Radek's Last Plea

Radek's Last PleaSource: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 15, No. 45 (Apr., 1937), pp. 588-598Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4203277 .

Accessed: 20/06/2014 18:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic andEast European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.147 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:42:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhra

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4203277?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


RADEK'S LAST PLEA We reprint, by permission, from the verbatim reportl of the recent

trial of Trotskyites in Moscow, the very illuminating speech which Radek made in his last plea before the verdict was given. It should be understood that he had already freely accepted the apparent certainty of conviction and of a death sentence; and he gives the history of his own association with Trotsky and his party, at the same time most alertly using his one opportunity to convey to unnamed Trotskyites in Russia what he would have said to them if the conference of the party on which he had insisted had taken place. The speech throws much light on the background of the trial.--ED.

CITIZEN JUDGES, after I have confessed to the crime of treason to the country there can be no question of a speech in defence. There are no arguments by which a grown man in full possession of his senses could defend treason to his country. Neither can I plead extenuating circumstances. A man who has spent 35 years in the Labour Movement cannot extenuate his crime by any circumstances when he confesses to a crime of treason to the country. I cannot even plead that I was led to err from the true path by Trotsky. I was already a grown man with fully-formed views when I met Trotsky. And while in general Trotsky's part in the development of these counter-revolutionary organisations is tremendous, at the time I entered this path of struggle against the Party Trotsky's authority for me was minimal.

I joined the Trotskyite organisation not for the sake of Trotsky's petty theories, the rottenness of which I realised at the time of my first exile, and not because I recognised his authority as a leader, but because there was no other group upon which I could rely in those political aims which I had set myself. I had been connected with this group in the past, and therefore I went with this group. I did not go because I was drawn into the struggle, but as a result of my own appraisal of the situation, as the result of a path I had voluntarily chosen. And for this I bear complete and sole responsibility-a responsibility which you will measure according to the letter of the law and according to your conscience as judges of the Soviet Socialist Republic.

1 Report of Court Proceedings in the case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre heard before the Military Collegium of the USSR, Moscow, January 23-30, I937. Verbatim Report published by the People's Commissariat of Justice of the USSR, Moscow, I937. 580 pp.

588



RADEK'S LAST PLEA.

And with this I might conclude my last plea, if I did not consider it necessary to object to the view of the trial-as regards a partial, not the main, point-which was given here and which I must reject, not from my own personal standpoint, but from a political standpoint. I have admitted my guilt and I have given full testimony concerning it, not from the simple necessity of repentance-repentance may be an internal state of mind which one need not necessarily share with or reveal to anybody-not from love of the truth in general-the truth is a very bitter one, and I have already said that I would prefer to have been shot thrice rather than to have had to admit it-but I must admit my guilt from motives of the general benefit that this truth must bring. And when I heard that the people in this dock are mere bandits and spies, I object to it. I do not object to it with the purpose of defending myself; because since I have confessed to treason to the country, it makes little difference from my point of view, from a human point of view, that I committed treason in conspiracy with generals, I have not that professional pride which permits one to commit treachery in conjunction with generals, but not to commit treachery in conjunction with agents.

But the matter is this. This trial has revealed two important facts. The intertwining of the counter-revolutionary organisations with all the counter-revolutionary forces in the country-that is one fact. But this fact is tremendous objective proof. Wrecking work can be established by technical experts; the terrorist activities were connected with so many people that the testimony of these people, apart from material evidence, presents an absolute picture. But the trial is bicentric, and it has another important significance. It has revealed the smithy of war, and has shown that the Trotskyite organisation became an agency of the forces which are fomenting a new world war.

What proofs are there in support of this fact? In support of this fact there is the evidence of two people-the testimony of myself, who received the directives and the letters from Trotsky (which, unfortunately, I burned), and the testimony of Pyatakov, who spoke to Trotsky. All the testimony of the other accused rests on our testimony. If you are dealing with mere criminals and spies, on what can you base your conviction that what we have said is the truth, the firm truth ?

Naturally, the State Prosecutor and the Court, who know the whole history of Trotskyism and who know us, have no reason to suspect that we, bearing the burden of terrorism, added high treason just for our own pleasure. There is no necessity to convince you

PP

589



THE SLAVONIC REVIEW.

of that. We must convince, firstly, the diffused wandering Trotskyite elements in the country, who have not yet laid down their arms, who are dangerous and who must realise that we speak here shaken to the depths of our souls, and that we are speaking the truth and only the truth. And we must also tell the world that what Lenin-I tremble to mention his name from this dock-said in the letter, in the directions he gave to the delegation that was about to leave for The Hague, about the secret of war. A fragment of this secret was in the possession of the young Serbian nationalist, Gabriel Princip, who could die in a fortress without revealing it. He was a Serbian nationalist and felt the justice of his cause when fighting for the secret which was kept by the Serbian national movement. I cannot conceal this secret and carry it with me to the grave because, while in view of what I have confessed here I have not the right to speak as a repentant Communist, nevertheless the 35 years I worked in the Labour Movement, despite all the errors and crimes with which they ended, entitle me to ask you to believe one thing-that, after all, the masses of the people with whom I marched do mean something to me. And if I concealed this truth and departed this life with it, as Kamenev did, as Zinoviev did and as Mrachkovsky did, then when I thought over these things, I would have heard in my hour of death the execrations of those people who will be slaughtered in the future war, and whom, by my testimony, I could have furnished with a weapon against the war that is being fomented.

And that is why I contest the assertion that those who sit here in this dock are criminals who have lost all human shape. I am fighting not for my honour, which I have lost, I am fighting for the recognition of the truth of the testimony I have given, the truth in the eyes not of this Court, not of the Public Prosecutor and the Judges, who know us stripped to the soul, but of the far wider circle of people who have known me for 30 years and who cannot understand how I have sunk so low. I want them to see clearly from beginning to end why it was I gave this testimony, and therefore, in spite of the fact that I have already in part spoken of this, I feel obliged to present a picture of the events and experiences of this latest period, especially from the time of receipt of the last instructions from Trotsky.

I must explain why the decision taken in January to reveal everything was not carried out, and I must explain why I could not do that during the interrogation, why even when I arrived at the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs I did not at once carry this decision into effect. The doubts of the State Prosecutor are

590



RADEK'S LAST PLEA. 59I

entirely legitimate. The external facts speak against the existence of such a decision. And, moreover, the State Prosecutor, who is aware of the fact that Kamenev preferred to die like a bandit without a political programme, asks himself why it should be assumed that here we have complete sincerity, that the whole truth has been told to the end.

Without the slightest egocentrism-my personality plays the least part here-I must first of all mention the personal factors which made it easier for me to regard Trotsky's December directive as the finale, as the end, as a signal of the necessity to break before the others did and with greater internal conviction. These were personal factors. Some of my fellow-accused returned to the path of struggle as convinced Trotskyites who permanently denied the possibility of building up Socialism in one country. I returned having ceased to believe this conception of Trotsky's. I returned because I shrank from the difficulties that confronted Socialism in I93I-33. This only shows that to admit the building of Socialism is easier theoretically than to possess the strength and firmness which was fostered only in those who followed the Party from profound internal conviction and did not combat it. Without confidence in the leaders, or with insufficient confidence, without sufficient contact with the cadres-the theory itself was a dead letter, it was a theoretical view and not a practical one. Here I stumbled and I returned to this underground work. And here I immediately became an object of deceit. I say this not in order to extenuate my guilt, but because I increased this deceit tenfold in relation to our rank and file, and in order that you may understand the personal elements which helped me to realise the necessity of a change of front.

When I joined the organisation, Trotsky did not say a word about the seizure of power in his letter. He felt that such an idea would seem to me too reckless. He only seized upon my profound perturbation and that in this state of mind I might decide to join forces with him; and then everything would turn out as he wanted. And when, during my conversation with Pyatakov in December, I932, he said, " What are you thinking about, this is of course a State conspiracy," this was the first rift from the very beginning.

In September, 1933, Romm brought me a letter from Trotsky in which wrecking work was spoken of as something taken for granted. And once again-and Romm spoke of this in his evidence-I was dumbfounded. Why? Because when I held these conversations not a word was said about wrecking activity, and this was done

PP 2




deliberately. They knew that after the period of the fight against wrecking, after its exposure in all its hideousness, I might come to grief. And so it was concealed from me. And when Pyatakov revealed these things to me, I of course realised that the door had banged to. It was absurd to start to quarrel over this. But it was the second rift.

And, finally, after receiving Trotsky's directives in I934, I sent him the reply of the centre, and added in my own name that I agreed that the ground should be sounded, but that he should not bind himself, because the situation might change; I suggested that the negotiations should be conducted by Putna, who had connections with leading Japanese and German military circles. And Trotsky replied: "We shall not bind ourselves without your knowledge, we shall make no decisions." For a whole year he was silent. And at the end of that year he confronted us with the accomplished fact of his agreement. You will understand that it was not any virtue on my part that I rebelled against this. But it is a fact for you to understand.

And what a picture did I see ? The first stage: Kirov had been killed. The years of terrorist preparation, the scores of wandering terrorist groups waiting for a chance to assassinate some leader of the Party, and the consequences of the terrorism seemed to me personally to be the sacrifice of human life without any political advantage to ourselves. We could not bring to Moscow the leaders and organisations we required for group terrorism-that showed the state of forces of the terrorist organisations. And on the other hand, I stood near enough to the Government and to the leading Party circles to know that not only the precautionary measures of the organs of public security, but the masses of the people themselves had become so vigilant that the idea that the Soviet power could be cast to the ground by terrorism-even with the help of the most devoted and desperate terrorist groups-was utopian, that we might sacrifice human life, but that this would not overthrow the Soviet power.

A second aspect of the matter: I perceived that Trotsky himself had lost faith. The first variant was a concealed way of saying: "Well, boys, try to overthrow the Soviet power by yourselves, without Hitler. What, you cannot? Try to seize power yourselves. What, you cannot? " Trotsky himself already felt his complete internal impotence and staked on Hitler. The stake was now on Hitler. The old Trotskyites had held that it was impossible to build up Socialism in one country, and that it was

592



RADEK'S LAST PLEA.

therefore necessary to force the revolution in the West. Now they were told that a revolution in the West was impossible, and so destroy Socialism in one country, destroy socialism in the USSR. Yet nobody could help but see that Socialism in our country had been built.

The second aspect was defeat. I know a little about military matters and I am able to judge

the international situation. And to me it was clear: 1934 was a period when I, a man inclined to pessimism, considered defeat and ruin inevitable; but in 1935 all the chances were in favour of a victory for this country, and whoever before pretended to himself that he was a defeatist by necessity, in order to save what could be saved, was now bound to say to himself: I am a traitor who is helping to subjugate the country-which is strong, growing and progressing. For what purpose? So that Hitler might restore Capitalism in Russia.

All the Public Prosecutor said about the fact that not only Trotsky's directives but all the work of the Trotskyites aimed at the restoration of Capitalism is incontrovertibly true. The directives themselves were directives for the complete restoration of Capitalism, and they did not drop from the skies: they were a summary of the fact that when people fire at the general staff of the revolution, when people undermine the economy of the country, they are undermining Socialism and, that being so, they are working for Capitalism.

And this is a fundamental truth, a truth of decisive importance in forming a judgment of the Trotskyites as a social current, and the Prosecutor realises this. On the other hand, it shows that with this platform we could not even among our own followers reach as many as Ioo or so. If the State Prosecutor admits this-and he does admit it fully-and bears in mind that we did not even summon the conference which we had decided to summon in order to ascertain that even our closest followers would not accept such a standpoint, it shows that the Trotskyites, this group of criminal people who are stained in the blood of one of the leaders of the revolution, and who have committed an untold number of crimes, had nevertheless completely miscalculated when staking on restoration.

When people enter a fight in blinkers and cannot see what is in front of them, they are capable of performing, and do perform, acts fraught with terrible consequences.

But when you, the judges, deliberate on each one of them in

593




particular-and you cannot do otherwise-you cannot but bear this in mind.

Comrade Judges- The President: Accused Radek, not "Comrade Judges," but

Citizen Judges. Radek: I beg your pardon, Citizen Judges. I must now tell

you about the back-stage aspect of this conference we wanted to summon. Serebryakov was quite right when he said that there was no decision. The conference in fact was summoned in order to decide. Why did it not take place? Why did this conference not take place, what was concealed behind the scenes of this conference, why did I not tell about the December instructions and about Pyatakov's meeting with Trotsky even to a man so close to me as Bukharin, who knew about the contacts with representatives of West European and Eastern Powers?

I shall speak about this because it may later have a practical significance and supply the answer to the question whether something still remains undisclosed. I think it does: that something remains hidden both from us and from the authorities and could be disclosed. It was already clear to me that it was nonsense to think that the terrorist organisation would liquidate itself of its own accord. In this Trotskyite organisation there were people of various kinds, people of various shades and, as it appeared, people who were directly connected with foreign intelligence services. I did not know this at the time. I had to admit the possibility that somebody was prowling around us. And the moment we allowed this secret to escape from the control of these four people, from that moment we should be absolutely powerless to control the situation.

I will return for a while to the name of Dreitzer. The State Prosecutor said that we would return to him, and I will return to him in a connection which was not examined here.

When Dreitzer failed to appear in Moscow for seven or eight months, I might have thought that this was for conspiratorial reasons. But when Dreitzer failed to appear in January, and, after having received my summons to the conference, came to Moscow and did not come to see me-he was in Moscow in 1935 and did not come to see me-it became clear to me that Trotsky, on the basis of the correspondence I had had with him, and perceiving Pyatakov's resistance and our misgivings about the defeatist line, was creating some other devilish business in addition to the parallel centre. I conclude this from the fact that Dreitzer avoided us in 1935.

When I read the record of the trial of the united centre I did not

594



RADEK'S LAST PLEA.

find one fact which was unknown to me, which had taken place without the knowledge of the others. This meant that some third organisation was operating.

And, finally, when Pyatakov returned from abroad, he casually remarked when speaking of the conversation with Trotsky that Trotsky had told him that cadres of people were being formed who had not been corrupted by the Stalin leadership. But when I read about Olberg and asked others whether they had known of the existence of Olberg, and none of them had heard about him, it became clear to me that in addition to the cadres who had passed through his school, Trotsky was organising agents who had passed through the school of German Fascism. And I found a direct reply to this when the question of the conference arose. It was clear to me that if Dreitzer learnt that we were putting the question of Trotsky's directives on such a footing that it might again lead to a split, as was the case in I929, then before we succeeded in doing so we should be put out of the way ourselves. Not because Dreitzer bore us any ill-will, but because he was a man who was thoroughly devoted to Trotsky and had closer connections with him directly, than through us. I therefore could not tell people about the conference. When we did tell them, the arrests had begun and it was impossible to get them together.

Did I know before my arrest that it would all end in arrest? How could I help knowing it when Tivel, the manager of my bureau, was arrested, when Friedland, whom I had met very frequently in recent years, was arrested? I will not mention other names; I could mention dozens of people with whom I often met. I could not then doubt for a single moment but that this business would end in the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs. And so I must answer the question-why, instead of calling conferences, did I not address myself to the Party, to the authorities, and why, if I did not do so before my arrest, did I not do it at the time of my arrest ?

The answer to this question is a very simple one. It is the following: I was one of the leaders of the organisation. I knew that Soviet justice was not a mincing machine. I knew that there were people of different degrees of guilt among us, and that we, the leaders, must answer for what we had done with our heads. But I also knew that there was a large section of people whom we had drawn into this struggle, who, I would say, did not know the principal lines of the organisation, and who wandered on blindly.

When I raised the question of a conference, what I wanted was

595




demarcation, I wanted to have separated out those who wished to wage the fight to the end-these might even be surrendered bound hand and foot-and to allow the others the opportunity to leave and of their own accord announce their guilt to the Government.

When I found myself in the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs, the chief examining official realised at once why I would not talk. He said to me: " You are not a baby. Here you have 15 people testifying against you. You cannot get out of it, and as a sensible man you cannot think of doing so. If you do not want to testify, it can only be because you want to gain time and look it over more closely. Very well, study it." For two and a half months I tormented the examining official. The question had been raised here whether we were tormented while under investigation. I must say that it was not I who was tormented, but I who tormented the examining officials and compelled them to perform a lot of useless work. For two and a half months I compelled the examining official, by interrogating me and by confronting me with the testimony of other accused, to open up all the cards to me, so that I could see who had confessed, who had not confessed, and what each had confessed.

This lasted for two and a half months. And one day the chief examining official came to me and said: " You are now the last. Why are you wasting time and temporising? Why don't you say what you have to say?" And I answered: " Yes, tomorrow I shall begin my testimony." And the testimony I gave contains not a single correction from first to last. I unfolded the whole picture as I knew it, and the investigation may have corrected one or another personal mistake about the connections of some person with another, but I affirm that not a single thing I told the examining officials has been refuted and that nothing has been added.

I have to admit one other guilt. Having already confessed my guilt and having disclosed the organisation, I stubbornly refused to testify with regard to Bukharin. I knew that Bukharin's position was just as hopeless as my own, because our guilt was the same, if not juridically, then in essence. But we are close friends, and intellectual friendship is stronger than any other kind of friendship. I knew that Bukharin was in just such a state of profound disturbance as I was, and I was convinced that he would give honest testimony to the Soviet authorities. I therefore did not want to have him brought bound to the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs. I wanted to enable him too, like the rest of our people, to lay down his arms. This explains why it was that it was only towards the very end, when I saw the trial was drawing to a close, that I realised

596



RADEK'S LAST PLEA.

that I could not appear for trial having concealed the existence of another terrorist organisation.

And so, Citizen Judges, I will conclude my last plea with this. We shall answer in accordance with the full severity of the Soviet law, considering that whatever your verdict may be it will be a just one. But we want to meet it like conscious people. We know that we have no right to address the masses-it is not for us to teach them. But to these elements who were connected with us we would like to say three things.

The first thing: the Trotskyite organisation became a centre for all counter-revolutionary forces; the Right organisation which was connected with it and which was about to merge with it, is just such another centre for all the counter-revolutionary forces in the country. The Government authorities will be able to cope with these terrorist organisations. On the basis of our own experience we have not the slightest doubt of this.

But there are in the country semi-Trotskyites, quarter-Trotsky- ites, one-eighth Trotskyites, people who helped us, not knowing of the terrorist organisation but sympathising with us, people who from liberalism, from a Fronde against the Party, gave us this help. To these people we say. when a sea-shell gets under a steel hammer, that is not so dangerous; but when a sea-shell gets into a screw, a propeller, there may be a catastrophe. We are living in times of great strain, we are on the verge of war. Before this Court and in this hour of retribution, we say to these elements: whoever has the slightest rift with the Party, let him realise that tomorrow he may be a diversionist, tomorrow he may be a traitor if he does not thoroughly heal that rift by complete and utter frankness to the Party.

Secondly, we must say to the Trotskyite elements in France, Spain and other countries-and there are such-that the experience of the Russian Revolution has shown that Trotskyism is a wrecker of the Labour Movement. We must warn them that if they do not learn from our experience, they will pay for it with their heads.

And finally, we must say to the whole world, to all who are struggling for peace: Trotskyism is the instrument of the war- mongers. We must say that with a firm voice, because we have learned it by our own bitter experience. It has been extremely hard for us to admit this, but it is an historical fact, for the truth of which we shall pay with our heads.

This is all that I personally want to say, so that the responsibility

597




I shall be called upon to bear may not only be a physical responsibility, but may also be of some little use.

We cannot, nor can I, ask for clemency, we have no right to it. And I will say--there is no pride here : what pride can there be ?- that we do not need this clemency. 'Life in the next few years, in the next five or ten years, when the fate of the world will be in the balance, can have no meaning: only under one condition, and that is, if one is able to take part in the work of life, even in the roughest. But what has occurred precludes this. And in that case clemency would be only needless torture. We are a fairly closely-knit crew; but when Nikolai Ivanovich Muralov, Trotsky's closest follower, of whom I was convinced that he would rather perish in prison than say a single word-when he gave testimony and explained that he did not want to die in the consciousness that his name would be a banner for every counter-revolutionary scoundrel-that is the profoundest result of this trial.

We all realise to the full the instruments of what historical forces we have been. It is very sad that we have realised this so late, despite all our learning. But may this realisation be of service to others.

598



Date post:	19-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phamhanh
View:	216 times
Download:	1 times

Radek's Last Plea

Documents