CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

Incredible but True....................................................... _..... _...... 3

CHAPTER II

A Path of Treachery............................................................ _..... 12

CHAPTER nl
Confessions and Objective Evidence........................................ 18

CHAPTER IV

Soviet Democracy Vindicated............................... _.................... 23

CHAPTER V

A Menace to Progressive Mankind .................._...._......... _........27

.j

2.
(·UBl.ISIIED BY WORKERS LIBRARY PUBLISHERS, INC.
1'. O. BOX l'lS. STA. 0, NEW YORK CITY FEBRUARY, 1937
209
 CHAPTER I

Incredible but True

LENIN called Trotsky Judas-and cautioned the people
repeatedly to beware of him. Today Trotsky and his agents
stand exposed before the whole world. They stand exposed
and branded as the worst Judases the world has ever known.
\Vorse than our own Benedict Arnold who betrayed his country-
men at a time of great stress and crisis.
Nat~rally there are some who are still in doubt. And, natur-
ally again, Trotskyite agents seek to exploit these doubts to
confuse some people and, under cover of confusion, to pro-
mote Trotsky's horrible conspiracies.
t It is incre,dible, some people say, that Trotsky and his
agents should have gone so far. Conspiring with Hitler and
I Japan to dismember the Soviet Union, to destroy its socialist
1 system, to restore capitalism, to carryon espionage for the
fascist powers, to engage in wrecking activities which cost
the lives of many workers, to plan assassination of Soviet
leaders, actually to help the fascist aggressors, especially Hitler
Germany and military-fascist Japan, to begin the world war
for which these powers are openly and brazenly preparing.
Incredible, say the doubters. Yet most of these same people
cannot help but agree that it is true none the less. Trotsky
and his agents have been actually proven guilty of all these
unspeakable crimes. Proven guilty in· open court, the highest
court of the Soviet Union, in the presence of, numerous
foreign diplomats and correspondents.
The thing is not incredible at all for those who are familiar

I with the development of Trotsky and Trotskyism. And it will

cease to appear incredible to all sincere persons once they learn
something of these developments. We shall come to these later
OD.
For the moment suffice it to say that just as the American
3
revolution had its Benedict Arnold and Aaron Burr, and just
as our period of the Civil War had John Wilkes Booth,
the assassin of Lincoln, so the Soviet Union is having its
Trotsky, Zinoviev, Piatakov and the others. The Soviet Union
has all these traitors as we had ours, but with a difference.
And the difference is this: The socialist revolution, which
gave birth to the Soviet Union, goes much deeper
than our revolution did. It builds for the establishment of a
classless society. Hence it affects the interests of both friend
and enemy much more vitally. Hence its defeated enemies
carryon their resistance longer and resort to more horrible
means. Hence its traitors are more horrible and detestable and
the consequences of their treason reach out far beyond the
confines of the Soviet Union.
The actions of the Trotsky traitors are therefore a menace
to all of us, to all progressive mankind.
Read the proceedings of the January trial: the confessions of
the accused, the testimony of witnesses, the letters of
Trotsky, other documents, the examination of accused and
witnesses, and the summary speech by the prpsecutor. The
truth is there. And it is this truth that exposes and condemns
the Trotskyites as agents and partners of fascism, as enemies
of the people.
The conspiratorial Inachine shapes up like this: Piatakov,
Serebriakov, Radek and Sokolnikov functionoo as a secret
leading committee known as the Trotskyite "Parallel Center".
This committee worked side by side with the "United Trotsky-
Zinoviev" terrorist center, tried and condemned in August,
1936. Under this "Parallel Center" of Piatakov and Co. worked
a:nother group of old-time and well-known Trotskyites: Mura-
loy, Boguslav~ky, Drobnis and Livshitz. And with them
operated a group of spies and agents of the fascist intelligence
services: Rataichak, Stroilov, Grasche.
When asked by the prosecutor: "Were the members of your
organization connected with foreign intelligence services?"
Piatakov answered : "Yes, they were. It is necessary to return

,
to the line of Trotsky in order to make it clearer."
 In the course of the examination, that line became very
clear. It called for acts of wreckage and terrorism. It called for
treason to 'the Soviet Union and to socialism.
Speaking of Trotsky's instructions to the "Parallel Center",
given in the middle of 1934, Piatakov admitted:
'·1 must state that the instructions with regard to wrecking met
with rather serious resistance among the followers of Trotsky,
arousing perplexity and dissatisfaction. We informed. Trotsky of
the existence of such sentiments. But Trotsky replied. that the
instructions regarding wrecking were an essential and integral
part of his policy and were his line."
In December, 1935, Piatakov met Trotsky near Oslo, Nor-
way. Trotsky was agitated and greatly dissatisfied with the
slow manner in which his agents were operating, especially in
the matter of wrecking. He reproached Piatakov in these words:
"You canot tear yourselves away from the Stalinist navel cord;
you 'take the Stalinist construction for socialist construction."
Bitterly and sarcastically Trotsky hammered at Piatakov:
"Socialism cannot he built in one country"; "the collapse of
the Stalinist ;tate is absolutely inevitable."
And Trotsky had his way. The "Parallel Center" proceeded
to organize acts of wrecking and assassination. Drobnis, Mura-
loy, Bogusiavsky and Livshitz went forth as the "field organ·
izers" to do the job: in the Kuzbas, the Kemerovo mines, in
the Ukraine, on the railroads, in the chemical industry. By
order of Piatakov, Drobnis was shifted from Central Asia to
Western Siberia to concentrate on wrecking, especially to in-
jure the defense capacities of the country. Not by accident did
the Trotskyite plotters pay so much attention to Western
Siberia. As is seen from their collaboration with the agents of
the Japanese intelligence service, the Trotskyites were plan-
fully aiding the war preparations of the Japanese military-
fascist clique.
Boguslavsky too was operating in Western Siberia, being a
member of the Novosibirsk Trotskyite center. Muralov in-
spired and directed Bogusiavsky, who was engaged in spoiling
locomotives and sabotaging important rail way construction.
From MuraIov, Bogusiavsky knew that several Trotskyite
5
 groups were operating in the Kuzbas to organize the assassina·
tion of visiting representatives of the national government,
and triat such attempts were actually organized against V. M.
Molotov, chairman of the Council of People's Commissars,
and L. M. Kaganovich, People's Commissar of Railways.
Another carrier of the "Trotsky line" was Livshitz, an old
Trotskyite and formerly Vice·Commissar of Railroads. He had
been doing his best to wreck the rail way system. And in addi-
tion--espionage work for the Japanese intelligence service.
He turned over information of great military value to the
. Japanese agents through Kniazev, another of the accused on
trial. And Kniazov was the active link between the Trotskyites
and the Japanese intelligence service. Kniazev confirmed that
for a similar job the Japanese turned over to Turck, another
accused, 35,000 rubles.
The victims of the acts of wrecking and sabotage o( the
Trotskyite gangs were many dead and injured workers. It was
in their name also that the prosecutor pressed his charges.
Addressing the court in his ,closing speech, Vyshinsky said:
"Not I alone am accusing. Alongside me, comrades and judges,
I feel that here stand the victims of these crimes and of these
criminals-on crutches, crippled, half·alive and possibly utterly
disabled-like the woman switchman Comrade Nagovitsina at the
Shustovo station . . • who lost both legs at the age of twenty in
preventing the collision organized by these very people."
What was Trotsky and his gang trying to accomplish? We
will let Radek relate what Trotsky wrote to him. Radek said in
Court: "I had three letters from Trotsky: April, 1934; De-
cember~ 1935; and January, 1936. In the 1934 letter, Trotsky
raised· the question in this way."
And then Radek goes on:
"The advent of fascism to power in· Germany basically changes
the whole situation. It means the near prospect of war. War is
inevitable, all the more so because the situation in the Far East
is .becoming strained. Trotsky did Dot doubt that this war would
cause the defeat of the Soviet Union. He wrote that this defeat
would create real conditions for the bloc to come to power, and he
drew the conclusion from this that the bloc was interested in
sharpening the conftict."
6
 Thus we have it from the mouth of Radek, and on the basis
of a letter by Trotsky, that this counter-revolutionary gang,
calling itself "a bloc", was not only speculating on the defeat
of the Soviet Union and the victory of fascism, but was con-
sciously working towards these ends.
"The bloc", wrote Trotsky, "was interested in sharpening the
conflict." Let the meaning of this be f uIl y understood: Trotsky
said he was interested in hastening the coming of war and he
was further interested in the defeat of the Soviet Union result-
ing from this war.
This gave Trotsky the basis for negotiation and collaboration
with the representatives of Hitler and Japan, since both of these
fascist aggressors are interested in hastening war and defeating
the Soviet Union. It is therefore not surprising to hear Radek
relate further:
"Trotsky mentioned in the letter that he had established contacts
with a certain Far Eastern country and a certain middle European
country and had openly told semi-official circles of these countries
that the bloc "took the line of bargaining with them and was pre-
pared to agree to considerable concessions, both economic and
territorial."

Like "practical politicians", which Radek claimed they were,

Trotsky discussed this matter more specifically with Piatakov
in December, 1935, near Oslo, Norway. This was what Piatakov
related in Court:
"Trotsky told me he had negotiated with Rudolph Hess, deputy
chairman of the German National-Socialist Party. Naturally I
cannot say whether there exists a written contract or simply an
agreement, but Trotsky told me all this was in an existing
agreement which, of course, still required official formulation
through several other persons of whom I will speak in the secret
session of the Court. It amounts to the following:
"Firstly, German fascists promise the Trotsky-Zinoviev bloc a
favorable attitude and their support if the bloc achieves power,
both during the war and before the war."

Did Hess promise Trotsky this support for nothing? No, of

course not. And Piatakov continues:
7
 "But the fascists receive the following compensation for this.
A generally favorable attitude by the bloc to German interests and
the German government in all question of international policy.
"Certain territorial concessions. This was called 'non-resistance
to Ukrainian national bourgeois forces in the case of their attempt
at self determination'. This means, in concealed form, what Radek
spoke of here when he said 'If the Germans set up their Ukrainian J'
government, which, of course, they would not control through a ';"
German governor-general but perhaps through a Hetman, but in
any case Germans would self-determine the Ukraine' and the
Trotsky-Zinoviev bloc would in any case not oppose this. In essence
this meant the dismemberment of the U.S.S.R.
"The next point in the agreement dealt with the form in which
German capital would get a chance to exploit the resources and
raw materials of the U.S.S.R. It required especially gold mines, oil,
manganese, lumber, apatite, etc.
"The last point was: in case of military attack, it would be
necessary to coordinate the disruptive forces of the Trotskyite organ-
ization acting within the country with external forces acting under
the leadership of German fascism."
For these unspeakable treacheries against the progressive
forces of the world, Trotsky had "justifying" arguments. Of
course. And the argument that must have ~en most con-
vincing to Piatakov & Co. was probably this.
Trotsky argues with Paitakov:
"If we intended to come to power at all, then the real forces in
the international situation were primarily the fascists and we
must establish contact with these forces, one way or another."

"Practical politicians", they called themselves. If you must

get power in the Soviet Union, and Trotsky still thinks he
must, and you cannot get it by yourself, then you must have
somebody to help you. According to Trotsky, the fascists
could help. But-
"'Trotsky immediately pointed out that this favorable attitude
would not be the result of any special love on the part of these
governments for the Trotsky-Zinoviev bloc. It would proceed simply
from the practical interests of the fascist governments and from
what we promise to do for them if we received power."

Thus Piatakov related his interview with Trotsky near Oslo.

Sure, there is little love lost between Hitler and, Trotsky. We
8
 did not need Goering to tell us that Hitler does not love Trot-
sky. It was, as Trotsky explained to Piatakov, a "practical"
proposition of give and take.
Trotsky did not overlook Japan either. In his second letter
to Radek, December, 1935, Trotsky outlined the nature of the
"concessions" that the Trotsky-Zinoviev bloc would make to
Japan. These included: the ceding to Japan of the Soviet
Maritime provinces, the Amur region, and a guarantee sup-
ply of Soviet oil to Japan in case of a Japanese-American war.
Upon instructions from Trotsky, Radek and Sokolnikov con-
ferred in Moscow with diplomatic representatives of Germany
and Japan, confirming Trotsky's "promises" to these powers
and assuming responsibility for them.
Thus unfolded itself at the trial the Trotsky program, and
the criminal Trotskyite deeds, in their plot to become the
rulers, to secure powex:, in the Land of Soviets.
Why did they want power? What kind of power and what
sort of government were they looking for? And what 80rt of
economic system would they establish?
And always remember that, according to Trotsky, the present
Soviet government is not a workers' government, that the social
system is not socialism, and that in general socialism is im-
possible in one country. Plotting the overthrow of the Soviet
government and the seizure of power, Trotsky was also out-
I ining to his confederates the system which he was going to
establish. What was it? Listen to Radek testifying in Court:

"Trotsky considered that the result of defeat would be inevitable

territorial concessions, and he definitely mentioned the Ukraine.
Secondly, the question was raised of partitioning the U.S.s.R.
Thirdly, from the economic viewpoint, he envisaged the following
results of defeat: not only giving out as concessions the industrial
plants important for the imperialist states, but also handing over,
selling to capitalist elements, as private property important ec0-
nomic objects which they would indicate.
Trotsky· foresaw the floating of joint stock concerns, namely,
admitting foreign capital into operation of factories which formely
were in the hands of the Soviet State.
"In the sphere of agrarian policy, Trotsky clearly raised the
question that· it was necessary to dissolve the collective farms and
9
 advanced the idea of providing tractors and other complicated
machinery to individual farmers and of restoring a new kulak strata.
"Finally, the question was openly raised about the necessity of
restoring private capital in the towns. It wa~ clear that. the question
at issue was the restoration of capitalism."

Thus in a letter of Trotsky to Radek in December, 1935.

Trotsky sought power to restore capitaUsm. Incredible? Not
at all. We shall show later how this was the inevitable result
of the entire course of the development of Trotskyism. But,
even without that, every unprejudiced person should be able
to see that, in plotting the overthrow of the Soviet govern-
ment, Trotsky couldn't seek anything else but the restoration of
capitalism.
Consider: in his own writings and speeches he slanderously
maintains that the system built in the Soviet Union is not
socialism. He further maih~ains, openly and. publicly, that
socialism in the Soviet Union alone is impossible. This is a
fundamental tenet of Trotskyism. This being the case, it takes
little reasoning to understand that Trotsky's plotting for
power in the Soviet Union could not be for the purposes of
building or maintaining socialism. And if it is n~t socialism,
because this is excluded by Trotsky's theory itself, what can
it be? The restoration of capitalism. This and nothing else.
And this was exactly what the January trial disclosed and
proved.
Trotsky does not call it by that name. Radek, for example,
speaks· of it as the "inevitable leveling of the socialist system
of the U.S.S.R. with that of the victorious fascist countries".
But the meaning of it is plain: the restoration of capitalism.
This being the aim of the conspiracy, Trotsky also had to
provide a "suitable" form of government to put through the
scheme. And what was that? Radek relates this angle as
follows:
"In the political sphere, a new feature of this letter (Decem-
ber, 1935) , was how the question of power was to be raised.
Trotsky said in the letter:
"'There cannot be any question about any democracy. The work-
ing cl888. has lived through eighteen years of the revolution, and
10
 has a tremendous appetite, but it is necessary to bring the workers
back, in part, to private factories, partly to government factories,
which will probably be in condition of severest competition with
private capital. This means that a sharp worsening of the condi·
tions of the working class will take place. In the villages, the
struggle of the poor and middle peasants will begin again. And
then to hold power, a strong government will be needed, indepen·
dently of what forms it will have.'"

This must have been strong medicine even to a Trotskyite

like Radek. So, to sweeten the pill, Trotsky explained to
Radek further:
"If you want historical analogies, said Trotsky, take that of
Napoleon I. Napoleon's government was not restoration; the restora·
tion came latter. But this government was an attempt to preserve
tho chief gains of the revolution, to preserve everything possible
from the revolution."

Incredible? Hard to believe that Trotsky would think of

himself as another Napoleon, plotting with fascism "to pre-
serve everything possible from the revolution"? Not at all.
Ten years, or 80, ago, Trotsky declared that he was preparing
himself for the role of Clemenceau (war premier of France),
to save the Soviet Union when the enemy was at the gates of
Moscow. And for this he had to overthrow the "Stalin govern·
ment" which, according to himself, was leading the country
to defeat.
The present Napoleon scheme of Trotsky is a development
and variation of the old Clemenceau scheme.

1]
 CHAPTER II

A Path of Treachery
TROTSKY, Zinoviev, Piatakov and Co. are "Old Bolsheviks",
some people say. They are the "fathers" of the Russian
revolution, it is claimed. On this false basis, the
question is asked: How is it possible for these "founders" of
the Soviet system to try to betray it, and to join for this pur·
pose with the worst enemies of socialism?
Those who genuinely ask such questions apparently do not
know that this gang of counter.revolutionary bandits have had
a long history, that their transformation into allies of fascism
is no sudden or overnight affair. They were moving in that
direction for a long time.
State Prosecutor Vyshinsky, in his summing up speech,
stated the thing very clearI y :
"Like a moving picture film operated backwards, this trial has
called to our memory and has shown us again all the basic stages
of the historic path of the Trotskyites and of Trotskyism which
spent more than thirty years to prepare at last this final trans-
formation into the storm troops of faseism."
This historic path of Trotskyism was a path of struggle
against Lenin and Bolshevism, a path of double.dealing and
treachery. It is worse than ridiculous therefore to speak of
Trotsky, whom Lenin branded as a Judas, and of his agents,
as "Old Bolsheviks".
Just a few high lights of this "historic path of Trotskyism":
As far back as 1904, almost 33 years ago, Trotsky started
on his historic path. He published four pamphlets entitled:
Our Political Tasks. In these pamphlets Trotsky challenged
Bolshevism. He denounced and slandered the Bolshevik path
to victory over tsarism and capitalism outlined by Lenin and
accepted by the Bolsheviks. He had the brazenness to attack
Lenin as "a leader of the reactionary wing" of the Party.
12
 Between 1904 and 1911, Lenin and Stalin were busy training
the future Bolshe~-iks who led the people to victory over the
tsar and capitalism; they were busy organizing the working
class and its aBies in daily struggle against their exploiters.
Thus they have built the Bolshevik Party.
What was Trotsky doing? Fighting Lenin, Stalin and the
Bolsheviks, organizing combinations of all sorts of oppor·
tunists and servants of capitaJism to block the road of pro-
letarian victory.
In 1911-12 Trotsky organizd the infamous "August Bloc",
the prototype of the latter day "Trotsky-Zinoviev Bloc". The
chief aim of the "August Bloc" was to fight Lenin and the
Bolshevik policies. And who were the people that went into
the making of this "August Bloc"? Mensheviks, agents of
capitalism in the labor movement, people thrown out of the
ranks of the Bolshevik Party.
Study Lenin's writings and you will see how much time
and energy he had to devote to unmasking and combatting
Trotsky, th~ Judas. Twenty years ago Lenin found it necessary
to warn the workers against Trotsky in these words:
"The young generation of workers should know well with whom
they are dealing."

Recalling these facts of the Trotskyite path of treacherYI

State Prosecutor Vyshinsky asked:
"Is it an accident that the Trotskyites were finally transformed
into a nest and hot-bed of degeneration and thermidorian policy,
as Stalin once said? Is it an accident that Trotsky who, after the
Revolution made his way into the ranks of our Party, slipped up
and adopted a counter-revolutionary Menshevik position and was
thrown out beyond the borders of our state, beyond the borders of
the Soviet Union?"

By this time, the reader should be in a position to answer

this question for himself. And to answer the correct way, the
way Vyshinsky did.
"It is Mt an accident because prior to the October Revolution as
well, Trotsky and his friends fought against Lenin and Lenin's Party
as they fight now against Stalin and the Party of Lenin and Stalin.
13
 They come to their shameful end because they have followed this
roJe for many years, have sung the praises of capitalism and have
lacked faith in the success of socialist construction and in the
victory of socialism.
"That is why they come finally to develop a program of capital-
ist restoration. That is why they proceeded to betray and sell our
native land."
Trotsky never believed in the possibility of socialism in the
Soviet Union. He always claimed-and that can be found in
all his writings-that in a backward agricultural country like
old Russia, where the peasantry was predominant and the
peasantry could not be won to support the socialist revo] ution,
socialism was impossible. This is the foundation of Trotskyism.
Holding such views, it was not at all surprising to see
Trotsky propose in 1922 that the industrial plants of the
Soviet Union be mortgaged to private capital in order to
secure the much needed credits at the time. In fact, Trotsky
quite freely theorized on this question. He declared-and that
again is a matter of public record-that the Soviet economy
was "more and more fusing with capitalist economy", that
the Soviet Union "would all the time he under the control
of world economy". .
Recalling these incidents of the "historic path of Trotsky-
ism", Vyahinsky recalls the aniwer which Stalin had given:
"Capitalist control, said Stalin, means political control. It means
the destruction of the political independence of our country and
the adaptation of the laws of our country to the interests and
tastes of international capitalist economy."

Trotsky was willing to accept that. Not Stalin. Not the Bol-
sheviks. Stalin made that quite clear at the time. He said:
"If it is a question of such real capitalist control, then I must
declare that such control does not exist and ,never will exist here as
long as our proletariat is alive and as long as we have the dic-
tatorship of the proletariat here."

Some "clever" writers are exhausting their ingenuity in

trying to construct a "fight for power" between Stalin and
Trotsky as individuals. It is not that at all. Trotsky defames
Stalin and plot~ against him, organizes terrorist acts against
14
 Stalin, "to remove him", using the conspiratorial language of
the Trotskyites, because Stalin leads iri the building of social·
ism, because under his dail y guidance socialism in the Soviet
l!nion became triumphantly victorious.
Yet,if it will help some people to understand the matter
~ore easily by looking at it as a struggle between two indi-
viduals for power, all right, let us grant that for a moment.
And having done so, we must ask: And what are these indivi-
duals fighting about? What do they want power for and what
•
do they propose to do with it? This is a fair question. And
when you try to answer it, where do you get? Exactly where we
were a while ago. You discover once more that it is a fight of
a group of counter-revolutionists and allies of fascism, led by
Trotsky, against the Soviet Union and its socialist system,
headed by Stalin. You find out again that "Trotsky fights
Stalin" because Trotsky seeks the restoration of capitalism in
the Soviet Union which Stalin opposes, which he has opposed
all the time in "his fight against Trotsky" and Trotskyism.
Yes, some people say; hut Trohlky and the Trotskyites are
Socialists. No, is the answer. They are not. What is true is that
they say they are Socialists. But so does Hitler. His fascist
party calls itself "The National German Socialist Workers'
Party". And what does that prove?
The Russian revolution (and not only the Russian) has
many examples to show how people calling themselves "social-
ists'" were in reality the worst enemies of socialism.
There were the "Socialist Revolutionaries" who joined with
White Guard generals and foreign intervention to defeat the
socialist revolution and to dismember Russia. There were the
Mensheviks who, in the Ukraine and the Caucasus, called upon
the Kaiser's Germany and upon England to come in and help
destroy the socialist revolution and to establish there foreign
imperialist rule. Trotsky and the Trotskyites are following a
similar path.
Once more it is necessary to keep in mind that this latest
chain of treason did not come of a sudden. It is the culminating
point of the historic path of Trotskyism.
15
 Already more than ten years ago--ten year3-the Trotsky-
Zinoviev combination began to resort to open crimes against
the Soviet government, crimes punishable by Soviet criminal
law. The so-called "New Opposition", headed by Trotsky, Zi-
noviev and Kamenev, and participated in by Piatakov, Radek,
Serebriakov, Muralov, Sokolnikov, Drobnis and Boguslavsky,
the defendants in the January trial, took the path of struggle
against the Soviet government into the streets. They tried to
organize demonstrations and to involve the masses in the
fight. And it was not their fault that they failed. The masses
were against them.
It will be recalled that at that time the Soviet government
was meeting with a number of difficulties in the construction of
socialism. The Trotsky-Zinoviev bloc attempted to exploit these
difficulties in order to deliver a blow at the Soviet government.
In 1932, also, the Soviet government was struggling to over-
come certain difficulties, and the Trotsky-Zinoviev bloc was on
the job again-waiting for difficulties and seizing upon them to
fight the Soviet government and the socialist system.
State Prosecutor Vyshinsky summed up on the "socialist
past" of these criminals in a very convincing way.· He said:
"The question may arise in some minds-how is it that these
people who fought for socialism so many years can now be accused
of these monstrous crimes? Perhaps these people are accused of
something that by the very essence of their whole past socialist
revolutionary Bolshevik activity they cannot be accused of?
"I answer this question. We accuse these gentlemen of being
traitors to socialism. We motivate this accusation not only by what
was committed (this is the subject of the accusation) but we say
the history of their downfall began long before they organized
the so-called 'Parallel Center', this off-shoot of the criminal Trotsky-
ist-Zinovievist united bloc.
"The organic link is here at hand. The historic link is here at
hand. From the platform of 1926, from anti-Soviet street demon-
strations, illegal printshops, and the league with White Guard
officers which they also accepted then, to destructive work, espion-
age, terror and betrayal of the fatherland-from 1932 to 1936 is one
step. And they took this step."
They took this step and became the allies of fascism, plotter8-
for the defeat of the Soviet Union and its dismembernlenL
16
collaborators with Hitler Germany and military-fascist Japan;
terrorists, assassins and wreckers.
Some still maintain that if Trotsky did come to assassina-
tion and individual terror as a "method" of struggle against
the Soviet government, he must have come to it all of a sudden
and at the last minute. But this too is not so. Vyshinsky quoted
at the trial from articles in the Trotsky Opposition Bulletin,
numbers 36 and 37 from October, 1934, such statements as this:
"It would be childish to think that the Stalinist bureaucracy
can be removed with the help of the Party or of the Soviet Congress.
There are not left any normal constitutional ways for removing
the ruling cliques. They can be forced to hand over power to the
proletarian vanguard ... only by force."
Never mind the brazen audacity of the Trotskyites calling
themselves "the proletarian vanguard". They called themselves
Socialists, also, and Communists. The important thing is the
open call to force and violence to compel the Soviet govern-
ment "to hand over power" to Trotsky so he can restore capi-
talism; the open call to force "to remove" the Stalinist
leadership. The murder of Kirov was the fruit of this appeal.
The terroristic conspiracies exposed at the August and Janu-
ary trials are the result and further development of Trotsky's
call in 1934 for force and violence.
Together with Trotsky, Hearst and Lloyd George Dlay de-
plore the fact that there are in the Soviet Union "no normal
constitutional ways" for overthrowing the Soviet government,
for restoring capitalism, or for selling out tho territories of
the Soviet Union to German fascism and to military-fascist
Japan. All honest workers and sincere progressives will say:
thank the dictatorship of the proletariat that there are ·'no
normal" and easy ways of attempting to destroy the Soviet
Union. Trotsky, Hearst and Hitler will continue to miss these
"normal ways". Progressive and genuinely democratic human-
ity will applaud this fact in the full realization that the dic-
tatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union, embodied in
the new Stalinist Constitution, has proven most effective in
building socialism, and in creating a powerful fortress for
peace and democracy throughout the world.
17
 CHAPTER III

Confessions and Objective Evidence

HEARST and Trotsky have been trying hard to invalidate

the confessions of the defendants at the January trial.
Trotsky and Hearst, and some others who trail behind them,
have been talking of "torture" by the "Gay-Pay-Oo", promises
of "leniency" to those who confessed, "confession gases", and
what not.
The reactionary capitalist press in this country, taking its
cue from the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, Goebbels, was
using all the tricks of corrupt journalism in its editorials and
comments to becloud the trial, to ridicule it, to throw sus-
picion upon its genuineness.
But to no avail. The correspondents of these papers, who
were present at the trial, were telling in their dispatches one
thing, while the editorials and comments were telling a dif-
ferent thing. The correspondents, most of them unfriendly to
the Soviet Union and highly suspicious of it, could not help
_but be impressed with the truth. They heard the confessions
and testimony of defendants and witnesses, they saw them in
Court, they listened (no doubt very critically) to the examina-
tion of the prosecutor and to his summing up speech, and the
impression they carried away was: it was genuine and real
from beginning to end. And this was what they wired to their
newspapers.
Very revealing was the reaction of Walter Duranty (Moscow
correspondent for The New York Time&) to the confession of
Radek. Duranty wrote:
"It is a sad and dreadful thing to see your friends on trial for
their lives. And it is sadder and more dreadful to hear them hang
themselves with their own words. . • • Radek taught me 80 much
and helped me so often-how could I believe him guilty until I
heard him say so? Stalin himself had confidence in Radek until
18
 the evidence and Radek's own confession made doubt impossible."
(The New York Times, January 25.)

Of the testimony of Piatakov, Duranty wired that it "carried

conviction to the most obdurate hearers". Listening to this
testimony, a foreign diplomat told Duranty: "If this is lying,
then I have never heard the truth."
Perhaps the opinion of l\fauritz Hallgren, a leading editorial
writer on the Baltimore Sun and formerly one of the editors
of The Nation, who for a while was doubtful and even
joined the so-called "American Committee for the Defense
of Leon Trotsky", from which he now resigned-perhaps the
opinion of Hallgren should carry even more weight. And this
was what he wrote of the testimony of the defendants in his
letter of withdrawal from the Trotsky Committee:
"The very unanimity of the defendants, far from proving that
this trial is also a 'frame-up', appears to me to prove directly the
contrary. For if these men are innocent, then certainly at least one
of the three dozen, knowing that he faced death in any case,
would have b1urted out the truth. It is inconceivable that out of this
great number of defendants, all should lie when lies would not do
one of them any good. But why look beyond the obvious for the
truth, why seek in mysticism or in dark magic for facts that are
before one's very nose? Why not accept the plain fact that the
men are guilty? And this fact, if accepted with regard to the men
now on trial, must also be accepted with regard to the men who
were executed after the first trial."·
Trotsky, sitting in Mexico, shouts "frame-up" through the
columns of the Hearst press and other papers. He claims to
be in possession of "evidence" that would show him to be
innocent. Yet, despite the fact that correspondents of numerous
papers are at his service to broadcast far and wide his testi-
mony, he has not yet disclosed any of his "evidence". What is
he waiting for?
All fair-minded people expect him to go to Moscow and
give his testimony there. The Supreme Court of the Soviet
Union is the only competent tribunal to hear and judge
• Why 1 Resis~d from the Trotsky Defense Committee, p. 5, Intema.~
. tiona! Publishers, New York.
19
Trotsky. Why doesn't he go to Moscow and face the Soviet
Court?
While failing to disclose anything that would successfully
contradict the evidence at the Moscow trial, Trotsky. and his
agents shout for "objective evidence". The declarations and
testimony of the defendants and witnesses are not enough
for them.
State Prosecutor Vyshinsky, in his summing up speech, went
into the question of objective evidence as follows:
"What proofs have we in our arsenal from the viewpoint of
juridical claims? The character of the present case is such that
specific proofs possible in the case are determined by its character.
We have the plot. We have in front of us a group of people who
prepared to carry out a coup d'etat. The question can be placed
as follows : You speak of the plot, but where are your documents?
You speak of the program, but where is this program? Do these
people anywhere possess a written program? You say that this is
an organization (they call themselves a party), but where are their
deciiions, and the material proofs of this plotting activity-statutes,
protocols, seals, etc.?"

The question of evidence and its possible nature are placed

here clearly. And what is the answer? Said Vyshinsky:
"I take the liberty to affirm, in accordance with the primary
demands of the science of criminal.law, that such claims cannot be
made in cases of plotting. In the case of plotting of a coup d' eta~
it cannot be demanded that the matter be approached from a view-
point such as: show us your protocols, decisions, membership cards
and number of membership cards. Yes, we have a number of docu-
ments with regard to this. But even had we not possessed that, we
would have all the same considered ourselves in the right to make
the charge on the buis of the testimonies and declarations of the
accused and witnesses, and, if you wish, on circumstantial evidence."

Is this something unheard of? Is it only the practice of the

Soviet Union to indict and convict people, in cases of treason
to the state, only, or largely, on the basis of the confessions
of the accused themselves? That's what Hearst and Trotsky say.
The truth is that nearly everywhere, this is the procedure, the
only possible procedure in most instances of treasonable plots.
And this is what Trotsky and his agents are accused of.
20
 The Nation, which certainly cannot be chargQrI with "too
much" sympathy for the Soviet Union, and which at first was
rather doubtful about many angles of the trial, has this to say:
"Nor is there anything unusual, even outside Russia, in basing a
conviction upon confessions. In both English and American law all
that is needed to prove treason is two witnesses to the overt act or
a confession in open court." (The Nation, February 6.)
All that is needed in American law to prove treason is two
witnesses or, if there are no witnesses, a confession in open
court.
Let's remember that. And let's also remember that the
Supreme Court of the Soviet Union had before it: confessions
in open court, and witnesses and documents and an overwhelm-
ing mass of circumstantial evidence. And circumstantial evi-
dence, as most Americans know, is in most cases more de-
cisive for proving guilt than is direct evidence. Experts are
agreed on that. But the Soviet Court had circumstantial evi-
dence and objective evidence. Said Vyshinsky:
•
"I spoke of the program and I showed you, comrades and judges,
.Trotsky's Bulletin in which he printed this very program. But
identification here will be much easier than that which you carried
out identifying certain persons from the German Intelligence Ser-
vice from photographs. Weare basing ourselves on a number of
proofs which in our hands can serve to verify the statements of
the accused.
"First of all, there are the historic connections, which confirm the
thesis of the prosecution, on the basis of the past activities of the
Trotskyites."
Recall "the historic path of Trotskyism"-the path of
treachery to the people.
"We have in mind further the testimonies of the accused which in
themselves are the greatest proof. In the trial, when one of the
proofs was the testimony of the accused themselves, we did not re-
strict ourselves to the Court's hearing only statements of the
accused: we used all the means possible and accessible to us to
verify these statements."
But, if one should still contend that the testimony of the
accused is not convincing enough, that would mean that the
21
defendants were accusjng each other falsely. And if that were
so, one would have to find a reason for it. Why should they
have accused each other falsely? What could they gain by it?
It should now be clear to every fair-minded person that,
following the execution of the conspirators of the first trial
in August, 1936 (Zinoviev, Kamenev & Co.), none of the
defendants at the second trial could have had any expectations
of securing gain or advantage by falsely accusing the other.
The only reason they confessed their crime, and why their
testimony agrees on the whole, is because they were guilty .
•

22
 CHAPTER IV

Soviet Democracy Vindicated

IF TROTSKY, Hearst, Hitler & Co. had any ideas that the ex·
tensio~ and development of Soviet democracy would provide
them with new loopholes and wedges for successful conspiracy
against the Soviet Union, they must be feeling today bitterly
and sadly disappointed. In fact, one need not guess about it.
They show this bitter disappointment all too plainly.
The new Soviet Constitution-the Stalin Constitution-has
been rightly hailed by the toiling masses of the world as a
blessing, as a triumph of progress and socialism, as a victory
over decaying capitalism which produces and nurtures fas·
cism. But what did that mean? It meant, among many other
things, that fascism and the agents of fascism cannot for long
live in the Soviet Union. This is so far the only country in the
world where fascism cannot thrive. And when some of its
agents and Trotskyite collaborators nevertheless do make an
attempt to operate, they meet a quick and sure end as soon
as they are discovered .
. This can only bring joy to the hearts of the workers, all
exploited classes, all friends of progress and true enemies of
fascism.
How many times have we heard expressions of sincere lamen-
tation over the fact that if only a few decisive measures against
the fascist generals in Spain had been taken in time, as urged
by the Communists, how much blood and suffering could have
been spared the Spanish people?
And in Germany: if only Social-Democracy had joined with
the Communists in dealing with the Hitler gang courageously
and decisively, how much agony would have been spared the
German people, and how much of a .safer place to live in the
world would be today? .;
!.

Yet some of these same people, who siricerely.lament these

23
 historic failures, seem to feel a bit uncertain about the .justi-
fication for the drastic measures taken by the Soviet govern-
ment against the Trotskyite traitors and collaborators of
fascism. To these we must say: Why do you refuse to learn
from experience? Why do you persist in repeating the same
errors-criminal errors, such costly errors-over and over
again?
Certainly, you do not wish to encourage fresh Trotskyite con-
spiracies in the Soviet Union? Surely, you do not want to
embolden Hitler or the Japanese military clique to speculate
on disintegration within the Soviet Union resulting from Trot-
skyite conspiracies? Because to encourage such hopes in the
fascist aggressors means to speed them on to more reckless
provocations. It means to hasten the outbreak of war which
will spare no country. It means to encourage Hitler to try in
Czechoslovakia what he is doing in Spain.
Do you want all that? Of course not. That being the case,
certain practical conclusions have to be drawn. And one of
them is this: Make Hitler, Japan, and all fascist aggressors
understand that conspiracies with Trotsky and the Trotskyite4
do not work in the Soviet Union. That was what the Soviet
government has done. And for this it deserves the gratitude
of the enemies of fascism in all countries.
Make Hitler and the other war aggressors also understand
that such and similar conspiracies will not work in other coun-
tries either. This is what Hitler and Mussolini ought to ~
taught in Spain.
And progressive people everywhere understand that. But
not so the leader of the Socialist Party of America, Norman
Thomas. He too draws conclusions from the Moscow trial.
He began to draw them even before the trial was over. And
here it is:
"Socialists and workers generally are justified in seeing in this
situation the natural outgrowth of the Conununist theory which
would ruthlessly sacrifice the individual to the alleged interests
of the mass, which interest of the mass is interpreted in terms of
the reyolutionary group able to get and keep power, a group which
permits no proper channel of criticism within its governmental
organization."
24
 Never mind the mendacity of Thomas trying to speak in the
name of all Socialists and even of "workers generally". The
American workers have not forgotten, nor will they soon for-
get, Thomas' campaign to elect Landon on the phoney theory
that Landon would inject some iron into the blood of American
labor so it will fight better. So, let's overlook this pontifical
gesture of taking everybody under Norman Thomas' fold.
But what about the conclusion itself? It is purposely written
in very involved terms but it can be easily deciphered. And
here is what it means:
1. The building of socialism in the Soviet Union is not in
the interests of the masses. It is only an "alleged" interest,
not a true one, so says Thomas the "Socialist".
2. The Soviet government is really not the government of
the people, says Thomas again. It is only a "revolutionary
group able to get and keep power"-a Stalin group.
3. Soviet democracy, which built a socialist society, which
is today the strongest bulwark of peace and progress, whom
the Spanish people consider the greatest blessing in their hour
of need and stress, this Soviet democracy means nothing at all
to the "democracy loving" Thomas. No, says _Thomas, it is no
such thing; it is only a group in power which, because it won't
give the Trotsky-Hitler combiTWtion a free hand to operate in
the Soviet Union, "permits no proper channels of criticism
within its governmental organization".
This is no mere philosophizing, rotten as it is. It is very
actual and has an immediate practical purpose. It is to bolster
up the astounding statement that the Trotsky-Hitler conspiracy
is "the natural outgrowth of the Communist theory". These
are Thomas' words. They will be found, in the above context,
in the semi-Trotskyite sheet that calls itself The Socialist Call,
of January 30, 1937. It means: the conspiracy is to be blamed
not on the conspirators and their fascist partners. No, says
Thomas, blame it on the Communist theory as he, Thomas,
interprets it.
This sort of conclusion is obviously needed by Thomas also
to justify his toleration of the Trotskyites in the Socialist
Party and his membership on the "Committee for the Defense
25
of Trotsky". But fair-minded people and true Socialists will
want an answer to this question:
How far is it from considering the Trotsky conspiracy-which
includes the murder of Kirov-"a natural outgrowth of Com-
munist theory" to actually justifying the Trotsky-fascist con-
spiracy?
It is not very far. One may lead into the other.

26
 CHAPTER V

A Menace to Progressive Mankind

TROTSKYISM is a menace to all progressive mankind.
Trotsky's conspiracies with Rudolph Hess-Hitler's deputy-
and with the Japanese military-fascist clique are a menace to
the peace of the world. Trotsky's conspiracies against the anti-
fascist People's Front movements in Spain ana in all countries
are a menace to progress and peace. They are direct help to
fascism. Trotskyite conspiracies within labor organizations
are a menace to the much needed unity of labor against the
economic royalists.
Labor and all progressives are vitally interested in stamping
out Trotskyism wherever it raises its head.
It is wen known that Trotsky's agents in Spain are helping
the fascists to undermine the People's Front government and to
destroy it. In Spain, as in the Soviet Union, Trotskyites are
working for the defeat of democracy and for the victory of
fascism.
Under cover of revolutionary-sounding phrases, Trotskyism
in Spain is in fact an ally of Franco and Hitler. Covering
themselves with proposals that sound "more revolutionary"
than the programs of the Socialists and Communists, the
Trotskyites in Spain seek to break up the unity of labor and
of the people. In Spain, as in the Soviet Union, Trotsky is
exposed as an ally and collaborator of bloody fascism.
Trotsky in Mexico, where he now resides, is playing the same
reactionary and treacherous role. He is becoming the darling
of Mexican reaction and fascism. Listen to the voice of Vicente
Lombardo Toledano, a progressive leader ·of Mexican labor,
the head of the Mexican Confederation of Labor which went
on record as opposed to Trotsky's residence in Mexico. Says
Toledano:
27
 "Trotskyism preaches a tactic of struggle opposed to the policy of
the People's Front•.•• Trotskyism in practice is equivalent to the
policies of the reactionaries who constantly seek to divide the pro-
letariat, to confuse the people, to place the masses in opposition to
the progressive government, in order that they may prosper from
the division among the democratic forces. Quite naturally, there-
fore, the Mexican Workers' Confederation does not want Trotsky
in my canntry." (New Masses, February 2.)
The Mexican workers and progressives do not want Trotsky
in Mexico because Trotsky is a traitor and an enemy. But the
reactionaries do want Trotsky. Says Toledano:
"Events have already borne out the correctness of our judgment:
conservative sectors of opinion, the newspapers of the bourgeoisie,
the reactionary intellectuals and students, and those small groups
of workers led by treacherous leaders have applauded Trotsky's
arrival in my country. Mexico's conservatives have never defended
the right of asylum until today; for the first time, they now speak
of respect for the sacred right of hospitality, seal of pride in
our gentlemanly tradition." (Ibid.)
Mexico's reactionaries and fascists are the defenders of
Trotsky. Why? Because Trotsky works for their cause.
The same in the United States. Hearst is the ·outstanding
champion of Trotsky. Hearst's press is becoming Trotsky's
megaphone to wage war against the. peace movements of all
countries, against the anti-fascist People's Front, against the
Soviet Union.'
The American labor movement also has some bitter experi-
ences with the agents of Trotsky. In strikes, Trotskyites in-
variably attack the unions and seek to disrupt the unity of
the workers. Recent examples of such treachery are found in
the rubber strike in Akron and in the great victorious strike
of the maritime workers.
They wonn their way into the Workers' Alliance--the organ-
ization of the unemployed-and carryon there campaigns
of disruption and sabotage.
They have entered the Socialist Party and, through their
secret groQPs and conspiratorial actions, are trying to make
it a vehicle for their treacherous policies against labor, against
progrcs3, against peace. And in many places they have suc-
28
ceeded only too well because of the tolerance of certain leaders-
of the Socialist Party.
In his speech to the people of New York at Madison Square-
Garden, Earl Browder drew attention to the fact that:
"It is on the war question, above all, that the horrible nature of
the Trotskyite-fascist alliance stands out most clearly."

Browder called to the attention of his hearers the fact that

one point in the agreement between Trotsky and the Japanese
General Staff was that the Trotskyites, if their plot to over-
throw the Soviet government succeeds, would provide the
Japanese with oil and other supplies in {'w-e of a Japanese
war against the United States. Browder then asked:

"Is there anything in the conduct of tht· Trotskyites in our

eOUAtry which would tend to contradict this agreement of their
leader? No, on the contrary, the American Trotskyites could not
have acted differently if they had known of and agreed to this
policy. For several years now, the American Trotskyites have been
hammerini} on the coming war between the United States and Japan,
in order to demand, first, that all preparations must be made to
insure the defeat of the United States in such a war, and second,
consequently, that a fight be made against all idea of mutual
assistance between the Sowet Union and the United States. Those
arc exactly the things that would be required by Trotsky of his
American followers in order to carry out his agreement with the
Japanese General Staff."·

As usual, as was the case also in the days of Lenin, Trotsky--

ism carried out deeds of treason to the people under the mask
of revolutionary sounding words. "Left" phrases--reactionary
deeds-Lenin used to say of Trotskyism. Now, too, the Amer-
ican Trotskyites are preparing to work for the victory of the
Japanese fascist-military clique in the event of a Japanese
attack upon the United States-all in the name of the "revolu-
tionary class struggle". We have been trying to unmask thi!"
fraud all the while. Today, however, even the origin of this

• Trotskyism Against World Peace, p. 10, Workers Library Publishers,.

New York.
29
fraud has become known. It was plotted out by the Japanese
General Staff in collaboration with Trotsky.
Trotskyism, like its ally, fascism, is a menace to the world.
It is a menace to its peace, its progress, its democracy. It is a
menace to labor and its organizations because Trotskyism is the
carrier of disruption and of treason. Where Trotskyism thrives
the unity of labor, the unity of the people against fascism and
war, are always in danger.
Drive the Trotskyites out of your midst!

:10
i

Read More About

REACTION AND FASCISM
in Hundreds of Books, Pamph1ets, Magazines for Salo at Theae Book-
stores and Literaturo Distribution Centers
Aberdeen, Wash.: 11 5 Yz West Paterson: 201 Market St.
Heron St. Philadelphia: 104 So. 9th St.
Akron: 63 East Exchange Pittsburgh: 607 Bigelow Blvd.
Baltimore: 501A N. Eutaw St. Portland, Ore.: 314 S. W. Madi-
Berkeley: 2475 Bancroft Way Ion St.
Boston: 8 Beach Street Providence: 335 Westminster St.,
Buffalo: 61 West Chippewa Room 42
Bu,tte: 119 Hamilton St.
Racine: 205 State Street
Cambridge: 6 % Holyoke St.
Readmg: 224 North Ninth Street
Camde-n: 304 Federal Street
Richmond, Va.: 205 N. 2nd St.
Chicago: 200 West Van Buren
21 35 West Division St. Sacramento: 1024 Sixth St.
1326 East 57th St. St. Louis: 3520 Franklin Ave.
Cincinnati: 540 Main St. St. Paul: 570 Wabasba St.
Cleveland: 1522 Prospect Ave. Salt Lake City: 134 Regent St.
Denver: 313 Mining Exchange Bldg San Diego: 635 E St.
DesMoines: 222 Youngerman Bldg. San Francisco:
Detroit: 3537 Wodward Ave. 170 Golden Gate Ave.
Duluth: 28 East Fint St. 1609 O'Farrell St.
Grand Rapids: 319 Bridge St. 121 Haight St.
Hollywood: 1116 No. lillian Way San Petlro: 244 W. Sixth St.
LOI Angtle.: 230 S. Spring St. Santa Barbara:
2411 Y2 Brooklyn Avenue 288 W. Canon Perdido
Madison, Wi.c.: Commercial Bank
Bldg., Room 417 Seattle: 713 Y2 Pine St.
Milwaukee: 419 West State St. Spokane: 114 No. Bernard
Minneapolis: 812 La Salle Ave. Superior: 601 Tower Ave.
Newark: 33 Halsey St. Tac01lUl: 1315 Tacoma Ave.
New Haven: 17 Broad St. Toledo: 214 Michlgaa
New Orlean.: 130 Chartres St.
New York: 50 East 13th St. Wa.sbington, D.C.: 1125 14th St.,
140 Second Ave. N. W.
98 Fourth Ave., :Brooklyn
Oakland: 567 12th Street Youngstown:
Omaba: 311 Karbach Block 3 lOW. Federal St., 3 d Fl.

Write for IJ co1llplete catalog to any of tbe IJbove IJddresus or to

WORKERS LIBRARY PUBLISHERS
P. O. Box 148, Sta. D New York, N. Y.