kann dazu noch den originellen auszug auf englisch reinstellen
WHY HAVE FRAME-UP TRIALS AS TROTSKY CLAIMS THEY ARE WHEN THE WORLD IS WATCHING
But Trotsky would try and have us believe that a whole series of entirely innocent men, working quietly at their posts-- some of them in key positions in the country--were arrested and forced to confess to a plot which had no existence in reality. Why? What purpose could this serve? The trials gave the capitalist press of the world an opportunity which they used to the full to throw mud at the Soviet Union.
The Soviet government was perfectly well aware that they would do so, and yet it is alleged to have gratuitously presented capitalism with this opportunity by inventing a monstrous plot which had no existence in fact. And people who accept this monstrous nonsense dare to talk of "credibility"; "Who led these people into a state in which all human reflexes are destroyed?" Who indeed? What proof is there that the prisoners were other than in their normal state of physical and mental health? They answered questions for hours on end. The testimony of the one was carefully compared with the testimony of the other before a crowded court.
...We are asked by Trotsky to believe that one of his most outstanding followers, a man [Muralov] who never made his peace with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, not only confessed to crimes of which he was guiltless, but actually falsely declared that he was treated most politely.
We are told that Stalin was anxious to ensure the world bourgeoisie that he had completely abandoned Socialism and revolution and was moving back to capitalism, and that the executions were a proof of the genuineness of his intentions. And so Stalin selects a number of men who never believed in the possibility of building socialism in Russia anyhow, and has them shot in order to show the world that he also no longer believes in that possibility! And the victims--enemies of Stalin from pass struggles--they also treat Stalin "decently and politely" and falsely accuse themselves of committing a crime which they know is punishable by death. Surely the more the Trotskyists try to explain away the trial, the more fantastic their explanations become. In fact the more they talk the more they confirm the fact that there was a plot of a particularly despicable character.
Campbell, J. R. Soviet Policy and Its Critics. London: V. Gollancz, ltd., 1939, p. 248-250
THE CHARGE OF NO DOCUMENTS OR MATERIAL EVIDENCE AT THE TRIALS IS BOGUS
"All trials of political opponents, real and alleged," says Shachtman, Trotsky's American henchman, "that is, all trials held in public, have been monotonously identical under the reign of Stalin. No documents, no material evidence, nothing written adduced, all the evidence confined to the spontaneous and 'voluntary' confessions of the invariably penitent accused. This has been the case from the Shakhty trial to the Zinoviev trial."
This is completely untrue. There were witnesses and material evidence to supplement the evidence of the accused in all these trials. And what is more, before Trotsky went over to terrorism it never occurred to him to doubt these trials for a single moment. In a pamphlet entitled Problems of the Development of the USSR which Shachtman translated in 1931, Trotsky treats both the Shakhty and the Menshevik trial as "giving an extremely striking picture of the relationships of force of the classes and the parties in the USSR." He expresses no doubts about these trials. On the contrary, he says:
"It was irrefutably established by the Court that during the years 1923-28 the bourgeois specialists, in close alliance with the foreign centers of the bourgeoisie, successfully carried through an artificial slackening down of industrialization, counting upon the re-establishment of capitalist relationships" (page 26).
To take the Radek-Pyatakov trial as an example, there was the testimony of five accomplices, Bukhartsev, Romm, Tamm, Stein, and Loginov.
There were the Experts Committee of three, which showed that some of the explosions could not have occurred accidentally. Further, letters that Knyazev, a prominent railway official concerned in wrecking, had received from Japanese agents and had omitted to destroy, were found amongst his personal effects and were identified by him.
The diary of the accused Stroilov, who had been blackmailed by German Secret Service agents into engaging in espionage and sabotage, was produced and was found to contain their telephone numbers, which were checked and confirmed by the appropriate telephone directory.
The movements of the German agents mentioned in the trial were confirmed by the production of official records of their arrival. The identity photographs were produced, and the accused Stroilov picked them out from a number of other photographs. The charge of "no documents, no material evidence" will not bear examination.
Campbell, J. R. Soviet Policy and Its Critics. London: V.Gollancz, ltd., 1939, p. 261-262
TROTSKY TRIES TO DISCREDIT THE TRIALS WITH 3 MAIN ARGUMENTS ABOUT FACTS
There are three points in the trials, however, on which Trotsky had tried to fasten in order to discredit the whole edifice of evidence put forward.
In the first trial, Holtzman, one of the accused, confessed to having a long interview with Trotsky in the Hotel Bristol in Copenhagen. "But it so happens that the Hotel Bristol," says Trotsky gleefully, "was razed to its foundations in 1917. In 1932 this hotel existed only as a fond memory." The Trotskyists are gleeful: the OGPU, which made the prisoners confess down to the minutest detail, was apparently so clumsy that when it made Holtzman confess that he had seen Trotsky in the Hotel Bristol in Copenhagen in 1932, it did not even trouble to ascertain whether there was a Hotel Bristol in Copenhagen in 1932. A frame up is (according to Trotsky) devised down to the minutest detail, but the authors are so clumsy that they mention meeting places in hotels that do not exist. But what do the facts show? Holtzman testified that when he arrived at the station he crossed over to the Bristol Hotel. Now opposite the station there is no Bristol Hotel. There is, however, the Grand Central Hotel, and in the same building there is a Bristol Cafe. Further, at the date mentioned, it was possible to obtain entrance to the Hotel through the cafe. It may be that Holtzman, seeing the sign above the cafe, was confused as to the name of the hotel. He was naturally not taking notes with a view to a future confession. It is one of the curiosities of Trotskyist quibbling that while they were at great pains to convince the world that no Bristol Hotel existed in Copenhagen, they concealed the fact that just over from the station, as described by Holtzman, there was the Bristol cafe through which entrance could be obtained to the Grand Central Hotel. But those who believe in Trotsky's innocence will find the following remark of Trotsky more than curious. "Holtzman apparently knew the Hotel Bristol through memories of his emigration long ago, and that is why he named it." On the one hand we are told by the Trotskyists that the confessions were dictated to the prisoners by the remorseless OGPU, and on the other hand we have a prisoner who obligingly makes up his own confession out of his memories of emigration.
The second objection is the journey of Pyatakov to see Trotsky in Oslo in 1935. It is declared that this is impossible because not a single foreign airplane landed at the Oslo airport in December 1935.
On the other hand, not only Pyatakov, but a witness, Bukhartsev, the Berlin correspondent of Izvestia, gave the most circumstantial details as to how the journey was arranged in a special airplane placed at Pyatakov's disposal by the German government. To put it on the lowest possible level, it is more likely that the Nazi Government, which has known how to get hundreds of airplanes into Northern Spain in spite of the control exercised by the Non-Intervention Committee, should succeed in getting a single airplane in and out of Norway, than that Pyatakov and Bukhartsev should charge themselves with a crime which they never committed.
The next so-called loophole refers to the evidence of the witness Romm, another Izvestia correspondent who carried correspondence between Trotsky and Radek. Romm deposed that he had a meeting with Trotsky in the Bois de Boulogne at the end of July 1933 and had a conversation lasting from 20 to 25 minutes. Trotsky seeks to refute this by declaring that he was staying during the month of July 1933 at Royan, and that he was seen there by John Patton and C.A. Smith of the British Independent Labor Party, and those gentlemen have very obligingly told the world that they saw Trotsky there in the flesh during that period. We do not doubt that for a single moment. Suppose in a criminal case in Great Britain a witness testified that he had a conversation with one of the accused in Hyde Park in the middle of July. Would it be regarded as an adequate refutation of that witnesses evidence that the accused had been domiciled in Edinburg during July? Are there not trains traveling between Edinburg and Glasgow, and are there no motor-cars? Really, would that type of refutation convince anybody?
Campbell, J. R. Soviet Policy and Its Critics. London: V. Gollancz, ltd., 1939, p. 263-265
TROTSKY’S EXPLANATION FOR THE TRIALS OCCURRING IS A PATHETIC JOKE
But if there were no conspiracy in the Soviet Union why the trials?
Hear the explanations of Trotsky's defenders are many and varied.
"The Trial," says the American Trotskyist Shachtman, "also served the purpose of the bureaucracy in distracting the attention of the Soviet proletariat and the workers in the capitalist lands from the base betrayal of the Spanish working-class by the Stalinist apparatus." This was written on November 1st, 1936, after the Soviet Union had declared that it was no longer bound by the non-intervention agreement, and when it was apparent to the whole world that the Soviet Union was rendering most generous aid to the Spanish people--aid which was to transform the whole prospects of the struggle. What "aid" Trotskyism rendered the Spanish people will be seen later. It would be more correct to say that Trotsky and his supporters have used the trials in order to endeavor to detach working-class support from the Soviet Union, at the very moment when it was rendering unforgettable assistance to the Spanish people.
The "explanation" of Trotsky is that the trials were staged in order to discredit him and the Fourth International.
"An international conference as recently been held under the sign of the Fourth International. This movement does not cease to grow beneath the blows of its enemies, while the Communist International is the prey of trouble and confusion. Now Stalin cannot keep his leadership of the bureaucracy and his power over the people without having international authority. The growth of the Fourth International, information about which penetrates more and more into Russia, constitutes a grave peril for him. Finally, the leading coterie fears more than anything the still living traditions of the October Revolution, inevitably hostile to the new privileged caste. All this explains why Stalin and his group have not for a moment ceased to combat me personally."
Is this a rational explanation? According to Trotsky's whole hypothesis there was no conspiracy in the Soviet Union; the accused were not in opposition to the Government, they have "capitulated" to the Government; Trotsky had no relation with the Nazis, he had few direct connections with the Soviet Union and no organization within it; and yet the Government suddenly swoops upon scores of people who are loyally doing the jobs assigned to them, Prime Ministers of National Republics, Vice -Commissars of Industry, prominent diplomats, ex-leaders, whose names were well-known throughout the international Labor Movement, and charged them with crimes they never committed. And all this was done--to make things a little more difficult for Trotsky and to discredit the Fourth International! One might as well argue that the trials were held to discredit the Rugby Union and the Southern League. Was there ever such a crying disproportion between means and ends? The Bolshevik steamroller is set in motion to crack a peanut.
Campbell, J. R. Soviet Policy and Its Critics. London: V. Gollancz, ltd., 1939, p. 268-269
DEWEY COMMISSION’S REASONS FOR THE TRIALS ARE WORTHLESS
Still acting on the assumption that if one throws out a sufficiency of "explanations" some of them are bound to be believed by someone, the Dewey Commission tries once again:
"The Commission finds that the conclusion appears to be inevitable that the indictments and the confessions in the series of widely publicized trials against the regime, were governed in each case by current internal difficulties economic and political and by the current situation in the foreign relations of the Soviet Union. In other words the trials have not really been criminal but political."
Did the Commission take any evidence which showed that the years 1936-38 were years of economic or political difficulty inside the Soviet Union? It did not. All evidence goes to show that these years were years of remarkable economic growth (despite all the saboteurs could do) and of advancing standards of life for the people. We are asked to believe that at the very moment that the Soviet Government was telling the people of the marvelous progress it had made, it was also staging trials to explain the terrible difficulties it was in. No, it will not do!
There only remains the pseudo-historical explanation of the capitalist intellectuals, i.e. "all revolutions devour their children." In his concluding speech, Rakovsky dealt with this "explanation."
"It is a ridiculous, groundless analogy. Bourgeois revolutions did indeed finish--excuse me if I cite here some theoretical arguments which, however, are of significance for the present moment--bourgeois revolutions did indeed finish by devouring their own children, because after they had triumphed they had to suppress their allies from among the people, their revolutionary allies of the Left.
"But the proletarian revolution, the revolution of the class which is revolutionary to the end, when it applies what Marx called 'plebeian methods of retaliation', it applies them not to the advanced elements, it applies them to those who stand in the way of this revolution, or to those who, as ourselves, were with this revolution, marched along with it for a certain time, and then stabbed it in the back."
Campbell, J. R. Soviet Policy and Its Critics. London: V. Gollancz, ltd., 1939, p. 272
THE FALLACIES OF TROTSKY’S MAJOR ARGUMENTS IN THE 1930’S
Naturally there is no attempt by the Trotskyists to frame a policy on the basis of an objective evaluation of the situation existing in a given country, bearing in mind the relations of that country to the rest of the world, for this would inevitably expose the true character of Trotskyist policy.
Instead of proceeding from a concrete analysis we are presented with a theoretical hotch-potch, calculated to confuse the workers and justify the sabotage of the anti-Fascist front. Elements of the old Trotskyism in which alliance of the workers with other sections of society, notably the peasantry, is rejected; misrepresentation of the tactics which brought victory to the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution, and the urging of the workers to apply this caricature to the struggles of today; a wholly mechanical interpretation of the relation of monopoly capitalism to Fascism; attempts to draw an analogy between the immediate post-war period when parliamentary democracy was the rallying ground of reaction against the advancing Social Revolution, and the present day when monopoly capitalism is seeking to attack and undermine parliamentary democracy; attempts to show that the building up of an anti-Fascist People's Front to resist the drive of monopoly capitalism to Fascism is a betrayal similar to that of those Socialist parties which at the end of the war cooperated with capitalism to defeat the advancing social revolution--such are the principal arguments in the arsenal of Trotskyism.
Campbell, J. R. Soviet Policy and Its Critics. London: V. Gollancz, ltd., 1939, p. 314