'The Red Symphony'

Politics, History, & 'Conspiracy'
User avatar
Masato
Site Admin
Posts: 10300
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:16 pm
Reputation: 4823

Re: 'The Red Symphony'

Postby Masato » Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:45 pm

part 6:

[spoiler]
G. - But in what, in this case, is there a deception?

R. - I shall give you a few minutes of time so that you yourself can discover just in what there is a deception of Hitler. But first I want to stress, and you should take note, that the plan which I have indicated here, is logical and normal and I think that one can achieve that the Capitalistic States will destroy each other, if one brings about a clash of their two wings: the fascist and the bourgeois. I repeat that the plan is logical and normal. As you have slready heen able to see, there is no intervention here of mysterious or unusual factors. In short in order that one should be able to realize the plan, "Their" intervention is not required. Now I should like to guess your thoughts: are you not now thinking that it would be stupid to waste time on proving the unprovable existence and power held by "Them." Is that not so?

G. You are right.

R. - Be frank with me. Do you really not observe their intervention? I informed you, wanting to help you, that their intervention exists and is decisive, and for that reason the logic and naturalness, of the plan are only apparances ... Is it really true that you do not see "Them"?

G. - Speaking sincerely, no.

R. - The logic and naturalness of my plan is only an appearance. It would be natural and logical that Hitler and Stalin would inflict defeat on each other. For the democracies that would be a simple and easy thing, if they would have to put forward such an aim, for them it would be enough that Hitler should be permitted, make note "permitted" to attack Stalin. Do not tell me that Germany could be defeated. If the Russian distances and the dreadful fear of Stalin and his henchmen of the Hitlerite axe and the revenge of their victims will not be enough

{p. 45} in order to attain the military exhaustion of Germany, then there will be no obstacles to the democracies, seeing that Stalin is losing strength, beginning to help him wisely and methodically, continuing to give that help until the complete exhaustion of both armies. In reality that would be easy, natural and logical, if those motives and aims which are put forward by the democracies and which most of their followers believe to be the true ones, and not what they are in reality - pretexts. There is only one aim, one single aim: the triumph of Communism; it is not Moscow which will impose its will on the democracies, but New York, not the "Comintern," but the "Capintern" on Wall Street. Who other that he could have been able to impose on Europe such an obvious and absolute contradiction? What force can lead it towards complete suicide? Only one force is able to do this: money. Money is power and the sole power.

G. - I shall be frank with you, Rakovsky. I admit in you an exceptional gift of talent. You possess brilliant dialectic, persuasive and subtle: when this is not enough for you, then your imagination has command of means in order to extend your colourful canvas, while you invent brilliant and clear perspectives; but all this, although it provokes my enthusiasm, is not enough for me. I shall go over to putting questions to you, assuming that I believe all that you have said.

R. - And I shall give you replies, but with one single condition, that you should not add anything to what I shall say, nor deduct.

G. - I promise. You assert that "They" hinder or will hinder a German-Soviet war, which is logical from the point of view of the Capitalists. Have I explained it correctly?

R. - Yes, precisely so.

G. - But the reality of the present moment is such that Germany has been permitted to re-arm and expand. This is a fact. I already know that in accordance with your explanation this was called forth by the Trotzkyist plan, which fell through thanks to the "cleanings-out" now taking place; thus the aim has been lost. In the face of a new situation you only advise that Hitler and Stalin should sign a pact and divide Poland. I ask you: how can we obtain a guarantee that, having the pact, or not having it, carrying out, or not carrying out the partition, Hitler will not attack the USSR?

R. - This cannot be guaranteed.

G. - Then why go on talking?

R. - Do not hurry. The magnificent threat to the USSR is real and exists. This is not an hypothesis and not a verbal threat. It is a fact and a fact which obliges. "They" already have superiority over Stalin, a superiority which cannot be denied. Stalin is offered only one altemative, the right to choose, but not full freedom. The attack of Hitler will come in any case of its own accord; "They" need not do anything to make it happen but only leave him the chance of acting. This is the basic and determining reality, which has been forgotten by you owing to your excessively Kremlin-like way of thinking ... Egocentrism, Sir, egocentrism.

G. - The right to choose?

R. - I shall define it exactly once more, but shortly: either there will be an attack on Stalin, or there will come the realization of the plan I have indicated, according to which the European Capitalistic

{p. 46} States will destroy each other. I drew attention to this alternative, but as you see it was only a theoretical one. If Stalin wants to survive then he will be forced to realize the plan which has been proposed by me and ratifed by "Them."

G. - But if he refuses?

R. - That will be impossible for him. The expansion and re-armament of Germany will continue. When Stalin will be faced by this gigantic threat ..., then what will he do? This will be dictated to him by his own instinct of self-preservation.

G. - It seems that events must develop only according to the orders indicated by "Them."

R. - And it is so. Of course, in the USSR to-day things still stand llke this, but sooner or later it wili happen like that all the same. It is not difficult to foretell and to suggest for carrying out something, if it is profitable for the person who must realize the matter, in the given case Stalin, who is hardly thinking of suicide. It is much more difficult to give a prognosis and to force to act as needed someone for whom that is not profitable, but who must act nevertheless, in the given case the democracies. T have kept the explanation for this moment to give a concrete picture of the true position. Reject the wrong thought that you are the arbiters in the given situation, since "They" are the arbiters.

G. - "They" both in the first and the second case ... Therefore we must deal with shadows?

R. - But are facts shadows? The international situation will be extraordinary, but not shadowy; it is real and very real. This is not a miracle; here is predetermined the future policy ... Do you think this is the work of shadows?

G.--But let us see; let us assume that your plan is accepted ... But we must have something tangible, personal, in order to be able to carry out negotiations.

R. - For example?

G. - Some person with powers of attorney and representation.

R. - But for what? Just for the pleasure of becoming acquainted wlth him? For the pleasure of a talk? Bear in mind that the assumed person, in case of his appearance, will not present you with credentials with seals and crests and wlll not wear a diplomatic uniform, at least a man from "Them"; if he were to say something or promise, then it wlll have no Juridical force or meaning as a pact ... Understand that "They" are not a State; "They" are that which the International was before 1917, that which it still is nothing and at the same time everything. Imagine to yourself if it is possible that the USSR would have negotiations with freemasonry, with an espionage organiation, with the Macedonian Komitadgi or the Croatian Ustashi. Would not some Juridlcal agreement be written? ... Such pacts as the pact of Lenin with the German General Staff, as the pact of Trotzky with "Them" -- are realized without written documents and without signatures. The only guarantee of their execution is rooted in the circumstance that the carrying out of that which has been agreed is profitable for the parties to the pact, this guarantee is the sole reality in the pact, however great may be its importance.

{p. 47} G. - From what would you begin in the present case?

R. - Simple; I should begin already from to-morrow to sound out Berlin ...

G. - In order to agree about the attack on Poland?

R. - I would not begin with that ... I would display my willingness to yield and would hint about certain disappointments among the democracies, I would soft-pedal in Spain ... This would be an act of encouragement; then I would drop a hint about Poland. As you see - nothing compromising, but enough so that a part of the OKW (German High Command - Transl.), the Bismarckists, as they are called, would have some arguments to put before Hitler.

G. - And nothing more?

R. - For the beginning, nothing more; this is already a big diplomatic task.

G. - Speaking frankly, having in mind the aims which have been dominant in the Kremlin until now, I do not think that anyone would at present dare to advise such a radical change in international policy. I propose to you, Rakovsky, to transform yourself in imagination into that person at the Kremlin which will have to take the decision ... On the basis only of your disclosures, arguments, your hypotheses and persuasion, as I see it, it would be impossible to convince anyone. I personally, after having listened to you and at the same time, I shall not deny it, having experienced a strong influence from your explanations, of your personality, have not for a single moment experienced the temptation to consider the German-Soviet pact to be something realizable.

R. - International events will force with irresistible strength ...

G. - But that would be a loss of valuable time. Consider something concrete, something which I could put forward as a proof of your veracity and credibility ... In the contrary case I should not dare to transmit your information about our conversation; I should edit it with all accuracy, but it would reach the Kremlin archives and stay there.

R. - Would it not be enough to bring about that it is taken into consideration if someone, even in a most official manner, were to have a talk with some very important person?

G. - It seems to me that this would be something real.

R. - But with whom?

G. - This is only my personal opinion, Rakovsky. You had mentioned concrete persons, big financiers; if I remember correctly, you had spoken about a certain Schiff, for example; then you mentioned another who had been the go-between with Hitler for the purpose of financing him. There are also politicians or persons with a big position, who belong to "Them" or, if you like, serve "Them." Someone like that could be of use to us in order to start something practical ... Do you know someone?

R. - I do not think it is necessary ... Think: about what will you be negotiating? Probably about the plan which I have set out, is that not so? For what? At the present moment "They" need not do anything in this context; "Their" mission is "not to do." And for that reason you would not be able to agree about any positive acton and could not demand it ... Remember, consider well.

{p. 48} G. - Even if that is so, yet in view of our personal opinion there must be a reality, even if a useless one ..., a man, a personality which would confirm the credibility of the power, which you ascribe to "Them."

R. - I shall satisfy vou, although I am sure of the uselessness of this. I have already told you that I do not know who is a part of "Them," but have assurances from a person who must have known them.

G. - From whom?

R. - From Trotzky. From Trotzky I know only that one of 'Them" was Walter Rathenau, who was well known from Rapallo. You see the last of "Them" who occupied a political and social position, since it was he who broke the economic blockade of the USSR. Despite the fact that he was one of the biggest millionaires; of course, such also was Lionel Rothschild. I can with confidence mention only these names. Naturally I can name still more people, the work and personality of whom I determine as being fully "Theirs," but I cannot confirm what these people command or whom they obey.

G. - Mention some of them.

R. - As an institutions - the Bank of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., of Wall Street; to this bank belong the families of Schiff, Warburg, Loeb and Kuhn; I say families in order to point out several names, since they are all connected among themselves by marriages; then Baruch, Frankfurter, Altschul, Cohen, Benjamin, Strauss, Steinhardt, Blom, Rosenman, Lippmann, Lehman, Dreifus, Lamont, Rothschild, Lord, Mandel Morgenthau, Ezekiel, Lasky. I think that that will be enough names; if I were to strain my memory, then perhaps I would remember some more but I repeat, that I do not know who among them can be one of "Them" and I cannot even assert, that any one of them is definitely of their number; I want to avoid any responsibility. But I certainly think that any one of the persons I have enumerated, even of those not belonging to "Them," could always lead to "Them" with any proposition of an important type. Of course, independently of whether this or that person does or does not belong to "Them," one cannot expect a direct reply. The answer will be given by facts. That is the unchangeable tactic which they prefer and with which they force one to reckon. For example, if you would risk beginning diplomatic initiatives, then you would not need to make use of the method of a personal approach to "Them"; one must limit oneself to the expression of thoughts, the exposition of some rational hypothesis, which depends on unknown definite factors. Then it only remains to wait.

G.--You understand that I have not ot a card-index at my dispesal at the moment, in order to establish all the men yvou have mentioned: I assume that they are probably somewhere far away. Where?

R. - Most of them in the United States.

G.- Plese understand that if we were to decide to act, then we would have to devote much time to it. But the matter is urgent, and urgent not for us, but for you. Rakovsky.

R. - For me?

G.--Yes. for you. Remember that your trial will take place very soon. I do not know, but I think it will not be risky to assume that if all that had been discussed here were to interest the Kremlin, then it

{p. 49} must interest them before you appear before the tribunal: that would be for you a decisive matter. I think it is in your personal interests that you should propose something quicker to us. The most important thing is to get proofs that you spoke the truth, and to do this not during a period of several weeks, but during several days. I think that if you were to succeed in this, then I could nearly give you fairly solid assurances concerning the possibility of saving your life ... In the contrary case I answer for nothing.

R. - In the end I shall take the risk. Do you know if Davis is at present in Moscow? Yes, the Ambassador of the United States.

G. - I think he is; he should have returned.

R. - Only an exceptional situation gives me the right, as I see it, against the rules, to make use of an official intermediary.

G. - Therefore we can think that the American Government is behind all this ...

R. - Behind - no under all this ...

G. - Roosevelt?

R. - What do I know? I can only come to conclusions. You are all the time obsessed with the mania of political espionage. I could manufacture, in order to please you, a whole history; I have more than sufficient imagination, dates and true facts in order to give it veracity in appearance, which would be close to looking obvious. But are not the generally known facts more obvious? And you can supplement them with your own imagination, if you wish. Look yourself. Remember the morning of the 24th October 1929. The time will come when this day will be for the history of the revolution more important than October, 1917. On the day of the 24th October there took place the crash of the New York Stock Exchange, the beginning of the so-called "depression," a real revolution. The four years of the Government of Hoover - are years of revolutionary progress: 12 and 15 millions on strike. In February, 1933 there takes place the last stroke of the crisis with the closing of the banks. It is difficu1t to do more than capital did in order to break the "classical American," who was still on his industrial bases and in the economic respect enslaved by Wall Street. It is well known that any impoverishment in economics, be it in relation to societies or animals, gives a flourishing of parasitism, and capital is a large parasite. But this American revolution pursued not only the one aim of increasing the power of money for those who had the right to use it, it pretended to even more. Although the power of money is political power, but before that it had only been used indirectly, but now the power of money was to be transformed into direct power. The man through whom they made use of such power was Franklin Roosevelt. Have you understood? Take note of the following: In that year 1929, the first year of the American revolution, in February Trotzky leaves Russia; the crash takes place in October ... The financing of Hitler is agreed in July, 1929. You think that all this was by chance? The four years of the rule of Hoover were used for the preparation of the seizure of power in the United States and the USSR; there by means of a financial revolution, and here with the help of war and the defeat which was to follow. Could some good novel with great imagination be more obvious to you? You can understand that the execution of

{p. 50} the plan on such a scale requires a special man, who can direct the executive power in the United States, who has been predetermined to be the organizing and deciding force. That man was Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. And permit me to say that this two-sexed being is not simply irony. He had to avoid any possible Delilah.

G. - Is Roosevelt one of "Them"?

R. - I do not know if he is one of "Them," or is only subject to "Them." What more do you want? I think that he was conscious of his mission, but cannot assert whether he obeyed under duress of blackmail or he was one of those who rule; it is true that he carried out his mission, realized all the actions which had been assigned to him accurately. Do not ask me more, as I do not know any more.

G. - In case it should be decided to approach Davis, in which form would you do it?

R. - First of all you must select a person of such a type as "the baron"; he could be useful ... Is he still alive?

G. - I do not know.

R. - All right, the choice of persons is left to you. Your delegate must present himself as being confidential or not modest, but best of all as a secret oppositionist. The conversation must be cleverly conducted concerning that contradictory position into which the USSR has been put by the so-called European democracies, by their union against National-Socialism. This is the conclusion of an alliance with the British and French Imperialism, the contemporary real Imperialism, for the destruction of the potential Imperialism. The aim of the verbal expressions must be to conjoin the false Soviet position with an equally false one of American democracy ... It also sees itself forced to support Colonial Imperialism for the defence of democracy within England and France. As you see, the question can be put onto a very strong logical foundation. After that it is already very easy to formulate an hypothesis about actions. The first: that neither the USSR, nor the United States are interested in European Imperialism and thus the dispute is brought down to the question of personal hegemony; that ideologically and economically Russia and America want the destruction of European Colonial Imperialism, be it direct or oblique. The United States want it even more. If Europe were to lose all its power in a new war, then England, not having its own forces, with the disappearance of Europe as a force, as power, would from the first day lean, with all its weight and with the whole of its Empire, speaking the English language, on the United States, which would be inevitable both in the political and economic sense ... Analyze what you have heard in the light of the Left conspiracy, as one might say, without shocking any American boureois. Having got to this point, one could have an interval for a few days. Then, having noted the reaction, it will be necessary to move further. Now Hitler comes forward. Here one can point to any aggression: he is fully an aggressor and of this there can be no doubt. And then one can go over to asking a question: What common action should be undertaken by the United States and the Soviet Union in view of the war between the Imperialists, who want it? The answer could he - neutrality. One must argue again: yes, neutrality, but it does not depend on the wish of one side, but also of the aggressor. There can be a guarantee of neutrality only when the aggressor cannot attack or it does

{p. 51} not suit him. For this purpose the infallible answer is the attack of the aggressor on another Imperialist State. From this it is very easy to go over to the expression of the necessity and morality, with a view to guaranteeing safety, for provoking a clash between the Imperialists, if that clash were not to take place of its own accord. And if that were to be accepted in theory, and it will be accepted, then one can regulate the question of actions in practice, which would be only a matter of technique. Here is a scheme: (1) A pact with Hitler for the division between us of Czechoslovakia and Poland (better the latter). (2) Hitler will accept. If he is capable of backing a bluff for the conquest, i.e. the seizure of something in alliance with the USSR, then for him there will be full guarantee in that the democracies will yield. He will be unable to believe their verbal threats as he knows that those who try to intimidate by war threats are at the same time partisans of disarmament and that their disarmament is real. (3) The democracies will attack Hitler and not Stalin; they will tell the people that although both are guilty of aggression and partition, but strategical and logical reasons force them to defeat them one by one: first Hitler and then Stalin.

G. - But will they not deceive us with truth?

R. - But how? Does not Stalin dispose of freedom of action in order to help Hitler in sufficient measure? Do we not put in his hands the possibility of continuing the war between the Capitalists until the last man and the last pound? With what can they attack him? The exhausted States of the West will already have enough on their hands with internal Communist revolution, which in the other case may triumph.

G. - But if Hitler achieves a quick victory and if he, like Napoleon, mobilizes the whole of Europe against the USSR?

R. - This is quite improbable! You forget about the existence of the United States. You reject the power factor, a greater one. Is it not natural that America, imitating Stalin, would on its part help the democratic States? If one were to co-ordinate "against the hands of the clock" the help to both groups of fighters, then thus there will be assured without failure a permanent extension of the war.

G. - And Japan?

R. - Is not China enough for them? Let Stalin guarantee them his non-intervention. The Japanese are very fond of suicide, but after all not to such an extent as to be capable of simultaneously attacking China and the USSR. Any more objections?

G. - No, if it were to depend on me, then I would try ... But do you believe that the delegate ...?

R. - Yes, I believe. I was not given the chance of speaking with him, but note one detail: the appointment of Davis became known in November, 1936; we must assume that Roosevelt thought of sending him much sooner and with that in mind began preliminary steps; we all know that the consideration of the matter and the official explanations of the appointment take more than two months. Apparently his appointment was agreed in August ... And what happened in August? In August Zinoviev and Kamenev were shot. I am willing to swear that his appointment was made for the purpose of a new involvement of "Them' in the politics of Stalin. Yes, I certainly think so. With what an inner excitement must he have travelled, seeing how one after another

{p. 52} there fall the chiefs of the opposition in the "purges" which follow one on another. Do you know if he was present at trial of Radeck?

G. - Yes.

R. - You will see him. Have a talk with him. He expects it already for many months.

G. - This night we must finish; but before we part I want to know something more. Let us assume that all this is true and all will be carried out with full success. "They" will put forward definite conditions. Guess what they might be?

R. - This is not difficult to assume. The first condition will be the ending of the executions of the Communists, that means the Trotzkyists, as you call them. Then, of course, they will demand the establishment of several zones of influence, as I had mentioned. The boundaries which will have to divide the formal Communism from the real one. That is the most important condition. There will be mutual concessions for mutual help for a time, while the plan lasts, being carried out. You will see for example the paradoxial phenomenon that a whole crowd of people, enemies of Stalin, will help him, no they will not necessarily be proletarians, nor will they be professional spies. There will appear influential persons at all levels of society, even very high ones, who will help the Stalinist formal Communism when it becomes if not real, then at least objective Communism. Have you understood me?

G. - A little; you wrap up such things in such impenetrable casuistry.

R. - If it is necessary to end, then I can only express myself in this way. Let us see if I shall not be able yet to help to understand. It is known that Marxism was called Hegelian. So this question was vulgarised.Hegelian idealism is a widespread adjustment to an uninformed understanding in the West of the natural mysticism of Baruch Spinosa. "They" are Spinosists: perhaps the matter is the other way round, i.e. that Spinosism is "Them," insofar as he is only a version adequate to the epoch of "Their" own philosophy, which is a much earlier one, standing on a much higher level. After all, a Hegelian and for that reason also the follower of Spinosa, was devoted to his faith, but only temporarily, tactically. The matter does not stand as is claimed by Marxism, that as the result of the elimination of contradictions there arises the synthesis. It is as the result of the opposing mutual fusion, from the thesis and anti-thesis that there arises, as a synthesis, the reality, truth, as a final harmony between the subjective and objective. Do you not see that already? In Moscow there is Communism: in New York Capitalism. It is all the same as a thesis and anti-thesis. Analyze both. Moscow is subjective Communism, but Capitalism objective - State Capitalism. New York: Capitalism subjective, but Communism objective. A personal synthesis, truth: the Financial International, the Capitalist-Communist one. "They."

* * *

The meeting had lasted about six hours. I once more gave some drug to Rakovski. The drug it was obvious, worked well, although I was only able to observe this by certain symptoms of animation. But I think that Rakovsky would have spoken just the same in a norrnal condition. Undoubtedly the theme of the conversation concerned his speciality and he had the passionate will to epose that, about which he spoke. Since, if all this is true then an energetic attempt had been made

{p. 53} to enforce the triumph of his idea and plan. If this was untrue, then there was an extraordinary phantasy and this was a wonderful manoeuvre for saving his already lost life.

My opinion of all that had been heard can not be of any importance. I have not got a sufficient erudition in order to understand its universality and horizons. When Rakovsky touched on the most important part of the theme I had the same feeling as at that moment when I saw myself for the first time on the X-ray screen. My surprised eyes saw something diffuse and dark, but real. Something like an apparition; I had to co-ordinate his figure and movements, corelations and actions to the degree to which it was possible to guess with the help of logical intuition.

I think that I had observed during several hours the "radiograph of revolution" on a world-wide scale. It is possible that in part lt failed, was deformed, thanks to circumstances or personalities which reflected it, it is not for nothing that the lie and dissimulation are permitted in the revolutionary struggle and are accepted as moral. And Rakovsky, a passionate dialectician of great culture and a first-class orator, is first of all and above all a revolutionary fanatic.

I re-read the conversation many times, but each time I felt how there rose in me the feeling of my incompetence in this respect. That which until then had seemed to me, and to the whole world, to be the truth and obvious reality, like blocks of granite, where the social order stands as on a rock, immovable and permanent, all that became transformed into a thick fog. There appear colossal, unmeasurable, invisible forces with a categorical imperative, disobedient, sly and titanic at the same time, something like magnetism, electricity or the attraction of the earth. In the presence of this phenomenal disclosure I felt like the man from the stone age, whose head was still full of primitive superstitions concerning the phenomena of nature, and who had been suddenly transposed one night into the Paris of to-day. I am amazed even more than he would have been.

Many times I disagreed. At first I convinced myself that everything which Rakovsky was telling was the product of his extraordinary imagination. But even having convinced myself that I was a toy in the hands of the biggest of all the writers of novels, I tried in vain to find enough strength, logical reasons and even people with a sufficient personality, who would have been able to explain this gigantic progress of the revolution.

I must confess that if only those forces participated here, as also reasons and people, which are mentioned officially in written histories, then I must declare that the revolution is a miracle of our age. No, when I was listening to Rakovsky, I could not admit that a small group of Jews, who emigrated from London, had achieved that this "apparition of revolution," which had been called forth by Marx in the first lines of the Manifesto, had become to-day a gigantic reality and a universal threat.

Whether what Rakovsky told is true or not, whether the secret and real streneth of Communism is International Capital, it is the obvious truth for mne that Marx, Lenin, Trotzky and Stalin are an insufficient explanation for that which is happening.

{p. 54} Whether these people are real or phantastic, whom Rakovsky calls "Them" with an almost religious tremor in his voice, is the question. But if "They" do not exist then I shall have to say of them what Voltaire said of God: "He will have to be invented," since only in that case can we explain the existence, extent and force of this world-wide revolution.

After all, I have no hope of seeing it. My position does not allow me to view with great optimism the possibility that I shall survive until the near future. But this suicide of the bourgeois European States, of which Rakovsky spoke, and which he proves as being inevitable, would be for me, who has been initiated into the secret, the magisterial and definite proof.

* * *

When Rakovsky had been led away to his place of imprisonment Gabriel remained some time immersed in himself.

I looked at him, not seeing him; and in fact my own ideas and conceptions had lost the ground under their feet and were somehow suspended.

"How do you look on all this" asked Gabriel.

"I do not know, I do not know" I replied, and I spoke the truth; but I added "I think that this is an amazing man and if we are dealing with a falsification, then it is extraordinary; in any event it is a piece of genius."

"As a result, if we shall have the time, we must have an exchange of views ... I am always interested in your opinion of the profane, a doctor. But now we must agree about our programme. I need you as a professional, but as a modest man. That which you have heard, as the result of your peculiar function, can be wind and smoke which is carried by the wind, but it can also be something, the importance of which cannot be exceeded by anything else. Here a moderate terminology is inappropriate. Given this last possibility, a strong feeling of precaution forces me to limit the number of people who know ahout it. For the moment only you and I know. The man who manipulated the recording machine does not know any French. The fact that we did not speak in Russian was not my caprice. In short: I shall be grateful to you if you will be the translator. Sleep for some hours. I shall now give the necessary instructions so that the technician would agree the time with you, and as soon as possible you must translate and write down the conversation, which he will reproduce for you to hear. It will be a hard job; you cannot use a typewriter and the recorder will have to move very slowly. When you will have done the French version I shall read it. A few remarks and epigraphs will be necessary, and I shall add them. You can use a typewriter?"

"Very badly, very slowly, only with two fingers."

"Well arrange it somehow. Please make few mistakes."

Gabriel called the man. We arranged to begin work at eleven o'clock and it was already almost seven. We went to sleep a little.

{p. 55} I was called punctually. We sat down in my small study.

Gabriel had asked me to make two copies of the translation. I made three, in order to hide one for myself. I took the risk as he went to Moscow. I am not sorry that I had had the courage for this.

* * *

EPILOGUE

As is well known, Stalin followed the advice of Rakovsky. There was a pact with Hitler. Also the Second World War served solely the interests of the revolution.

The secret of these changes of policy can be understood from a further conversation between Gabriel and Doctor Landowsky, which is given in a later chapter of "The Red Symphony." Here are some extracts from it:

GABRIEL - Do you remember the conversation with Rakovsky ... Do you know that he was not condemned to death? Well knowing all this you need not be surprised that Comrade Stalin had thought it to be wise to try that apparently so unlikely plan ... Here nothing is risked and, on the contrary, one can gain a great deal ... If you will strain your memory you will be able to understand several things.

DOCTOR - I remember everything rather well. Do not forget that I heard the conversation twice, then both times I wrote it, and in addition I translated it ... May I find out if you know the people whom Rakovsky called "Them"?

User avatar
Masato
Site Admin
Posts: 10300
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:16 pm
Reputation: 4823

Postby Masato » Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:46 pm

part 7

[spoiler]
G. - In order to shew you my confidence I shall tell you - no! We do not know for sure who "They" are, but at the last moment there was confirmed a great deal of what Rakovsky had told; for example it is true that Hitler was financed by the Wall Street bankers. Much else is also true. All these months during which I have not seen you, I devoted to an investigation, connected with Rakovsky's information. It is true that I was not able to establish just which people are such remarkable personages, but it is a fact, that there is a kind of entourage which consists of financiers, politicians, scientists and even ecclesiastical persons of high rank, wealth and power, who occupy high places; if one is to judge their position (mostly as intermediaries) by the results, then it seems strange and inexplicable, at least in the light of ordinary conceptions ... since in fact they have a great similarity with the ideas of Communism, of course with very special Communist ideas. But let us leave all these questions aside, concerning complexion, line and profile; objectively, as Rakovsky would have said, they, imitating Stalin blindly in actions and errors, are building Communism. They followed the advice of Rakovsky almost to the letter. There was nothing concrete, but there was no refusal and no tearing of mantles. On the contrary, they displayed great attention to everything. The Ambassador Davis carefully hinted at the past trials and even went so far as to hint that much would be gained in the public opinion in America, in case of an amnesty for Rakovsky in the near future. He was well watched during the trials in March, which is natural. He was himself present at all of them; we did not allow him to bring any technicians so as to prevent any "telegraphing" with the accused. He is not a professional

{p. 56} diplomat and does not know the specific techniques. He was obliged to look on, trying with his eyes to say much, as I thought; we think that he raised the spirits of Rosenholz and of Rakovsky. The latter confirmed the interest which had been displayed at the trial by Davis and confessed that he made him a secret sign of masonic greeting.

There is yet another strange matter, which cannot be falsified. On the 2nd March at dawn there was received a radio message from some very powerful station: "Amnesty or the Nazi danger will increase" ... the radiogramnme was encyphered in the cypher of our own embassy in London. You can understand that that was something very important!

Dr. - But the threat was not real?

G. - How not? On the 12th March there ended the debates of the Supreme Tribunal and at 9 in the evening the tribunal began its considerations. And on that same day of the 12th March, at 5.30 o'clock a.m. Hitler ordered his armoured divisions to enter Austria. Of course this was a miliiary promenade! Were there sufficient reasons for thinking about that! Or we had to be so stupid as to consider the greetings of Davis, the radioprogramme, the cypher, the coincidence of the invasion with the verdict, and also the silence of Europe as being only accidental chances? No, in fact we did not see "Them," but we heard their voice and understood their language.

* * *

Translator's note: It would be quite supererfluous to write a long commentary on this remarkable material. It should suffice to say the obvious - this is one of the most important political documents of the century.

Many of us have known the facts here brought out for decades, but for the first time we get a brilliant, detailed statement from an insider. Obviously Rakovsky was one of "Them."

Both the internal evidence of this document, as well as the circumstance that all subsequent events went exactly according to the formulae indicated, proves the truth of the story.

This book should be essential reading for all who wish to know what is happening and why, throughout the world, and also what alone can be done to stop the conquests of the revolution: the power of monetary emission must be returned to the States everywhere. If that is not done in time, Communism will win.

George Knupffer.

{end}

(2) Hitler manipulated by Bankers whose agenda he didn't understand - Henry Makow

(2.1) Hitler Didn't Want World War, by Henry Makow Ph.D.

March 21, 2004

http://www.savethemales.ca/000369.html

Hitler didn't want a world war, and had no stomach for fighting England, according to Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Louis Kilzer, author of Churchill's Deception (Simon & Schuster, 1994).

Hitler believed the future of Western civilization depended on the cooperation of Germany and her Aryan cousins: England and the United States. His territorial demands were limited to Communist Russia, which he regarded as a proxy for Jewish world ambitions. He was determined to avoid fighting a war on two fronts.

The "miracle at Dunkirk" was in fact an extraordinary peace overture to England. We don't normally associate Hitler with such magnanimity.

In May 1940, the British were on the verge of defeat. The English army was trapped at Dunkirk. Rather than take them prisoner, Hitler halted his generals for three days allowing 330,000 men to escape.

"The blood of every single Englishman is too valuable to shed," Hitler said. "Our two people belong together racially and traditionally. That is and always has been my aim, even if our generals can't grasp it." (Kilzer, p.213)

This is not an attempt to exonerate Hitler. His ideology of Aryan racial supremacy and his enslavement/extermination of "inferior races" ( mainly Jews and Slavs) are abhorrent to me. (Do I need to say this?) My own grandparents were murdered by the Nazis. I believe people can take pride in their race or nationality without seeking to dominate others.

Nonetheless we should understand that our view of Hitler is influenced by propaganda. The Allies were also guilty of atrocities and war crimes. Furthermore, Hitler was created, manipulated and destroyed by the same Illuminist clique that runs the world today.

"CHURCHILL'S DECEPTION"

According to Kilzer's well-documented book, Hitler was trying to convince the English to make peace. In exchange, he was ready to retreat from Western Europe and from much of Poland.

Kilzer describes how British Intelligence (an arm of the Illuminati) took advantage of Hitler's racist ideology to divert his energies against Russia and trap him in a two-front war. They convinced him that a large pro Nazi (anti Communist) "Peace Party" was prepared to unseat the "war monger" Churchill.

This party consisted of the Duke of Windsor (the former King Edward VIII) and appeasement-minded elitists known as the "Cliveden Set." The Nazis had longstanding social ties with this group and confided in them. Hitler seemed to overlook the fact that Windsor went to stay at the Rothschild castle in Austria after he abdicated.

Rudolph Hess, the Deputy Leader of Nazi Germany, was in contact with the Cliveden group and flew to England May 10, 1941 to negotiate peace. According to Kilzer, Hess had Hitler's blessings.

Coincidentally this was the worst night of the Blitz. Afterward, there was a long lull in both Nazi and British bombing raids. It appears the Nazis thought they had an understanding with the British and turned their attention to the invasion of Russia the following month (June 22, 1941.)

Hitler didn't understand that the Anglo American elite was (and still is) intimately connected with international (i.e. Rothschild) finance. Anglo American imperialism is in fact a front for the families that own the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve. These Jewish and non-Jewish families are connected by money, marriage and Lucifer worship (i.e. Freemasonry). Both Roosevelt and Churchill were their flunkies. (All our "leaders" are.)

In 1776 Meyer Rothschild financed the Illuminati, a Masonic secret society that in turn spawned the major revolutions of the modern era including the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. The ultimate aim is to establish the banker world dictatorship, which is at an advanced stage today.

In the 1930's their purpose was to incite a two-front war that would leave the great nation states (England, Germany and Russia) prostrate. Like all wars, the purpose was to kill millions of people, traumatize humanity, increase public debt and private profit, and make "world government" (the future UN) seem essential for "peace."

The 1930's British Policy of Appeasement was probably designed to encourage Hitler's expansionist tendencies and to provoke war. Douglas Reed, the (London) Times Correspondent in Berlin, was first tipped off to something fishy when his newspaper suppressed his warnings of the Hitler menace. (See his Controversy of Zion)

ROTHSCHILD CONDUCTS RED SYMPHONY

Why would the financial elite also want to destroy Russia, which they created?

The transcript of the 1938 NKVD interrogation of C.G. Rakowsky (a.k.a Chaim Rakeover) provides the answer. Rakowsky was an intimate of Trotsky's and former Soviet ambassador to Paris.

Rothschild's agent Leon Trotsky was supposed to succeed Lenin but got sick at the critical moment. Stalin was able to assume power and divert Russia from Rothschild control.

In order to control Stalin, international finance was forced to build up Hitler and the Nazi party. Rakowsky confirms that Jewish financiers backed the Nazis although Hitler was not aware of this.

"The ambassador Warburg presented himself under a false name and Hitler did not even guess his race ... he also lied regarding whose representative he was... Our aim was to provoke a war and Hitler was war...[the Nazis] received...millions of dollars sent to it from Wall Street, and millions of Marks from German financiers through Schacht; [providing] the upkeep of the S.A and the S.S. and also the financing of the elections..."

Unfortunately for the bankers, Hitler also proved intractable. He started to print his own money! ...

The book "Financial Origins of National Socialism" (1933) by "Sydney Warburg" provides another glimpse of how the Illuminist clique supported Hitler. This 70-page booklet was suppressed for many years but was republished in 1983 as "Hitler's Secret Backers."

"Warburg" describes a July 1929 meeting with "Carter," the President of J.P. Morgan's Guarantee Trust, the Presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks, "the young Rockefeller" and "Glean from Royal Dutch." These are all Rothschild dominated.

It was determined that Warburg who spoke German should travel to Germany and ask Hitler how much money he needed to overthrow the state. The only stipulation was that Hitler adopts "an aggressive foreign policy."

"Warburg" details five meetings with Hitler between 1929 and 1933. The first took place in a beer cellar and Hitler calculated his needs on the back of a paper plate. About $25 million was transferred. This was extremely important in the depth of the depression because the Nazis provided food and shelter to many of their supporters.

Hitler wasn't told the reason for this support and did not ask. On two occasions, he wondered out loud if "Warburg" was himself Jewish but dismissed the idea before "Warburg" could reply.

There is no "Sydney Warburg" but the internal evidence suggests the author could be James Warburg, son of Federal Reserve founder Paul Warburg. Many people dismiss this monograph as yet another fraud but the wealth of accurate detail and anecdote suggests otherwise. ...

{end}

Comment (Peter M.): Henry Makow interprets Red Symphony, and Hitler's Secret Backers, as meaning that the Illuminati gave money to help Hitler gain power, once they had completely lost control of Russia to Stalin, the intention being to restore Trotsky once Stalin had fallen.

You can obtain a copy of Hitler's Secret Backers for US$5 at http://www.omnicbc.com.

The author of this book, apparently written in 1933, says that he was invited to be a courier to Hitler, at a meeting on July, 1929 (p. 5). He says that New York financiers wanted to bring France into line (to renounce Versailles reparations claims), and wanted Hitler to pursue an aggressive foreign policy. In the document, Hitler says that he would use Stalin to help subdue France, then, with his back thus covered, tackle the eastern question, the implication being that he would implement the lebensraum in the Ukraine, as envisaged in Mein Kampf.

Isaac Deutscher says, in The Prophet Outcast, that Trotsky was expelled from the USSR on 10 February, 1929 (p. 1}.

So, the connection is plausible, but can't be proven.

(2.2) William Engdahl on Hitler's fundamental miscalculation

Engdahl's essay: http://arno.daastol.com/history/Engdahl ... oc34729241

... On May 10, just in the hours the German Wehrmacht launched the blitzkrieg against Holland and Belgium, Churchill was called by the King to form a new government. ...

Shortly before dawn on the morning of May 10 the greatest concentration of tank forces ever seen in warfare stood poised on the border of Luxembourg, ready for a seventy mile strike to Sedan on the French side, through the Ardennes forest. ...

"A fundamental miscalculation"

General Guderian had advanced an astonishing 250 miles across enemy terrain in only 11 days. Then, with his Panzer forces at Gravelines, only ten miles from Dunkirk, orders came down on May 24, that his tanks were to halt.

Guderian's forces had been within hours of capturing more than 300,000 of the best-trained professional soldiers of the British Expeditionary Force, along with some 100,000 of France's best-trained and equipped men. Guderian at first read the order with disbelief. His commander, General von Kleist, stated that, on receiving the order, "I decided to ignore it, and to push on across the canal. But then came a more emphatic order that I was to withdraw behind the canal. My tanks were kept halted there for three days."

The order had come directly from Hitler. The three days pause was intended, though Hitler did not tell his generals at the time, to allow Britain's best fighting force escape by ship across the Channel to England. He intended it as a clear gesture of good will towards his British adversary.

That was the "miracle of Dunkirk," which Churchill's strictly censored wartime press propaganda in England portrayed as divine providence smiling down on the chosen British people. The British population would have been no doubt quite surprised, had they been allowed to learn the truth, that the one who had smiled on their army at Dunkirk had in fact been Hitler.

A week later, referring to this "miracle of Dunkirk," Churchill told the House of Commons and the entire nation over the BBC radio, "We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender..."

It wasn't exactly the response Hitler had in mind. ...

Dunkirk was to be only one of several unusual military decisions by the German Fuehrer in those critical days. His message each time was intended as a clear signal to his opponents. He was determined to give England convincing proof of his ultimate good will towards the British Empire, by allowing the elite of Britain's fighting forces to escape to England. ...

Once France had proposed armistice, yet again, Hitler refused to follow the logic of the military situation to its conclusion. He agreed to the basic French terms of Petain, and allowed two-fifths of France to the south, including the major Mediterranean port city, Marseilles, to remain unoccupied Vichy France, under Petain and Laval and their own French military and police control. The colonies and the formidable French naval fleet were left untouched by Hitler, in his bizarre gesture of good will.

Allowing Petain's Vichy government to hold the colonies in French North and West Africa was an astonishing concession from any military standpoint. Had Germany taken the African colonies in the fall of France, that would have closed the Mediterranean to British ships, allowing Italy free-hand to invade Egypt from Libya, blocking the Suez Canal and the route to the Mideast, as well as India. German U-boats, operating out of the French colonial port of Dakar on the west coast of Africa, could have blocked British ships en route to India via South Africa. That would have choked off vital British oil supplies from Iran and the Middle East, and cut off her access to goods and soldiers from India, placing her naval fleet and her economy in a devastating disadvantage at a time when many in top British political circles, even some in Churchill's Cabinet such as Beaverbrook, were resigned to the inevitability of a peace deal with Hitler.

At a meeting June 17 in Munich, the day France's armistice offer was received, Hitler told Mussolini that he would not impose oppressive conditions on France. When Mussolini suggested the demand that France turn over its naval fleet, Hitler rejected that idea outright as well.

This concession too, allowing the Petain government to hold on to the French fleet, was no small thing. At the time, the French naval fleet, unlike other parts of its defense arsenal, was of high quality. Two new battleships, 'Richelieu' and 'Jean Bart' had just been built. Were the French fleet to be added to the combined Naval capacities of Italy and Germany, it could quite well have destroyed British sea defenses and likely have forced a British surrender within months. The entire American fleet, even had they wanted to come to England's aid, was unavailable. It had been shifted early in 1940 to Hawaii and the Pacific, far away from Europe, in order to defend against a growing Japanese threat.

What could be of such over-riding importance in Hitler's thinking as to justify so extraordinary concessions as the colonies, the fleet and almost half of French territory?

Hitler, after refusing Mussolini's demand for the French fleet, turned to the real subject on his mind -- England. In a discussion witnessed by Hitler's official interpreter, Paul Schmidt, Hitler told Mussolini, he was convinced it would not serve any useful purpose to destroy the British Empire. "It is, after all, a force for order in the world," insisted Hitler.

Hitler's thoughts seemed to be returning to the early lessons in geopolitics he had learned from Karl Haushofer and Rudolf Hess almost two decades before, in 1924, in his jail cell at Landsberg near Munich. Hitler had written then in "Main Kampf," about Germany's future and the need for Lebensraum. "If one wanted land and soil in Europe, then by and large this could only have been done at Russia's expense, and then the new Reich would again have to start marching along the road of the Knights of the Order of former times.

"For such a policy, however," wrote Hitler, "there was only one single ally in Europe--England. With England alone, one's back being covered, could one begin the new Germanic invasion ... To gain England's favor, no sacrifice should have been too great. Then one would have had to renounce colonies and sea power, but to spare British industry our competition."

In 1940, Hitler's outlook had changed very little. Rudolf Hess was constantly at his side to remind him as well of his earlier lessons in geopolitics. As Holland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, half Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, and now most of France all had been incorporated into the New European Order of the Third Reich, Italy, and Spain bound to it by alliance, Hitler came back to the idea of recarving the world between a land empire of Eurasia dominated by Germany, and a global oceanic empire dominated by Britain.

Hitler was preparing for the great battle, and it was to be in the east, not the west. He wanted England's assurance that she would "cover Germany's back," or at least not embroil the Reich once more in a catastrophic two front war. ... {end}

(3) Isaac Deutscher on the possibility that Hitler's war would lead to Trotsky's return

If Red Symphony is genuine, Stalin himself would have had access to it. It says that the Anglo-American elite helped to fund Hitler's rise, so that he could make war against Stalin. This would explain Stalin's obsession with the idea that British Intelligence was behind Hitler.

It would also explain Stalin's decision to have Trotsky murdered, a couple of years leter.

Isaac Deutscher points out that the return of Trotsky to power after the defeat of Stalin was a prospect raised seriously at the time:

Isaac Deutscher, THE PROPHET OUTCAST: Trotsky: 1929-1940 (Oxford University Press, London, 1970):

{p. 510} Postscript: Victory in Defeat

... And perhaps never yet had any man lived in so close a communion with the sufferings and the strivings of oppressed humanity and in such utter loneliness as Trotsky lived.

{this sounds like Christian writing on the Passion of Christ}

{p. 511} ... Trotsky asserted his conviction that in the future, after Soviet Society had progressed towards socialism, Stalinism would be seen as merely 'an episodic relapse'.

{p. 514} Trotskyism attempted to preserve the norm or to strike a temporary balance between norm and reality until revolution in the West resolved the conflict and restored harmony between {Marxist} theory and {Communist} practice. The failures of revolution in the West were epitomized in Trotsky's defeat.

{p. 515} How definite and irrevocable was the defeat? We have seen that as long as Trotsky was alive Stalin never considered him to have been finally vanquished. Stalin's fear was no mere paranoiac obsession. Other leading actors on the political stage shared it. Robert Coulondre, French ambassador to the Third Reich, gives a striking testimony in a description of his last interview with Hitler just before the outbreak of the Second World War. Hitler had boasted of the advantages he had obtained from his pact with Stalin, just concluded; and he drew a grandiose vista of his future military triumph. In reply the French ambassador appealed to his 'reason' and spoke of the social turmoil and the revolutions that might follow a long and terrible war and engulf all belligerent governments. 'You are thinking of yourself as victor ...', the ambassador said, 'but have you given thought to another possibility - that the victor may be Trotsky?' At this Hitler jumped up (as if he 'had been hit in the pit of the stomach') and screamed that this possibility, the threat of Trotsky's victory, was one more reason why France and Britain should not go to war against the Third Reich. Thus, the master of the Third Reich and the envoy of the Third Republic, in their last manouvres, during the last hours of peace, sought to intimidate each other, and each other s governments, by invoking the name of the lonely outcast trapped and immured at the far end of the world. 'They are haunted by the spectre of revolution, and they give it a man's name', Trotsky remarked when he read the dialogue.

Were Hitler and the ambassador quite wrong in giving the spectre Trotsky's name? It may be argued that although their fear was well grounded, they should have given the spectre Stalin's name, not Trotsky's - it was, at any rate, Stalin who was to triumph over Hitler. Yet as so often in history so here the underlying realities were far more confused and ambiguous than the surface of events. Stalin's victory over Trotsky concealed a heavy element of defeat while Trotsky's defeat was pregnant with victory.

The central 'ideological' issue between them had been socialism in one country - the question whether the Soviet Union would or could achieve socialism in isolation, on the conceivable only as an international order of society. The

{p. 516} answer events have given is far less clear-cut than were the theoretical arguments, but it comes much closer to Trotsky's view than to Stalin's. Long before the Soviet Union came anywhere near socialism, revolution had spread to other countries. History, it might be said, did not leave the Soviet Union alone long enough to allow a laboratory experiment with socialism in a single country to be carried into any advanced stage, let alone to be completed. In so far as in the struggle between Trotskyism and Stalinism revolutionary internationalism had clashed with Bolshevik isolationism it is certainly not Stalinism that has emerged with flying colours: Bolshevik isolationism has been dead long since. On the other hand, the staying power of the Soviet Union, even in isolation, was far greater than Trotsky sometimes assumed; and, contrary to his expectations, it was not the proletariat of the West that freed the Russian Revolution from isolation. By a feat of history's irony, Stalinism itself malgre lui-meme broke out of its national shell.

In his last debate Trotsky staked the whole future of Marxism and socialism upon the sequel to the Second World War. Convinced that war must lead to revolution - the classical Marxist revolution - he asserted that if it failed to do so Marxism would be refuted, socialism would lose once and for all by default, and the epoch of bureaucratic collectivism would set in. This was, in any case, a rash, dogmatic, and desperate view; historic reality was once again to prove immeasurably more intricate than the theorist's scheme. The war did indeed set in motion a new series of revolutions; yet once again the process did not conform to the classical pattern. The western proletariat again failed to storm and conquer the ramparts of the old order; and in eastern Europe it was mainly under the impact of Russia's armed power, advancing victoriously to the Elbe, that the old order broke down. The divorce between theory and practice - or between norm and fact - deepened further.

This was not a fortuitous development. It represented a continuation of the trend which had first announced itself in 1920-1 when the Red Army marched on Warsaw and when it occupied Georgia. {footnote 1} With those military acts the revolutionary

1 See The Prophet Armed, pp. 463-77.

{p. 517} cycle which the First World War set in motion had come to a close. At the beginning of that cycle Bolshevism had risen on the crest of a genuine revolution; towards its end the Bolsheviks began to spread revolution by conquest. Then followed the long interval of two decades, during which Bolshevism did not expand. When the next cycle of revolution was set in motion by the Second World War, it started where the first cycle had ended - with revolution by conquest. In military history there exists, as a rule, a continuity between the closing phase of one war and the opening phase of another: the weapons and the ideas about warfare invented and formed towards the end of one armed conflict dominate the first stage of the next conflict. A similar continuity exists also between cycles of revolution. In 1920-1 Bolshevism, straining to break out of its isolation, tried, rather fitfully, to carry revolution abroad on the point of bayonets. Two and three decades later Stalinism, dragged out of its national shell by war, imposed revolution upon the whole of eastern Europe.

Trotsky had expected the second revolutionary cycle to begin in the forms in which the first had begun, with class struggles and proletarian risings, the outcome of which would, in the main depend on the balance of social forces within each major nation and on the quality of national revolutionary leadership. Yet the new cycle started not where the previous one had begun, but where it had ended, not with revolution from below, but with revolution from above, with revoluhon by conquest. As this could be the work only of a great power applying its pressure in the first instance to its own periphery, the cycle ran its course on the fringes of the Soviet Union. The chief agents of revolution were not the workers of the countries concerned, and their parties, but the Red Army. Success or failure depended not on the balance of social forces within any nation, but mainly on the international balance of power, on diplomatic pacts, alliances, and military campaigns. The struggle and the co-operation of the great powers superimposed themselves upon class struggle, changing and distorting it. All criteria by which Marxists were wont to judge a nation's 'maturity' or 'immaturity' for revolution went by the board. ...

{end}

(4) David North on the Consequences of Trotsky's Defeat

http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/trotsky/trlect.htm

[The following was delivered as the opening lecture to the International Summer School on Marxism and the Fundamental Problems of the 20th Century, organised by the International Committee of the Fourth International and the Socialist Equality Party of Australia. The school was held in Sydney from January 3-10, 1998. David North is the national secretary of the Socialist Equality Party in the US. ...]

... if Stalinism was not the outcome of Bolshevism, but its antithesis; and if the rise of Stalinism was, in fact, opposed by Marxists, then the historical situation of revolutionary socialism is very different. The International Committee of the Fourth International upholds the second position.

... Especially among those who were influenced by Stalinism, the collapse of the Soviet Union - an event they had utterly failed to foresee - has radically changed their attitude toward the October Revolution and its place in history. Reaction, as Leon Trotsky once noted, not only conquers, it also convinces. Many long-time friends of the Soviet Union, or, perhaps more precisely, of the Soviet bureaucracy, who professed great admiration for Lenin and the "Great October Revolution" - and thought of themselves as very progressive people for doing so - now look upon the October Revolution as a disaster that should not have happened. ... This is the perspective that emerges from a new book by the British historian, Eric Hobsbawm, who was for many years a member of the Communist Party.

... The conflict between the Stalinist bureaucracy and the Left Opposition, about which Hobsbawm says not one word, "happened."

... Hobsbawm seeks to minimize, to the very point of denying, the role of consciousness in the revolutionary process.

... This portrayal of Lenin as a simple realpolitiker, reacting pragmatically and intuitively to events as they arose, hardly makes sense even within the terms presented by Hobsbawm. The defense of the revolution was, in itself, a strategic conception; and its successful realization depended upon a conscious insight into the class structure and dynamics of Russian society.

... Indeed, in a 300-page book of essays and lectures whose central theme is the place of the October Revolution in the history of the 20th century, Trotsky's name appears only once.

... the defeat of Trotsky and the Left Opposition set the stage for all the subsequent tragedies that were to befall the Soviet Union, the international working class and the socialist movement, and beneath whose shadow we still live today.

I wish to add a further point: No discussion on the fate of socialism in the 20th century deserves to be taken seriously unless it considers, with the necessary care, the consequences of Trotsky's defeat. It is essential to consider, in other words, not only "what happened" under Stalin; but also "what well might have happened" had Trotsky prevailed.

... Until 1924 the unquestioned premise of Soviet policy - indeed, that which underlay the entire revolutionary project undertaken by the Bolsheviks in October 1917 - was that the seizure of power in Russia was only "the first shot" of the world socialist revolution. A nationally self-contained socialist state, especially one based on a country as economically and culturally backward as Russia, could not be viable. Stalin's introduction, in the autumn of 1924, of the "theory" of "socialism in one country" - which was not really a "theory" at all, but rather a crudely pragmatic response to the defeat of the German revolution during the previous year and the temporary decline of the revolutionary movement in Western Europe - ran counter to the internationalist orientation propounded by the Bolsheviks under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky.

... It may seem paradoxical that Trotsky, the great protagonist of world revolution, placed greater emphasis than any other Soviet leader of his time on the overriding importance of close economic links between the USSR and the world capitalist market. Soviet economic development, he insisted, required both access to the resources of the world market and the intelligent utilization of the international division of labor. The development of economic planning required at minimum a knowledge of competitive advantage and efficiencies at the international level. It served no rational economic purpose for the USSR to make a virtue of frittering away its own limited resources in a vain effort to duplicate on Soviet soil what it could obtain at far less cost on the world capitalist market.

... It is helpful to keep in mind that Trotsky belonged to a generation of Russian Marxists who had utilized the opportunity provided by revolutionary exile to carefully observe and study the workings of the capitalist system in the advanced countries. They were familiar not only with the oft-described "horrors" of capitalism, but also with its positive achievements. ... Trotsky argued that a vital precondition for the development of the Soviet economy along socialist lines was its assimilation of the basic techniques of capitalist management, organization, accounting and production.

... Indeed, the claim is often made that collectivization arose out of Stalin's adoption, in the late 1920s, of the Left Opposition's program of rapid industrialization. In actual fact, Trotsky opposed and denounced the frenzied collectivization campaign launched by the Stalinists. Despite the pseudo-socialist demagogy that accompanied it, Trotsky warned that the policy, implemented with reckless disregard of the real productive capabilities of both industry and the countryside, proceeded from the same nationalistic and anti-Marxist conceptions of "socialism in one country" that underlay the previous failed economic programs of the Stalinist bureaucracy.

In a critique of Stalinist collectivization written in 1930, Trotsky acknowledged that he had previously advocated a more rapid tempo of industrialization, and the use of heavier taxation of wealthier sections of the peasantry (the kulaks) to provide resources for the development of heavy industry.

... The initial setback suffered by the Left Opposition in the late autumn of 1923 was definitely bound up with the defeat of the German Revolution, which dimmed hopes that European workers would in the near future come to the aid of the USSR. This was the climate that created a broader audience for the nationalist perspective of socialism in one country. The political disorientation produced by the nationalist line of the Soviet leaders inside the Communist International led, in turn, to more defeats for the working class outside the USSR.

... In April 1932 Trotsky issued a statement warning that the victory of Hitler would make war between Germany and Soviet Russia inevitable. Choosing his words carefully, Trotsky explained how he would respond, were he in power, to a fascist victory in Germany:

"... Upon receiving the telegraphic communication of this event, I would sign an order for the mobilization of the reserves. When you have a mortal enemy before you, and when war flows with necessity from the logic of the objective situation, it would be unpardonable light-mindedness to give that enemy time to establish and fortify himself, conclude the necessary alliances, receive the necessary help, work out a plan of concentric military actions, not only from the West but from the East, and thus grow up to the dimensions of a colossal danger." [24] {24. Writings of Leon Trotsky 1932 (New York: 1973), p. 82}

... we have attempted to demonstrate that the victory of Trotskyism - that is, of genuine Marxism - would have in all probability profoundly altered the course of Soviet history and that of the international socialist movement. ... I would like to cite a valuable work entitled The Birth of Stalinism by the German historian Michal Reiman.

"The importance of the left opposition is often underestimated in the literature ... [M]any authors doubt that the opposition had any substantial influence on the mass of party members and even less on broader sections of the population. One can hardly agree with such views: they seem paradoxical indeed in light of the mountain of ammunition expended on the opposition by the party leadership in those years - the multitude of official declarations, reports, pamphlets, and books, not to mention the mass political campaigns that penetrated even the remotest parts of the USSR.

"In the spring of 1926 the united opposition, based on a cadre of old and experienced party leaders, conquered some fairly significant positions. It consolidated its influence in Leningrad, the Ukraine, Transcaucasia, and the Urals region; in the universities; in some of the central government offices; in a number of factories of Moscow and the central industrial region; and among a section of the command staff of the army and navy, which had passed through the difficult years of the civil war under Trotsky's leadership. Repression by the party leadership prevented the opposition from growing, but its influence was still much greater than indicated by the various votes taken in the party cells." [26]

Trotsky and the other principal leaders of the Left Opposition were expelled from the Russian Communist Party at a plenum of the central committee held in July and August 1927. This failed to silence the Opposition. "Even after the plenum," writes Reiman, "the party organizations continued to be flooded - especially in the large urban centers and the two capitals - with opposition literature and leaflets. Reports of heightened opposition activity came one after another from various cities and from entire provinces - Leningrad, the Ukraine, Transcaucasia, Siberia, the Urals, and, of course, Moscow, where the greater number of opposition political leaders were working. There was a steadily growing number of illegal and semi-legal meetings attended by industrial workers and young people. The influence of the opposition in a number of large party units became quite substantial. It hampered the former free functioning of the Stalinist party apparatus. The army was also strongly affected by opposition activity. Reports on a significant rise in the authority of the opposition came from the Leningrad military district and the garrison in Leningrad, from Kronstadt, and from troop units in the Ukraine and Byelorussia. "The main problem was not the increase in opposition activity, however, but the overall balance of power within the party. Quite a large number of famous political leaders were on the opposition side. The weakened authority of the party leadership, especially of Stalin and Bukharin, was insufficient to turn the setbacks and failures of party policy into gains." [27]

How, then, did the Stalin faction overcome the challenge represented by the Left Opposition? Reiman explains: "The leadership could not cope with the situation without bringing the GPU into the fight." ... the Stalinist terror was the means by which it was annihilated. ... Stalin's victims were, in their collective activity, the representatives of an extraordinary socialist culture that imparted to the revolutionary movement of the Russian working class a world historical significance.

In Trotsky, this culture found its highest expression. As Victor Serge explained so brilliantly, "For a man like Trotsky to arise, it was necessary that thousands and thousands of individuals should establish the type over a long historical period. It was a broad social phenomenon, not the sudden flashing of a comet ... The formation of this great social type - the highest reach of modern man, I think - ceased after 1917, and most of its surviving representatives were massacred at Stalin's orders in 1936-37. ... (c) 1998 by World Socialist Web Site (TM) All rights reserved.

Stalin's Great Terror: Origins and Consequences {http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/1937/lecture1.ht} AND Leon Trotsky and the Fate of Marxism in the USSR BY Vadim Z. Rogovin: Contains lectures delivered by Russian Marxist historian Vadim Rogovin in Australia in 1996. Rogovin's central thesis is that there was and remains a Marxist alternative to Stalinism. He demonstrates that Stalin's Great Terror was not the irrational response of a paranoid tyrant, but was precipitated by the need for the Stalinist bureaucracy to eradicate the growing socialist opposition to its rule, led by Trotsky and the Left Opposition. 1996, 39p, ISBN 1-875639-13-6, $8.95

{end}

{endnotes} http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/trotsky/notes.htm#n24

24. Writings of Leon Trotsky 1932 (New York: 1973), p. 82

26 The Birth of Stalinism: The USSR on the Eve of the "Second Revolution" Tr. George Saunders (Bloomington: 1987), pp. 19-20

27. Ibid., pp. 28-29 (c) 1998 by World Socialist Web Site (TM) All rights reserved

{end}

User avatar
Masato
Site Admin
Posts: 10300
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:16 pm
Reputation: 4823

Postby Masato » Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:48 pm

Addition:

Ravoksky's evidence at the Moscow Trials

[spoiler]
(5) Ravoksky's evidence at the Moscow Trials

Report of Court Proceedings in the case of the Anti-Soviet "Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites"

Heard Before the MILITARY COLLEGIUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S.S.R.

Moscow, March 2-13, 1938

IN RE:

N.I. BUKARlN, A.I. RYKOV, G.G. YAGODA, N.N. KRESTINSKY, K.G. RAKOVSKY, A.P. ROSENGOLTZ, V.I. IVANOV, M.A. CHERNOV, G.F. GRINKO, I.A. ZELENSY, S.A. BESSONOV, A. IKRAMOV, F. HODJAYEV, V.F. SHARANGOVICH, P.T. ZUBAREV, P.P. BULANOV, L.G. LEVIN, D.D. PLETNEV, I.N. AZAOV, V.A. MAXIMOV, and P.P. KRYUCHOV

... VERBATIM REPORT

Published by the PEOPLE'S COMMISSARIAT OF JUSTICE OF THE U.S.S.R.

MOSCOW 1938

{background: at the time, Korea and Manchuria were part of Japan's empire. The following should be compared with the statements purportedly made by Rakovsky under his first interrogation, and recorded in Red Symphony. However, Red Symphony states that its material is too secret to be publicly disclosed at the trial}

{p. 1} MORNING SESSION, MARCH 2, 1938

COMMANDANT OF THE COURT: The Court is coming, please rise.

THE PRESIDENT: Be seated. I declare the session of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R. open.

The trial is of Nikolai Ivanovich BUKARlN, Alexei Ivanovich RYKOV, Genrikh Grigorievich YAGODA, Nikolai Nikolayevich KRESTINSKY, Khristian Georgievich RAKOVSKY, Arkady Pavlovich ROSENGOLTZ, Vladimir Ivanovich IVANOV, Mikhail Alexandrovich CHERNOV, Grirori Fedorovich GRINKO, Isaac Abramovich ZELENSY, Sergei Alexeyevich BESSONOV, Akmal IKRAMOV, Faizulla HODJAYEV, Vasily Fomich SHARANGOVICH, Prokopy Timofeyevich ZUBAREV, Pavel Petrovich BULANOV, Lev Grigorievich LEVIN, Dmitrv Dmitrievich PLETNEV, Ignaty Nikolayevich AZAOV, Venvamin Adamovich MAXIMOV, and Pyotr Petrovich KRYUCHOV on charges of treason to the country, espionage, committing acts of diversion, terrorism, wrecking, undermining the military power of the U.S.S.R. and of provoking a military attack of foreign states upon the U.S.S.R., i.e., of crimes covered by Articles 581a, 587, 588, 588, 589 and 5811 of the Criminal Code of the R.S.F.S.R.

... THE PRESIDENT: Accused Rakovsky, Khristian Georgievich, have you received a copy of the indictment?

RAKOVSKY: I have.

{p. 3} THE PRESIDENT: Accused Rakovsky, do you desire to have Counsel for Defence?

RAKOVSKY: No. ...

{p. 10} ... the German fascist, mainly military, circles, on the matter of jointly fighting the U.S.S.R., not only personally negotiated for support for the anti-Soviet conspiracy with DAITZ, ROSENBERG'S closest colleague in the foreign affairs department of the fascist party, but was kept informed of the meetings and negotiations between L. TROTSIY and HESS, NIEDERMEIER and Professor HAUSHOFER, with wllom L. TROTSY reached an agreement on the terms mentioned by PYATACOV at the trial of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre. The accused BESSONOV testified:

... As is evident from these terms ... the main emphasis in the underground work of the Trotskyites was placed on undermining, espionage, diversion and terrorist acts in the U.S.S.R." (Vol. XI, p. 106.)

The exstence of an agreement between L. TROTSlY and the Trotskyite organization in the U.S.S.R., on the one hand, and the fascist circles, on the other, and the carrying on in the U.S.S.R. of undermining defeatist activities on the instructions of the German intelligence service was admitted during the investigation by other accused in the present case.

However, the defeatist activities of the Trotskyite hirelings were not limited merely to connections with German fascism. In conjunction with other participants in the anti-Soviet conspiracy, in conformity with L. TROTSKY'S line, they orientated themselves also on another fascist aggressor - Japan.

The factual side of the treasonable connections of the anti-Soviet conspirators with the Japanese intelligence service is presented in the materials of the investigation in the following way.

As was testified by the accused KRESTINSKY, at a meeting he had with L. TROTSKY in Meran in October 1933, TROTSKY urged the necessity of establishing closer connections with the Japanese intelligence service.

KRESTINSKY conveyed TROTSKY'S instructions to PYATAKOV and other leaders of the conspiracy, who through the medium of the accused RAKOVSKY and other participants in the conspiracy entered into treasonable connections with representatives of Japan, the latter undertaking to render the conspiracy armed assistance in overthrowing the Soviet government, in exchange for which the conspirators promised to surrender the Soviet Maritime Region to Japan.

As has been established by the investigation, the accused RAKOVSKY, in view of his departure for Japan in the summer of 1934, received from PYATACOV instructions to the effect that it was

{p. 11} "... necessaly at the same time to increase activities abroad in the sense of establishing contact with governments hostile to the U.S.S.R. ... necessary to make efforts to take advantage of the visit to Tokyo and probably ---- will take the neccssary steps in this direction." (Vol. IV, p. 19 )

The accused RAKOVSKY carried out this instruction, and while inTokyo did indeed enter into criminal connections with ---- circles.

On this matter the accused RAKOVSKY testified as follows:

AII these circumstances had as their logical and practical consequence the fact that I ... when I was in Tokyo became a direct spy-agent of ----, being enlisted for this purpose, on the instructions of -----, by Mr. N, a most influential political figure in capitalist-feudal Japan and one of her biggest plutocrats. " (vol.IV, p.l86)

The aforementioned accused RAKOVSICY, speaking of the connections of enemy of the people L. TROTSKY with the British Intelligence Service, testified as follows:

"I knew that TROTSKY has been an aent of the Intelligence Service since the end of 1926. TROTSKY himself informed me of it." (Vol. IV, p. 363.)

The groups of bourgeois nationalists which belonged to the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" were also very closely connected with foreign intelligence services.

Thus, the accused GRINKO, who was an agent of the German and Polish intelligence services, in dealing with the anti-Soviet activities of the Ukrainian national-fascist organization of which he was one of the leaders, testified as follows:

"... In 1930, we in our organization discussed the necessity of coming to an agreement with Poland about obtaining military assistance for an insurrection in thc Ukraine against the Soviet government. As a result of these negotiations with Poland an agreement was reached and the Polish General Staff increased the quantity of arms and the number of diversionists and PETLIURA emissaries sent to the Ukraine." (Vol. IX, p. 18.)

And he said further:

"At the end of 1932 I, in connection with my nationalist activities, entered into treasonable connections with Mr. N. We met in my office, where Mr. N used to come to see me on business concerning a German concession.

{p. 758} THE PRESIDENT: Accused Rakovsky. {Rakovsky's final plea}

RAKOVSKY: Citizen President of the Court, Citizens Judges, yesterday I listened with great and rapt attention to the speech for the prosecution delivered by the Procurator of the Union, not because I intended to enter into a controversy with hin. I had no such intention. I confessed to all my crimes. What would it matter for the substance of the case if I should attempt to establish here before you the fact that I learned of many of the crimes, and of the most appalling crimes of the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites," here in Court, and that it was here that I fi rst met some of the participants? It is of no import whatever. I am connected with the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites,' of course within the limits defined by the Criminal Code, by that complicity, both political and juridical, which follows from the fact that I belonged to this bloc.

Like a galley-slave fettered to his galley, I am fettered to the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" with the heavy chain of my crimes. I participated in the underground counter-revolutionary Trotskyite organization up to the last moment, to the moment of my arrest.

{p. 759} I was an active member of the "block of Rights and Trotskyites." I committed the gravest crimes against the state. I am doubly a spy. In 1924 I established criminal connections with the British Intellience Service, and in 1934 I established criminal connections with the Japanese intelligence service. In 1927 I carried on negotiations with some of the Right capitalist circles in France, the object of these negotiations being in the long run also directed against the Soviet Union. In 1935 I took advantage of the fact that the French Minister Laval was on a visit in Moscow, accompanied by French journalists, in order to attempt in a conversation with one of them (I mentioned his name) to hinder, to disrupt, the Franco-Soviet rapprochement. Citizens Judges, I informed you about Trotsky's letter of July 1934, in which he wrote of the necessity of isolating Stalin internationally, that is to say, of strengthening, consolidating the capitalist encirclement around the Soviet Union. I belonged to the so-called "Fifth Column" of which the Procurator spoke yesterday, and I have deserved all those maledictions which are now sweeping from all corners of the Soviet land against us sitting here in the dock, maledictions of which the speech for the prosecution delivered by the Procurator, however severe and trenchant it was with regard to us, was perhaps but a weak reflection.

Citizens Judges, I share the State Prosecutor's regret that the enemy of the people, Trotsky, is not here in the dock alongside of us. The picture of our trial loses in completeness and depth because of the fact that the ataman of our gang is not present here. Nobody will suspect me of saying this from a selfish desire, from a base motive to shift on to Trotsky a part of that guiit and that responsibi lity which I myself bear. I am older than Trotsky both in years and in political career, and I probably have no less political experience than Trotsky. I regret his absence here for conciderations of a political nature. I am sorry, because Trotsky's absence in this dock means that no matter how his opportunlties may be limited, his activities wilI continue. and this presents a danger, even if a small one for the international labour movement. It is true that even beyond the Mexican meridian Trotsky will not escape that complete, final, shameful ignominy which we all are undergoing here.

This, in substance, covers everything relating to the legal, juridical aspect of my case, and I would have even foregone my last plea had I not considered it necessary, after what was said here by the Procurator, to try in my turn to point out the exceptional political importance of the present trial. But it seems to me that Citizen the Procurator dwelt on only one aspect of the case. Yes, he stressed the monstrosity of the crimes which we committed, but I should like to turn your attention,

{p. 760} Citizens Judges, to the fact that the monstrosity of this is also determined by the persons who committed these crimes. Who were those who committed espionage, wrecking, acts of diversion, terrorism, murder? They were committed not by candidates for criminal court records, people living in slums and cellars. The criminals sitting here had to be taken from the house of the government. And thus the question which arises and to which I, as one of those involved, feel the necessity to find an answer, is the question as to how former members of the Central Committee, former members of the government, former ambassadors have ended up here. What form of insanity brought them to this dock of political infamy? I think that this is all the more necessary since this question faces every one of us and every one is searching for an explanation. I shall mention one explanation which is widely current. After all, this is not the first trial. I remember how this question was answered in connection with the other trials. People are satisfied with the trite and shallow bourgeois explanation, according to which all revolutions finish by devouring their own children. The October Revolution, they say, did not escape this general law of historical fatalism.

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.

And I, an active Trotskyite, a very close personal friend of Trotsky (the Procurator has established that our friendship was of 34 years' duration), a man who after many had returned (true, with duplicity) into the Party, continued for many more years to carry on an open struggle against the Party leadership. I want to answer this question. Permit me to share with you my thoughts. on this subject.

Citizens Judges, why indeed did it happen that I turned against my Party and in the end sank to the status of a criminal? What did we Trotskyites represent in the Party? We were what is known as an alien body in the living Party organism. Trotsky joined the Bolshevik Party only a few months before the October

{p. 761} Revolution, his Ideology took shape in the fight against Bolshevism. I joined the Party at the end of 1917, after I had belonged for more than a quarter of a century to the Second International, which developed under entirely specific conditions, under the conditions of peaceful development of capitalism, and, although I belonged to its Left wing, I was permeated by its opportunism. If you trace back the history of other Trotskyites, if I take Radek, Pyatakov Preobrazhensky as examples, you will find that both before the October Revolution and after the October Revolution every one of them as guilty of a number of serious deviations.

And it must be said that from the very first moment we Trotskyites adopted the attitude of antagonists of the Party leadership. From the very first moment. Brest-Litovsk. I shall not refer here to the testimony (you know it) which clarifies Trotsky's role during thc period of the Brest-Litovsk negotiations. The discussion about the trade unions. What was that? It was a trial of forces. The accused Zelensky mentioned facts here which will perhaps reveal that there was in general another attempt there, only, as far as remember, all the persons whom he mentioned did not belong to the Trotskyite faction, but to the so-called D. C. faction, the faction of Democratic Centralism. We suffered defeat and immediately adopted an orientation toward foreign states. It is sufficient just to remind you of the fact which was here established. We suffered defeat in 1921 in the discussion on the trade unions. The Party in its striving to consolidate its internal unity removed a number of Trotskyites from the Central Committee.

In 1921 Trotsky already gave his first instruction about establishing criminal connections with the German intelligence service. In 1926 came the second instruction. The first instruction was given to Krestinsky, the second to Rosengoltz. At the end of 1924 a recruiting aent of the intellience service called on me; I could have thrown him down the stairs, because he resorted to blackmail. But when he said: "Do not forget that we obtained the agrement for you because we learnt that you were a Trotskyite, " this touched the Trotskyite strain in me. I gave no answer at the time, I talked it over with Trotsky. We knew the position we were in. I had been removed from the Ukraine, some had been removed from the Central Committee, Smirnov had been removed from the Siberian Revolutionary Committee, Radek and Pyatakov were also at loose end, and Trotsky was saying that in the very near future, within the next few days, he would have to quit the Revolutionary Committee, unless he wanted to be ousted from it with a bang.

I am arraying all these facts so that the picture may become clear. In 1926 we already established connections with the foreign intelligence service. In 1927 it became apparent that we were suffering defeat, and that it would be a defeat after which no manoeuvre

{p. 762} would succeed, because before that defeat the Zinovievite-Trotskyite opposition stood at attention before the Party and remained in the Party while continuing to work against the Party; we knew that at the Fifteenth Congress of the Party, at the very latest, we would be expelled, if not all of us, at any rate Trotsky. Now we had to pass on to work in secret. After that I left for France. In August and September I carried on negotiations about uniting the opposition and about what we could obtain from certain French circles in order to gain victory.

I shall not relate the history of Trotskyism, it is well known. I only want to speak about the formation of the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites. " The formation of the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites " was, if we may put it that way, "a marriage of convenience, " each party contributing its dowery. We Trotskyites contributed our connections with foreign intelligence services, the Rights contributed their cadres, their connections with the nationalist, Menshevik, Socialist-Revolutionary and other elements, their connections with the kulaks. Of course, in addition to this fixed capital of ours, each could contribute something else. We did not hesitate before perfidy, before deceit, treason, bribery, murder by means of poison or the revolver instead of the traditional dagger.

I shall not speak of any ideology of this bloc. You heard here the platform of my fellow-accused in this trial, N. I. Bukharin. This, of course, represents restoration of capitalist relations in two leaps, through opening the sluices for free trade with abroad, through the return of the kulaks, through the liquidation of the collective farms, through opening the doors wide for concession capital. We calculated that we would achieve complete the triumph of capitalism in an extremely short period of time.

Ours was, of course, a counter-revolutionary ideology. We wanted to rely for support on the elements which had already been doomed by the Five-Year Plans, the elements which had been swept away, cast out. Of course there is nothing surprising in the fact that these old ruins came down with a crash and we found ourselves buried under the debris. I think that this is not enough. In my opinion, there is no precedent of politically minded people, people who had a definite political past, experience, and so forth, displaying such naivete, such self-delusion, such illusions as those which held sway over them. Yes, it was raving, real raving, the ravings of a madman to think that way, but we did think that way. We thought that with our insignificant forces, not only without any base of support, but with the working class against us, with the Party against us - we thought that we could achieve some results. These were ravings, calculating on some kind of foreign assistance. Ravings in what sense? This foreign assistance would utilize us and then throw us overboard. From a political force, we became a tool.

{p. 763} Ravings in every respect. Our misfortune was that we; occupied responsible posts, that power had made us dizzy. We were blinded by that passion, by that ambition for power. This cannot be explained by "ideology'' alone. These two factors, taken together and acting in combination, brought us to the dock.

We considered ourselves to be people sent by providence, we consoled ourselves with the thought that we would be summoned, that we were needed. This is what both the Trotskyites and the Rights said. We did not notice that the entire development of the Soviet Union swept over us, that the peaceful revolution which transformed our countryside swept over us, that this immense growth of the cultural and political level of the masses of the people and the creation of new cadres of politically trained people from among the Stakhanovites swept over us. All this swept over us, unnoticed by us.

The soboring moment had to come. Perhaps I will somewhat contradict what the Procurator said, but I am of the opinion that the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" was doomed to disintegration. Of course, this does not absolve the bloc of the responsibility for the crimes which were committed.

There was no political future whatever in store for us. For many of us the moment of sobering had not arrived, because it began only after we had been arrested.

Citizens Judges, I told everything that I committed, without concealing or holding back a single fact. Both during the Court investigation, during the preliminary investigation, and during the trial (I think I will not be mistaken if I say so) I was not found guilty of a single contradiction or of concealing any fact.

I think that this proves that I revealed myself before you fully and entirely, that I stand fully and entirely exposed.

I wish to make one appeal to you, an appeal which would never have escaped my lips if this were a different court. But I make this appeal to you because I see in your persons the Soviet Court, the proletarian Court. It is an appeal for mercy. Yesterday the State Prosecutor made this task in a certain sense easier for me, inasmuch as he did not demand the supreme penalty for me. But I must say that in the gradation of the minimum and maximum which the citizen Procurator menttioned here, there is a certain limit which exceeds the limits of my age. I want to mention this only: that, in applying the appropriate articles of the law to me, you may consider this circumstance and form your decision in accordance, so to speak, with the physiological limitations of the accused who stands before you.

Citizens Judges, from my young days I honestly, truthfully and devotedly performed my duty as a soldier of the cause of the emancipation of labour. After this bright period a dark period set in,

{p. 764} the period of my criminal deeds, of treason to the fatherland, a series of dark crimes which I briefly summed up before you today. I told you all I knew, I told everything, I concealed nothing, I held back nothing, I repent deeply and sincerely, and I ask you to give me the opportunity to redeem even if an insignificant part of my guilt, even by the most modest work, no matter under what circumstances. I have finished.

THE PRESIDENT: The accused Rosengoltz may make his last plea.

{end}

(6) On Trotsky's second wife, Natalya Sedova

http://www.acts1711.com/red_symphony.htm

As far as Trotsky's ties to the world financial elite are concerned, they were well-known long before the publication of The Red Symphony. In 1919 the French government received from its informer in Washington a detailed report (1618-6 No. 912), where "Red Leon's" New York banker-sponsors were listed. It was noted that Trotsky established his connections with the financiers after his marriage to the daughter of banker Abram Zhivotovsky. One of the main financiers of the Revolution Felix Warburg compromised himself to such a degree by his connections with the Bolsheviks that it was decided to remove him from the US Federal Reserve Board, in order to "cover the traces" of American bankers' ties to the Russian Revolution. {endquote}

Dmitri Volkogonov deals with Trotsky's time in New York in 1917 on pp. 64-5 of his biography Trotsky: the Eternal Revolutionary.

He says that Trotsky spent 2 months there giving lectures & meeting other revolutionaries. Then he returned to Russia.

His wife (2nd, Natalya Sedova) went to New York with him on the boat. (p. 63).

At first, I thought that the Red Symphony claim was that Trotsky married a Warburg daughter in New York in 1917. But it is Natalya Sedova who it refers to - the claim being that she was "associated with" Abram Zhivotovsky. Trotsky married her about 1904 (whether common-law or formal, is not known).

The surname "Zhivotovsky" does not show up in the index of Volkogonov's book. Natalya Sedova left her husband, for Trotsky; Trotsky's children with her were given the surname "Sedov". Natalya may have kept her first husband's name. Alternatively, she may have kept her mother's surname, just as Trotsky's children did.

There is only one reference to Natalya in Red Symphony, and it does not say that she is the daughter of Zhivotovsky, although that is one of the interpretations.

It reads,

<Sedova. Do you know who she is? She is associated with Zhivotovsky, linked with the bankers Warburg, partners and relatives of Jacob Schiff, i.e. of that financial group which, as I had said, had also financed the revolution of 1905>.

The claim, thus put, is worth investigating.

(7) Rakovsky's credibility at the Moscow Trials

From internet searches, I found that after Trotsky's expulsion, Rakovsky was his chief representative in Russia, although he always remained an independent thinker. In searches, look for C. G. Rakovsky, Christian Ravoksky, and Khristian Rakovsky.

Later, after the rise of Hitler, Rakovsky endorsed Stalin as the lesser evil; Trotsky then broke with him. I found this information on a Trotskyist website.

Although witnesses at the Moscow Trials would have been subject to torture, this break between Trotsky & Rakovsky gives added credibility to Rakovsky's evidence.

The official English transcript of the Moscow Trials, dealing with Rakovsky, contains an anti-Trotskyist line, but says nothing of the Illuminati.

But Red Symphony purports to be raw data, an interrogation in French - so that Russians present would not understand - and in which the interrogator wants Rakovsky to tell much more than could be disclosed later at the Trial, and in official documents.

In it, Rakovsky persists in an anti-Stalin line, saying that what passes for "Communism" under Stalin is really Bonapartism, and that he - Rakovsky - stands for Socialism instead (this makes it sound genuine to me). But, he says, Sedova's marriage wrought a tie between Wall Street and Trotsky. Lenin and the other Jewish Bolsheviks did not know about it, but Lenin's wife did.

It says that the rise of Stalin wrecked the Wall Street plan to control and use Communism, via Trotsky. So they helped fund Hitler's rise to power - not that they controlled Hitler - partly because he talked of attacking the USSR, and partly because War creates opportunities for the Revolution.

According to Rakovsky, their message for Stalin was that he should divide Poland with Hitler. If he did so, the West would attack Germany only. If he did not, they would let Germany attack the USSR, without coming to its aid.

(8) Illuminatus and the Illuminoids - "Rowan Berkeley" on Red Symphony

Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 21:15:50 +0100 From: "Rowan Berkeley" <rowan_berkeley@yahoo.co.uk>

> You take an equally hard line on Makow,
> Israel Shamir and Barry Chamish ...
> Do you accept that Mordecai Vanunu is
> genuine, or does he get caught up in
> your "fakery" net too? Aren't 18 years
> in jail (10 in solitary confinement)
> enough evidence?

... I hope I have never suggested or implied that Mordecai Vanunu was some sort of plant. As for Barry Chamish and Henry Makow, though, I stick to my view, which is that they have a discernable agenda, namely to minimise the apparent Jewish domination of today's global elite, and to argue by means of whatever patter suits their respective audiences that the masters of the elite are not Jews. The range of substitute evil elites which has been created by the Illuminoid disinformational chorus is quite stunning, really, when you add it up : Sabbatians, Frankists, Satanists, Nazis, Freemasons, British Titled Thugs and Monarchs, the European Black Nobility, the Jesuits, the Vatican, the Merovingians, Lizards from Eta Reticuli ... let the inner circle be composed of anything other than Jews, is the golden rule, and you will be allowed to rant to your heart's content. In Barry's case, this is achieved by means of a highly inventive linguistic shell game, which progressively defines Sabbatians and Frankists as bad Jews, then as non-Jews, and finally as anti-Jews, so that the religious and ethnic elements in the definitions become hopelessly mixed up. He learned this trick, ironically, from ultra-Orthodox Rabbis who originally invented it to delegitimise Labour Zionists for being too preoccupied with profane nationalism, but have now turned it round so as to delegitimise Labour Zionists for not being preoccupied enough with profane nationalism, which therefore has to be protected by religious Zionist fanatics of the Kachist sort. For an even more crass example of Zionist propaganda masquerading as anti-NWO radicalism, see: http://pushhamburger.com

A bit of Googling has indicated that the Spanish text "Sinfonia en Rojo Major", produced by Editorial E.R.S.A. under the well-known publisher Senor Don Mauricio Carlavilla, etc etc, does after all exist, albeit untranslated. However, since this gentleman is the publisher of George Knupffer's own works in Spanish translation, it is impossible to determine who really is responsible for the book - Landowsky, Carlavilla, the 'Spanish volunteer' ("This is the result of a painstaking translation of several copybooks found on the body of Dr. Landowsky in a hut on the Petrograd front by a Spanish volunteer"), or Knupffer himself. I think I will stick with Anthony Sutton {sutton.html}, actually, though I do enjoy the dialectical elegance of "Red Symphony" and I am only indulging in sour grapes about it because I have wasted money trying to get the full English version, which definitely doesn't exist yet. There is a job here for a translator, if they can find a copy of the Spanish edition.

{end}

User avatar
Masato
Site Admin
Posts: 10300
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:16 pm
Reputation: 4823

Postby Masato » Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:48 pm

Further Notes/editorials on the Document:

[spoiler]
But Henry Makow is one of those who argue that Red Symphony is genuine, and important for understanding the continuance of Communism post-Soviet Union, via the Feminist, Gay, and other "minority" movements.

Makow put the "Illuminati Defector" material on his website, which claims that the conspiracy is 'Aryan' http://www.savethemales.ca/141002.html, but later agreed with me that it writes out the Jewish role. It's possible that the defector is genuine, but unaware that she's in the lower ranks, and is deceived herself.

(9) Trotsky in Norway, accused of co-operating with the Gestapo

Trotsky explicitly promoted Radical Feminism, Youth Rebellion, Communal Childrearing and the Destruction of the Family, in his book The Revolution Betrayed.

It was written in 1936, when Trotsky was living in Norway, and was first published in 1937. The English translation is by Max Eastman.

How do you like your Trotsky - hot or cold?

The Revolution Betrayed is hot - a fiery manifesto, and the author comes across as a fearful warrior wreaking social havoc; one is glad that he was contained.

Yet his account of his time in Norway is cold - it reads like a traveller's diary, and I cannot help feeling sympathy for him.

Trotsky in Norway: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... 36-nor.htm.

In The Revolution Betrayed, Trotsky mentions Rakovsky as a close ally:

{p. 86} Chapter 5 THE SOVIET THERMIDOR http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... v/ch05.htm

{p. 101} Christian Rakovsky, former president of the soviet of People's Commissars of the Ukraine, and later Soviet Ambassador in London and Paris, sent to his friends in 1928, when already in exile, a brief inquiry into the Soviet bureaucracy, which we have quoted above several times, for it still remains the best that has been written on this subject. ...

It is true that Rakovsky himself, broken by the bureaucratic repressions, subsequently repudiated his own critical judgments. But the 70-year-old Galileo too, caught in the vise of the Holy Inquisition, found himself compelled to repudiate the system of CopernicusÑwhich did not prevent the earth from continuing to revolve around the sun. We do not believe in the recantation of the 60-year-old Rakovsky, for he himself has more than once made a withering analysis of such recantations.

{endquote}

Rakovsky features prominently in Red Symphony, as a prisoner at the Moscow Trials - which were under way when Trotsky was in Norway (after writing The Revolution Betrayed). According to Red Symphony, Rakovsky remained a Trotskyist, but confessed that High Finance was behind Trotsky, through his wife Natalya Sedova, and that the powers thus promoting Trotsky, having lost control of the Soviet Union to Stalin, would back Hitler, in order to destroy the wrong kind of Communism Stalin was creating.

Could this be why, just before Trotsky left Norway, the Soviet Government accused him of co-operating with the Gestapo?

Trotsky expresses his astonishment at this charge. Trotsky in Norway: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... 36-nor.htm.

{end}

(10) Trotsky calls Stalin a Bonapartist

In the paragraphs below, from The Revolution Betrayed, Trotsky calls Stalin a Bonapartist, likening him to Napoleon I and Napoleon III. But he also likens him to Hitler, saying that all of them were defeaters of the democratic forces. Trotsky never admits the covert Jewish leadership of those "democratic" forces.

Contrary to Trotsky's position, what Napoleon I, Napoleon II, and Stalin have in common is that they defeated Jewish and/or Freemasonic revolutionary movements from within, yet carried the revolution forward; Hitler did the same from the outside.

Some may object over the Freemasonry claim. But Trotsky himself agreed, in his autobiography, that the French Revolution had been launched by Freemasons or Illuminiati. He studied this topic when in Odessa prison.

The hardback edition is My Life: The Rise and Fall of a Dictator (Thornton Butterworth Limited, London 1930); the paperback edition is My Life (Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1975).

{quote} {hbk p. 106, pbk p. 124} It was during that period that I became interested in freemasonry. ... {hbk p. 107} In the eighteenth century freemasonry became expressive of a militant policy of enlightenment, as in the case of the Illuminati, who were the forerunners of the revolution; on its left it culminated in the Carbonari. Freemasons counted among their members both Louis XVI and the Dr. Guillotin who invented the guillotine. In southern Germany freemasonry assumed an openly revolutionary character, whereas at the court of Catherine the Great it was a masquerade reflecting the {pbk p. 125} aristocratic and bureaucratic hierarchy. A freemason Novikov was exiled to Siberia by a freemason Empress. ...

{hbk p. 108, pbk p. 126} I discontinued my work on freemasonry to take up the study of Marxian economics. ... The work on freemasonry acted as a sort of test for these hypotheses. ... I think this influenced the whole course of my intellectual develop- {p. 127} ment.
{endquote}

{Stalin resembles Napoleon I}

{p. 186} Chapter VIII FOREIGN POLICY AND THE ARMY

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... v/ch08.htm

{p. 197} Napoleon I, after radically abandoning the traditions of Jacobinism, donning the crown, and restoring the Catholic cult, remained nevertheless an object of hatred to the whole of ruling semi-feudal Europe, because he continued to defend the new property system created by the revolution. Until the monopoly of foreign trade is broken and the rights of capital restored, the Soviet Union, in spite of all the services of its ruling stratum, remains in the eyes of the bourgeoisie of the whole world an irreconcilable enemy, and German National Socialism a friend, if not today, at least of tomorrow.
{endquote}

{Stalin also resembles Napoleon III}

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... v/ch11.htm

Chapter 11 WHITHER THE SOVIET UNION?

Bonapartism as a Regime of Crisis ...

{p. 277} Caesarism, or its bourgeois form, Bonapartism, enters the scene in those moments of history when the sharp struggle of two camps raises the state power, so to speak, above the nation, and guarantees it, in appearance, a complete independence of classes in reality, only the freedom necessary for a defense of the privileged. The Stalin

{p. 278} regime, rising above a politically atomized society, resting upon a police and officers' corps, and allowing of no control whatever, is obviously a variation of Bonapartism - a Bonapartism of a new type not before seen in history.

Caesarism arose upon the basis of a slave society shaken by inward strife. Bonapartism is one of the political weapons of the capitalist regime in its critical period. Stalinism is a variety of the same system, but upon the basis of a workers' state torn by the antagonism between an organized and armed Soviet aristocracy and the unarmed toiling masses.

As history testifies, Bonapartism gets along admirably with a universal, and even a secret, ballot. The democratic ritual of Bonapartism is the plebiscite. From time to time, the question is presented to the citizens: for or against the leader? And the voter feels the barrel of a revolver between his shoulders. Since the time of Napoleon III, who now seems a provincial dilettante, this technique has received an extraordinary development. The new Soviet constitution which establishes Bonapartism on a plebiscite basis is the veritable crown of the system.
{endquote}

{Stalin resembles Hitler}

In the last analysis, Soviet Bonapartism owes its birth to the belatedness of the world revolution. But in the capitalist countries the same cause gave rise to fascism. We thus arrive at the conclusion, unexpected at first glance, but in reality inevitable, that the crushing of Soviet democracy by an all-powerful bureaucracy and the extermination of bourgeois democracy by fascism were produced by one and the same cause: the dilatoriness of the world proletariat in solving the problems set for it by history. Stalinism and fascism, in spite of a deep difference in social foundations, are symmetrical phenomena. In many of their features they show a deadly similarity. A victorious revolutionary movement in Europe would im-

{p. 279} mediately shake not only fascism, but Soviet Bonapartism. In turning its back to the international revolution, the Stalinist bureaucracy was, from its own point of view, right. It was merely obeying the voice of self-preservation.
{endquote}

{end}

(11) A Dating Anomaly?

11.1 - from Patrick S. McNally:

Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 21:57:34 -0400 From: patricksmcnally@aim.com

... As for the alleged "Rakovsky interview" which appears in "Red Symphony," that, at least in its present form, is clearly a fake. The World Bank was formed out of the Bretton Woods conference of 1944. Christian Rakovsky himself died in 1941 and his trial occurred in 1938. There is no way that the real Rakovsky could have made a comment such as 'I think I shall not be wrong if I tell you that not one of "Them" is a person who occupies a political position or a position in the World Bank.' This comment was obviously written as bait for a paleo-conservative audience of the 1950s, many of whom liked to charge that the World Bank and any other internationally functioning organizations were 'Communist.' Whether that means that the actual script was written by a paleo-conservative of the 1950s or by someone else with an altogether different motive, who really knows? But it certainly wouldn't have been the authentic Rakovsky making such a comment about the World Bank 6 years before the Bretton Woods conference.

Patrick S. McNally

11.2 - from César Martínez Feijoo:

From: César Martínez Feijoo <cesarjmf@yahoo.es> Date: 02.12.2008 01:07 AM

Subject: Anachronisms in Red Symphony

Hello:

Reading your introduction to "Red Symphony", I see you state that there are two anachronisms in the interrogation to Rakovski, one of them regarding the mention of the World Bank in 1938.

I´m Spaniard and I own a copy of the original version of the book first published in Spanish language in 1950. The problem comes from the translation into English from Spanish. There is no mention to the World Bank in the book. The exact phrase in Spanish is: "No creo equivocarle si le digo que «Ellos» no son ninguno de los hombres que aparecen ocupando cargos en la política o en la Banca mundial". To say World Bank (the institution) in Spanish should be "Banco Mundial", but in the book uses the word "Banca" which is a generic term to name Banks in general. I think a much better translation into English would be: "who occupies a political position or a position in world banks", referring to great world international banks in general.

11.3 - from César Martínez Feijoo:

Anachronisms in Red Symphony

From: César Martínez Feijoo <cesarjmf@yahoo.es> Date: 03.12.2008 12:38 AM

Anachronisms in Red Symphony

Yes, the original spanish version of the book mentions the "Commonwealth" referring to the British Empire. I have other books written by Carlavilla speaking about other international subjects of the time. I´ll search for other referencies of Carlavilla to the British Empire, and I´ll see if I find anything interesting on this subject, and I´ll let you know. César

11.4 - from César Martínez Feijoo:

From: César Martínez Feijoo <cesarjmf@yahoo.es> Date: 03.12.2008 07:52 AM Subject: Commonwealth anachronism

Hello again Peter. I´ve been searching for books naming The British Empire as The British Commonwealth written before January 1938 when Rakovski´s interrogation took place. I´ve found many; it seems to be a very common denomination before that year, so I think in this case there´s no anachronism either.

Here are a few examples:

History of the Commonwealth
Bailey and Kent
Charles Scribner´s Sons, NY ­ 1935

A short history of the British Commonwealth
Muir, Ramsay
George Philip & Son ­ 1922

History of England and The British Commonwealth
Larson, Laurence M.
Henry Holt And Co. ­ 1924

The British Empire-Commonwealth: A Study in Political Evolution
Trotter, Reginald George
Henry Holt, NY ­ 1932

Empire to Commonwealth: Thirty years of British Imperial History
Walter Phelps Hall
H. Holt and Company ­ 1928

A Short History of British Expansion; the Modern Empire and Commonwealth
Williamson, James A.
London MacMillan ­ 1934

Best regards, César

{end}

(12) Rakovsky's role in the Left Opposition

http://www.marxists.org/archive/rakovsky/biog/biog5.htm Gus Fagan

Biographical Introduction to Christian

{part 5} Rakovsky Opposition and Exile: The Final Years

... In 1929 the repression against the opposition increased. There was no longer the free flow of mail as in 1928, and most of Rakovsky's letters and documents were seized by the GPU. With the deportation of Trotsky Rakovsky was now the acknowledged leader of the opposition inside the Soviet Union. ...

In July 1929 Radek, Smilga and Preobrazhensky announced that they had broken "ideologically and organizationally with Trotsky. When this happened Rakovsky wrote a declaration in the name of the left opposition which was signed also by Kossior and Okudzhava. He collected five hundred signatures for this declaration in the exile community, and Trotsky published it in the Bulletin of the Opposition with an open letter approving it. [91] The declaration of August 1929 was attacked by the leftists in the opposition as capitulationist. In the declaration Rakovsky wrote that the class struggle and the danger from the right "have in part swept away those barriers which have separated the Bolshevik-leninist opposition from the party. He appealed to the Central Committee to "make it easy for us to return to the party", and he repudiated "factional means of struggle". However, he demanded also the right of the opposition to defend its views within the party and that party democracy "be implemented in its entirety", with the election of all officials and the possibility of removing them. The declaration also reaffirms that "the complete organization of socialist production is possible only on an international scale". Finally, the declaration demands that Trotsky be brought back from exile.

The response of the party to the August 1929 declaration was to step up the repression. ...

In April 1930 Rakovsky wrote another declaration addressed, as usual, to the Central Committee and signed also by V. Kossior, N. Muralov and V. Kasparova. In this 1930 declaration he affirms once more his rejection of "the harmful theory that it is possible to build socialism in one country". ...

The danger now, said Rakovsky, was that a failure of the ultra-left adventure of forced collectivization could open the door to the threat of agrarian capitalism. Although he knew that the demands of the decimated and defeated opposition would have no effect on the bureaucratic apparatus, he pointed out, as if to a future generation, the fundamental and pressing need for the construction of a genuine workers' democracy. "Without party and workers' democracy, all corrections will inevitably become a distortion. Only the revolutionary control of the masses is capable of keeping the apparatus under its authority." In a set of demands addressed to the party which, he said, did not constitute any "new programme" but was the "old programme tested in battle" of the Bolshevik Party, he called for the following: free discussion and free elections in the Party based on a secret vote; a drastic reduction in the apparatus of the Party, Unions and Soviets; abolition of the post of General Secretary; the abolition of Article 58, the return of L.D. Trotsky and the release of all oppositionists; the publication of Lenin's Testament and all opposition documents; restoration of the free activity of trade unions; an end to forced collectivization and the creation of poor peasant unions; aid to state farms and maintenance of the tempo of industrialization. Trotsky wrote an introduction to the declaration when he published it in the Bulletin of the Opposition. "In spite of terseness of formulation", he wrote, "the document presents a clear evaluation of the economic and political processes, calling by their right name the dangers that are approaching." [97]

From 1930 a wall of silence surrounds Rakovsky. From his declaration at his trial in 1938 we know that in July 1932 he received permission to travel to Lake Shirlo for treatment. At the end of 1932 word reached the Trotsky household that Rakovsky had attempted to escape from the Soviet Union, had been captured and wounded. In March 1933 it was officially announed that he had been deported to an even more remote area, in the province of Yakutsk in Central Asia. Nothing more was heard from Rakovsky until Izvestia, on 23 February 1934, published a telegram from him, addressed to the Central Committee, which said: "Confronted with the rise of international reaction, directed in the last analysis against the revolution of October, my old disagreements with the party have lost their significance. I consider it the duty of a Bolshevik Communist to submit completely and without hesitation to the general line of the party."

The submission was a great blow to the left opposition and to Trotsky personally. "In the course of the years of his exile", wrote Trotsky in March 1934, "the old fighter was transformed from a human figure into a symbol, not only for the international left opposition, but also for wide strata of the working class in general." [98] There was comfort, however, in the fact that Rakovsky's declaration was not an ideological or political capitulation. He did not recant his past ideas, and made it clear that it was the threat of international reaction, the rise of fascism and the danger to the Soviet power, which made him give up his struggle and submit to discipline. "Without exaggerating by a hair's breadth," wrote Trotsky, "we can say that Stalin got Rakovsky with the help of Hitler." [99] This was also the opinion of Fischer, who again visited Rakovsky in Moscow in 1935 and recorded his impressions. "I visited him twice in his apartment in Moscow in 1935 and Madame Rakovsky served me tea as she had in Saratov. I also saw him three or four times in his office in the Commissariat of Health, where he had taken over the direction of all the Commissariat's scientific research institutions (he was a physician by profession). What I heard from him in Moscow confirmed what I had written in Madrid. Exile had not broken him. But he looked out on Europe from Barnaul and found no revolution ... Fascism creeps from country to country. The intensity of human distress is equalled only by the ferocity of political reaction ... Hitler brought him back to Stalin." [100]

Trotsky broke off all personal and political relations with him after the submission. ... In his personal diary on 25 March 1935, Trotsky wrote of what the break with Rakovsky had meant to him personally: "Rakovsky was virtually my last contact with the old revolutionary generation. After his capitulation there is nobody left. Even though my correspondence with Rakovsky stopped, for reasons of censorship, at the time of my deportation, nevertheless the image of Rakovsky has remained a symbolic link with my old comrades-in-arms. Now nobody remains. For a long time now I have not been able to satisfy my need to exchange ideas and discuss problems with someone else." [102] ...

On 1 December 1934 Sergei Kirov was assassinated. Kirov had replaced Zinoviev as head of the Leningrad organization and was the leader of the reconciliation tendency in the stalinist leadership. ...

In the second of the Moscow trials in January 1937 one of the defendants, Drobnis, named Rakovsky as being part of the "trotskyist centre" which arranged sabotage of the Soviet power and plotted with foreign capitalism and their intelligence services for its overthrow. Rakovsky, said Drobnis, "knew of Trotsky's instructions for sabotage and terrorism". When Trotsky heard of it he wrote: "Drobnis has named Rakovsky. The old fighter, broken by life, goes inescapably to meet his fate." [104] In Autumn 1937 Rakovsky was arrested. In a press release in October Trotsky described how the police had searched Rakovsky's house for eighteen hours, during which time the old oppositionist, aged sixty-seven, was not allowed food or rest. His wife tried to serve him tea but the GPU stopped this on the pretext that she might try to poison him. Imprisoned, Rakovsky held out for eight months against his interrogators before "confessing" that he was a spy.

Rakovsky's questioning and his statement to the court shed little light on the motives for confession, or the means used to extract it. According to the report of journalists he appeared haggard, with a long beard which made him barely recognizable. The answers were known in advance. The desired "confession" had been obtained. Those who didn't confess didn't even come to trial. But beneath the ritual façade of self-denunciation the spirit was not completely broken, and it sought avenues of resistance that were still open to it. Thus, for instance, Bukharin argued with Vyshinsky about philosophy. Rakovsky, the historian, tried to discuss history:

Vyshinsky: If the fascists seized power for you, in whose hands would the power be?

Rakovsky: History knows ...

Vyshinsky: No, you leave history alone. [105]

The court said he had been a capitalist before the revolution and a spy after it.

Vyshinsky: Hence it was not only your father who was a landlord, but you also were a landlord, an exploiter.

Rakovsky: Well, of course. I was an exploiter. The fact is, I lived on an income, and income, as is well known, accrues from surplus value.

Vyshinsky: Well, now. It was important for me to establish whence you received your income.

Rakovsky: But it is important for me to say what that income was spent for ...

Vyshinsky: This is a different matter. [106]

Everyone knew that Rakovsky had spent everything he had on the revolutionary movement in Rumania, Russia and elsewhere. Provoked enough to draw attention to this fact, he was instantly silenced. Time and time again we find here the affirmation of truth in the midst of denial. Here is one typical exchange between Rakovsky and the court:

Rakovsky: For eight months I denied everything and refused to testify.

Vyshinsky: Following the tactics and instructions of the trotskyites?

Rakovsky: In the application of the old revolutionary practices and the application of the counter-revolutionary practices.

Vyshinsky: What have you got to do with revolutionary practices? You have still some phraseology left, but that is another matter.

Rakovsky: But it cannot be denied that I once belonged to ...

Vyshinsky: But you were arrested not once upon a time, but now. [107]

In his final declaration to the court Rakovsky once again returned to his past: "Citizen judges, from my young days I honestly, truthfully and devotedly performed my duty as a soldier of the cause of the emancipation of labour. After this bright period a dark period set in, the period of my criminal deeds ..." [108]

Rakovsky was sentenced on 12 March 1938 to twenty years' imprisonment, a sentence that meant death for the old revolutionary. Elinor Lipper, who spent eleven years in Soviet prisons, records that Madame Rakovsky was in the Butyrka Prison in Moscow in 1937-8. "The wife of Soviet ambassador Rakovsky was a Rumanian, a white-haired sickly woman who suffered severe heart attacks every few weeks." [109] It is believed that Rakovsky lived in the camps for another three years and was shot on Stalin's orders when the Germans entered White Russia on 22 June 1941. Footnote 2*. Serebryakov capitulated in 1929, was re-admitted to the party in 1930, but was later condemned and executed after the second Moscow trial.

Notes 91. Trotsky's letter is published in Writings 1929, pp.325-30. 92. Trotsky, Writings 1930 (Pathfinder), p.146. Note on Blumkin in Writings 1934-35 (Pathfinder), p.339, note 145. 93. Bulleten Oppozitsii, no.11, 1930, p.31. 94. ibid., no.32, 1932, in Trotsky, Writings 1932 (Pathfinder), p.309. 95. Fischer, op. cit., p.293. 96. ibid. 97. Trotsky, Writings 1930-31 (Pathfinder), p.49. 98. Trotsky, Writings 1933-34 (Pathfinder), p.273. 99. ibid., p.277. 100. Fischer, op. cit., p.293-4. 101. Trotsky, Writings 1933-34, p.245. 102. Trotsky, Diary in Exile 1935 (London, 1958), p.53. 103. These details are given in B. Nikolaevsky in The letter of an old Bolshevik reproduced in his book, Power and the Soviet Elite London, 1966). 104. Trotsky, Writings 1936-37 (Pathfinder), p.142. 105. Court Proceedings, op. cit., p.311. 106. ibid., p.302. 107. ibid., p.312. 108. ibid., p.764. 109. E. Lipper, Eleven Years in Soviet Prison Camps (London, 1951), p.15. Last updated on 18.10.2002

(13) A missing word in the English translation

From: "The Proud Primate" <the@proudprimate.com> Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 19:13:41 -0400

Many thanks for your posting of this fascinating document, Red Symphony. ... As I was reading through it, I came upon what seemed to me to be an error in translation, in the following passage:

"But if things are in fact such that we accuse Capitalism of being imbued with continuous Capitalistic contradictions in the sphere of economics, then why should it necessarily suffer from them also in politics?"

It seemed to me that what Rakovsky was saying was, "why should it not necessarily suffer &c." So I did a Google of the original (at least the earliest original we have, that being the Spanish), Sinfonía En Rojo Mayor, at this URL, <>http://consciencia-verdad.blogspot.com/2009/04/sinfonia-en-rojo-mayor-la-lucha-por-el_27.html, and found that, sure enough, the negative was present in the Spanish sentence:

"R. Y siendo así, aquejado el Capitalismo de la contradicción permanente en lo económico, ¿por qué no la ha de padecer también en lo político?"

Indeed, even in the English, the sense of parallelism between the two spheres is underscored two sentences later, is it not?

"It would be absurd to assume fallibility in economics and simultaneously infallibility in {p. 15} politics...."

This is a very small difference, on the order of a "typo", something that inevitably creeps into works of large size, but one which may confuse the reader. You may wish to alter this section to reflect that difference. I hope this is helpful to you. Again, thank you for your important work, of which I have been entirely ignorant until now. This is indeed a blockbuster document. I am currently at that point in ready, some 20% finished, and eager to read on. Sincerely, John S. Carpenter

{end}

Red Symphony remains intriguing because of its advocacy of Convergence as a policy. This developed in detail many years later. Gorbachev, for example, was following that path.

Now that Stalinism has completely fallen, other variants of Communism - Trotskyist, New Left, the Frankfurt School, Postmodernism, George Soros & Maurice Strong's Green/"New Age" one - are making a comeback. They are all, broadly, in Trotsky's camp.

The Trots, even though "for the poor against the rich", are even more for "unifying the world". Under themselves, of course. That's why they published a book in favour of Free Trade: xTrots.html.

Convergence between Communism and Capitalism was supported by H. G. Wells: opensoc.html,

and by David Ben Gurion, when he predicted World Government by 1987: tmf.html,

as well as by Gorbachev - via his talk of a single "World Civilization": convergence.html.

In each case, they wanted to get rid of Stalinism in the USSR, and "Anti-Semitism" in the West.

Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, invited in 1962 to predict what the world would be like in 25 years' time, wrote in LOOK magazine, Jan. 16, 1962:

"The image of the world in 1987 as traced in my imagination: the Cold War will be a thing of the past. Internal pressure of the constantly growing intelligensia in Russia for more freedom and the pressure of the masses for raising their living standards may lead to a gradual democratization of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the increasing influence of the workers and farmers, and rising political importance of men of science, may transform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy. Western and Eastern Europe will become a federation of autonomous states having a Socialist and democratic regime. With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, all other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the scene of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah. Higher education will be the right of every person in the world. A pill to prevent pregnanacy will slow down the explosive natural increase in China and India. And by 1987, the average life-span of man will reach 100 years."
[/SPOILER]

User avatar
Masato
Site Admin
Posts: 10300
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:16 pm
Reputation: 4823

Postby Masato » Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:50 pm

The thing is huge, but I've been skimming through it I think the tone and translation of it will be highly entertaining

Pure Q & A style transcript.

Apparently Rakovsky had been given a special wine with a sedative so the interrogation was very calm and cordial, a high-level discussion of world affairs of the day.

Fascinating!!

:shock:

User avatar
Redneck
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:44 am
Reputation: 243

Postby Redneck » Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:04 am

Fascinating and I have no doubt that it's correct.

Myron Fagan was saying the same thing in the 60's.


Return to “The Grand Chessboard”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests