Extract from J.V. Stalin’s presentation (Dec. 1936 CC Plenum)

Voprosy Istorii 1, 1995, 9-11

Stalin. I want to say a few words about the fact that Bukharin has completely failed to understand what is going on here. He has not understood. And he does not understand the kind of position he finds himself in, and why we have put him as a question at this plenum. He does not understand this at all. He keeps talking about his sincerity, he demands our trust. All right, let’s talk about sincerity and about trust.

When Kamenev and Zinoviev declared in 1932 that they had renounced their mistakes and declare that the Party’s position was correct, we believed them. We believed them because we supposed that a communist – former or current – is accustomed to ideological struggle, that this ideological communist, former or current, is struggling for his idea. If a person has openly said that he adheres to the Party’s line then, according to traditions confirmed in the Party of Lenin and known to everyone, the Party considers that this means that person values the Party’s positions and that he has really renounced his mistakes and now stands on the Party’s positions. We believed them; we were mistaken. We were mistaken, com. Bukharin. Yes, yes, they declared this openly in the press and we believed them. They had also proceeded from their position, their ideas, they do not hide them, they fight for them. We believed them; we gave them the Order of Lenin, we promoted them – and were mistaken. Is that true, com. Bukharin? (Bukharin. True, true, I said the same thing.)

When Sosnovsky made a declaration that he was renouncing his mistakes, he explained the reasons for this, and explained well from a Marxist point of view, we believed him and really did say to Bukharin: "You want to take him on at Izvestiia, good, he writes well, take him, we shall see what comes of it." We were mistaken. Believe in the sincerity of people after that! We have drawn a conclusion: Do not take former oppositionists at their word. (Excitement in the hall. Voices from the floor: Right, Right!) We must not be naïve, and Il’ich taught that to be naïve in politics is to commit a crime. We don’t want to be criminals. For this reason we have drawn a conclusion: Don’t believe the word of a single former oppositionist.

A few facts. When we arrested Piatakov’s wife we wrote him a telegram, he was somewhere in the South, maybe Kislovodsk. From there he briefly replied that he can’t find any arguments against his wife but since we in Moscow considered it necessary to arrest her, that means it’s necessary. He arrived. We gave him all the confessions to read. He said that Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Mrachkovsky were slandering him in their confessions. That’s what others also said, when they had just been arrested or taken to trial. He came to us and said: "Well, what can I say against these people, how can I justify myself? They are lying, they want to ruin me". We tried to talk to him: "All right, but you were the public prosecutor against the SRs. Agree to be the public prosecutor against them". – "Good, with pleasure." He started to prepare for this. But we thought about it further and decided that that would not be good. Still, this attempt started to convince us for a minute that maybe this man is right. What would it look like to put him up as the public prosecutor? He would say one thing, and then the accused would object, they would say: "Look where you are, the prosecutor. And you were working with us?!" And what would result from all this? It would turn the trial into a comedy and ruin the trial.

Therefore we said to Piatakov: "No, even though it was we who suggested that you be the public prosecutor, this won’t work." He became sad: "Then how can I prove that I am right?" Let me shoot with my own hand all those whom you sentence to death, all this filth, all these swine. What other proof do you need? Publish in the press both after the sentence and after the sentence has been carried out that it was com. Piatakov who carried out the sentence." This also made us hesitate somewhat. But on the other hand we have never made public who carries out the sentences. And we decided that if we did that, no one would believe that we had not forced him to do it. We said that that won’t work either, it’s awkward, no one would believe that you had volunteered to do this, that you were not forced. And on top of that we have never released the names of those who carry out the sentences. "Then what am I to do? Give me a solution. Let me write an article against the Trotskyites" – "Good, write it." He wrote an article, he really smashed Trotsky and the Trotskyites.

But as for how things have turned out, you can see yourself! After that we questioned about 50 people, at least. They really turned Piatakov inside out. It turns out that he’s a monster of a person! So why did he agree to be the public prosecutor? Why did he agree to shoot his comrades himself? It turns out that they have a rule like this: If your fellow Trotskyist is arrested and has begun to give up the names of others, he must be destroyed. You can see what kind of hellish joke this comes to. Believe after this in the sincerity of former oppositionists! We can’t take former oppositionists at their word even when they volunteer to shoot their friends with their own hands.

Radek, until most recently, until yesterday, was writing me letters. We held back his arrest, although there were as many denunciations of him as you want, and from different sides. Everybody, from above, from below, is denouncing Radek. We held back his arrest, and then we arrested him. Yesterday and the day before yesterday I received long letters from him in which he writes: A terrible crime is being committed. They want to bring him down, him, a sincere person, devoted to the party, one who loves the Party, who loves the CC, and so on and so forth. This is wrong. You can shoot me or not, that’s your affair. But he did not want his honor to be shamed. And what did he confess today? That, com. Bukharin, is what has happened. (Bukharin. But I have nothing to confess, not today, not tomorrow, not the day after tomorrow. Noise in the hall.) I am not saying anything about you personally. Maybe you’re right, maybe not. But you just can’t stand up and say that we don’t trust you, we don’t believe in my, Bukharin’s, sincerity. That’s old stuff now. And the events of the last two years had obviously proven this to us, because what has been proven in fact, that sincerity is a relative thing. And as for trusting in former oppositionists, we have shown them so much trust… (Noise in the hall. Voices from the floor. That’s right!) We should be flogged for that maximum trust, that boundless trust that we showed to them.

There is your sincerity and there is your trust! That is why we have put this question before the plenum of the CC. But because Bukharin might take offense and get upset, we are supposed to cover this up? No, in order not to cover it up we must put this question to the plenum. Moreover, former oppositionists have had recourse to an even more serious set in order to retain even a little bit of trust on our part and demonstrate once more their sincerity – some people have begun to use suicide. In reality this is also a means of pressuring the Party. Lominadze committed suicide, he wanted to tell us by this act that he was right, that we were interrogating him in vain, and subjecting him to suspicion in vain. And what happened? It turned out that he was in a bloc with these people. That’s why he killed himself, to cover up their tracks.

So that is a political killing – a means for former oppositionists, enemies of the Party, to strike at the Party, to destroy its vigilance, to deceive it one last time before their death by means of suicide and leave the Party in a stupid position.

Furer. What a letter he left too after his suicide! Reading it you could just break down and weep. (Kosior. No way!) But a person who has a little political experience will understand that something is wrong here. We know Furer, what he’s capable of. And what happened? "He is right, he loves the Party, he is clean, but on the mere thought that someone in the party might think that he, Furer, had at some time joined the Trotskyites, his nerves can’t withstand that, his honor will not permit him to live any longer." (Kosior. They slandered him!) And what happened? It turned out worse than you could imagine.

Tomsky. I would advise you, com. Bukharin, to think why Tomsky killed himself and left a letter – "I’m clean." But in reality you can see that he was far from clean. Speaking for myself, if I am clean, I am a man, a human being, and not a rag, not to mention a communist, then I’ll shout to the whole world that I am right. That I would kill myself – never! So there’s something dirty here. (Voices from the floor. Right!) A person had recourse to suicide because he was afraid that everything would come out, he did not want to witness his own shame in front of the world. Furer, and Lominadze… (Mikoian. And Khandzian.) and Khandzhian, and Skrypnik, and Tomsky. Here’s one of the last, sharpest, and easiest ways by which before one’s death, exiting this world, you can spit on the Party one last time, deceive the Party. There, com. Bukharin, is the background of these latest suicides for you. And you, com. Bukharin, want us to believe you at your word? (Bukharin. No, I don’t want that.) Never, by no means. (Bukharin. No, I don’t want that).

But if you don’t want that, then do not be upset that we have put this question to the plenum of the CC. It’s possible that you are right, this is difficult for you, but after all these facts that I’ve told you about, and there are a great many of them, we have to look carefully into things We have to look carefully, objectively, quietly. We do not want anything except the truth, we do not want, we will not permit anyone to be ruined by anybody. We want to seek out and find the whole truth objectively, honestly, with courage. So do not try to frighten us with weeping or with suicide. (Voices from the floor. Right! Prolonged applause.)

- translation by Grover Furr 2010