessity of murdering Stalin, brought to us by I.N. SMIRNOV, had an unquestionably decisive meaning for the united Trotskyite-Zinovievite center.

Question: According to your confessions you were counting on the Rights in your conspiratorial plan. What was the nature of your contact with them?

Answer: The general revival of the underground counter-revolutionary that began in 1932, was reflected in attempts to link all the groups hostile to the Soviet government with the group of so-called Zinovievites.

We explained this very simply: TROTSKY abroad [and] enemies of the Party continued to regard me and KAMENEV as people who had at one time a certain political weight: other groups did not have sufficiently authoritative leaders for them. Hence, naturally, came the attraction toward me and KAMENEV.

The fundamental criterion in the question of the selection of collaborators for me and my supporters was the following: are these or those people supporters or opponents of Stalin, or rather – to what extent are these or those people determined enemies of Stalin, bold and energetic in their actions, prepared to really struggle against Stalin to the end. That was for us the most

- 14 –

important thing. On this basis we concluded a de-facto bloc with the Rights. I will not discuss here the well-known question of the establishment by KAMENEV of contact with BUKHARIN. I only wish to confess that the most fervent supporter, or rather enthusiast, of our direct organic fusion with the Rights was SOKOL’NIKOV, a participant in our organization. After 1932 the organizational, illegal ties between our group and the Rights has not ceased until the present day.

I was closest to TOMSKII. I met with him several times in 1932. KAREV maintained contact with BUKHARIN because KAREV had the most open possibilities for doing so through collaborative work on an academic basis. SHAROV maintained contact with UGLANOV. KAMENEV was in contact with RYKOV. KAMENEV told me that RYKOV shared our evaluation of the situation in the country. For the position of the Rights in 1932 and later what was characteristic of them was their their intransigence, the assertion that the general line of the party is breaking up, their sharply hostile attitude towards Stalin and their objection to the so-called capitulationist statement, based on the fact that, in their opinion, further struggle is inevitable.

- 15 –

In this connection two facts are worthy of attention:

1. During the famous conversation between BUKHARIN and KAMENEV BUKHARIN told himi of an episode concerning a meeting between TOMSKII and STALIN, during which TOMSKII supposedly declared to STALIN: “If things continue in this way, our workers will be shooting at you.”

In the leaflet that the Trotskyites published concerning BUKHARIN’S conversation with KAMENEV this phrase was omitted for reasons unknown to me. However both the Rights and we ourselves already considered remarks like BUKHARIN attributed to TOMSKII completely normal.

2. Not long before one of the plenums of the CC, evidently that of Fall of 1931, TOMSKII in Sochi was talking with me about BUKHARIN and informed me that BUKHARIN, though he was demonstrating certain vacillations in the direction of the Party, at the same time was collecting materials against Stalin and, to use his words, has a whole dossier against Stalin.

Question: In your confessions you have named SOKOL’NIKOV as a participant in the organization. What do you know about his counterrevolutionary activity?

- 16 –

Answer: SOKOL’NIKOV’S position is somewhat unique. He was extremely close to REINGOL’D, a participant in the organization. More than this, REINGOL’D’S main role at one time was that he was our contact with SOKOL’NIKOV. Besides that, KAMENEV was also directly in contact with SOKOL’NIKOV.

Question: From your testimony it is not clear, what Sokolnikov’s particular situation was/

Answer: SOKOL’NIKOV’S particular situation consisted in this: that while a de-facto enemy of the Party and a direct two-faced person (dvurushnikom) up to the present time, and although he belonged directly to our group, yet as a candidate member of the CC of the VKP(b) he appeared superficially to be in a somewhat isolated position.

At one time SOKOL’NIKOV, together with myself and KAMENEV, were in the central leadership of the Zinovievite group, which we called “the nucleus of the nucleus.” Later he entered the united center.

The disagreements that took place between me, in particular, and SOKOL’NIKOV and his supposed withdrawal from us between the 14th and 15th Party Congresses were only an episode. This episode was not re-

- 17 –

flected in our later contacts with SOKOL’NIKOV which continued until our arrest in connection with Kirov’s murder.

Question: In what concretely consisted your contact with the SHATSKIN-LOMINADZE group?

Answer: I and KAMENEV considered that SHATSKIN, LOMINADZE and STEN were the most valuable people of the young generation, who could not reconcile themselves to the existing regime inside the VKP(b) and who, in our opinion, reflected profound processes taking place within the Party. I, in particular, remember a report that KAMENEV gave me in the summer of 1932 about his meeting with SHATSKIN and LOMINADZE. At that time he told me the following, word for word: “Now these people are real enemies of Stalin.”

Personally I met more often witih STEN. I saw LOMINADZE about two times. Both SHATSKIN and LOMINADZE stated more than once that STEN fully represented their views.

EVDOKIMOV met several times with SHATSKIN in Moscow, KAMENEV also met with him and with LOMINADZE on vacation in Gagry under conspiratorial circumstances in the same year, 1933.

A distinguishing feature of this group was that it, among our other allies, most strongly advocated TROTSKY. If I and KAMENEV, people experienced in politics, did not always permit ourselves in conversations with others to openly advocate TROTSKY, then these young people (SHATSKIN, LOMINADZE, STEN et al.) not only disagreed with us, but chided us that we were trying to keep quiet about the immense services of this “real fighter and revolutionary”, who even though all alone would not yield his positions and was openly leading the struggle against Stalin. More than this, the Leftists directly stated that TROTSKY had turned out to be correct and therefore there was nothing to fear in openly admitting his correctness.

Question: With what other counterrevolutionaries were you in contact?

Answer: A counterrevolutionary group that attempted seriously to get into contact with us was the group of former participants of the “Workers’ Opposition.”

With them our old friendship was the main unifying force, particularly mine with SHLIAPNIKOV, and our well-known closeness to MEDVEDEV.

They were both bitterly opposed to Stalin and occupied extreme terrorist positions.

I consider the group of SHLIAPNIKOV – MEDVEDEV to be the most hostile and reactionary group. I remember that in conversations with me in that same year 1932 they were developing this thought: “You (that meant KAMENEV and I) are late, they said, in recognizing the way things really are. In reality this (i.e. the persecution of the best parts of the Party) began already in Lenin’s time and has only become a hundred times worse under Stalin.”

To put it another way, SHLIAPNIKOV and MEDVEDEV raised a monstrous slander not only against Stalin but also against Lenin a monstrous slander and accusations of his reprisal against the best part of the communist movement.

Question: What was the result of your negotiations with SHLIAPNIKOV and MEDVEDEV?

Answer: With all our fall and long years of struggle against the Leninist principles in the party headed by Stalin, we, in particular, I thought impossible a formal bloc with the most reactionary, hostile elements within the country. Besides that, their directly terrorist positions, at a time when we were not yet thinking about terror, also held us back to some degree. I must admit that the following development of the struggle brought us to the terrorist positions of SHLIAPNIKOV and MEDVEDEV.

- 20 –

Question: Consequently, you are affirming that no actual union with the SHLIAPNIKOV-MEDVEDEV group existed?

Answer: Yes, I am affirming that. However I just state that we did not count on them as possible allies.

Question: You have not named all the participants in the Trotskyite-Zinovievite organization in the Soviet Union. We must give up all the Trotskyites and Zinovievites known to you who have been preserved from failure and who are carrying out counterrevolutionary work.

Answer: Not long before TROTSKY’S exile from Moscow he informed me confidentially during one of our meetings that his trusted and especially secret man was VITKER (recently VITKER has been working as the chief of Glavrezin). TROTSKY, when he told me that VITKER would bring secret materials of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite organization to me asked me to hide VITKER’S participation in this affair even from members of the center.

About that time TROTSKY told me that NEMCHENKO, who was then playing a leading rol in Glavsotsstrakh, was secret from all of his supporters.

I also consider it my duty to confession what I know about SEREBRIAKOV L.P.

Both I and KAMENEV considered that SEREBRIAKOV did not break with TROTSKY. His withdrawal for the outside world into the category of the apolitical we considered as a clever disguise.

Both I and KAMENEV knew that SEREBRIAKOV was personally closer to TROTSKY than even such a person as I.N. SMIRNOV.

I wish to add one more personal impression of SEREBRIAKOV. In the summer of 1932 SEREBRIAKOV together with ZORIN came late one night to the dacha in Il’inskoe, where at KAMENEV’S some literary workers had gathered for dinner.

SEREBRIAKOV showed me and KAMENEV every personal concern and expressed his condolence that I was deprived of a speaker’s platform, etc.

I must also state that KAMENEV right up until 1932 had personal meetings with PIATAKOV, apparently in connection with their work.

KAMENEV told me about these meetings and conveyed to me that PIATAKOV did not like to speak about political subjects very much but that he thought just as we did.

We also counted on RADEK as an unconditional collaborator of ours. I and KAMENEV never took RADEK’S declarations of repentance.

- 22 –

Confirmation of this fact for us was that in 1932 RADEK disseminated counterrevolutionary slander and made counterrevolutionary attacks against Stalin.

I must pause again on two more hypocrits [dvurushnika] whom I know about – the Trotskyites PUTNA and ROMM.

At the end of 1928 PUTNA expressed to me his agreement with the two-faced [dvurushnicheskoi] position I occupied in relation to the Party.

V. ROMM expressed to me the same point of view.

Both PUTNA and ROMM were in contact with me through BOGDAN.

Question: We know that right up to and including 1934 you maintained illegal contacts with those who agreed with you who were working in the apparatus of the Comintern.

Do you confirm this?

Answer: Yes, I confirm it. I actually did maintin contact with a number of Zinovievites in the apparatus of the Comintern right up until the end of 1934.

It would be more accurate to say that I had a group of my agents in the Comintern.

In this group were MAD’IAR, BULOVICH, VUDZINSKAIA, GERTSBERG, and ZMESH’, a pseudonym, I do not know his name.

All these persons had counterrevolutionary positions, were hostile towards the leadership of the VKP(b) and the Comintern and in systematic meetings with me informed me about the situation in the ECCI, its individual sections, and about “disagreements” among leaders of the ECCI.

This information was anti-Party, anti-Soviet and drenched with sharply expressed dissatisfaction with the leadership of the ECCI.

The most valuable for me in this group was MAD’IAR, who because of his position and connections had great possibilities for regular information for the Trotskyite-Zinovievite center concerning the situation in the Comintern.

MAD’IAR was consequently of a counterrevolutionary frame of mine and carried on active work to discredit the leadership of the ECCI among his contacts in the Comintern.

Question: That is not all. Through your agents in the ECCI you maintained ties with persons abroad.

Answer: I know that GERTSBERG and ZMESH’, the first until 1932 or 1932, and the second later on, maintained contact with the Ruth FISHER-MASLOV group and informed me about the situation of this group.

BULOVICH was in contact with the group of Heinz NEIMAN [Heinz Neumann – GF] and DORRIO [Jacques Doriot – GF].

- 24 –

MAD’IAR was in contact with German Trotskyites. I remember that in 1932 MAD’IAR told me about the presence of supporters of mine in the Berlin organization of the Comintern, on whom I could rely in my struggle with the Comintern.

Written down accurately from my own words, read through personally

G. Zinoviev