>>376875LMao this faggot is combining 2 different things: The Ezhovschina and the Moscow Trials. Why do trots struggle to understand basic history or theory?
The Ezhovschina
* IN 1937* (or as Anna Louise Strong called it, The Great Madness - book attached go read that chapter) was in response to the Moscow Trials where people became very paranoid because of:
-The Moscow Trials
-The Spanish Civil War and introduction of the term "fifth column" in 1936 during the war. They began to perceive (rightfully to a much lesser degree in my opinion) that there were a set fifth columnists in Soviet Union leading to everyone and their gran denouncing their neighbour
-The understanding in all of Soviet society that WW2 was about to break out as Soviets were effectively fighting Nazis and Italians in Spain already
These are 2 separate things that slightly overlap but yes the Ezhovschina undoubtedly picked up innocent people
<<Arrest Quotas for suspects (p. 471-76, Document 170).The famous mistranslated "Quotas" during the Ezhovschina when they were actually "limits"
Sounds like a trivial difference until you realise:
Local Party groups had huge amounts of autonomy and Soviet society wasn't actually run by Stalin sending decrees out to everyone when they can and can't wipe their arse like the painted characture that exists.
Local groups sent up reports to the CC whereby, from the CC and Stalins point of view, the country was engaged in a massive sea of conspiracies. These local groups were demanding authorisation to repress anti-soviet groups to prevent counter-revolution.
The Central Committee - seeing how this could get out of hand - set maximum limits to the local groups that could be shot afraid that the Local Party groups would get out of control.
<For the next year or more Stalin was flooded with reports of conspiracies and revolts from all over the USSR. A large number of these have been published (in Russian). Undoubtedly a great many more remain unpublished in former Soviet archives throughout the former Soviet Union. According to Khaustov, a very anti-Stalin researcher and one of the compilers of several of these invaluable document collections, Stalin believed these reports.<"And the most frightening thing was that Stalin made his decisions on the basis of confessions that were the result of the inventions of certain employees of the organs of state security. Stalin's reactions attest to the fact that he took these confessions completely seriously." (Lubianka golgofa, p. 6.)<It is important to ideologically anticommunist researchers that these mass murders be seen as Stalin's plan and intention. Khaustov is honest enough to admit that the evidence does not bear this out. Some, and no doubt many, of the confessional and investigative documents Ezhov sent on to Stalin and the Soviet leadership must have been falsifications. But in reality Khaustov has no idea which were fabrications and which were not.<What is important here is that Khaustov admits the existence of a major conspiracy by Ezhov and concedes that Stalin was deceived by him. Ezhov admits as much in the confessions of his that we now have. Khaustov admits that Stalin acted in good faith on the basis of evidence presented to him by Ezhov, much of which must have been false.Furr, Blood Lies,
http://www.readmarxeveryday.org/bloodlies/ch06.html
<NKVD instructions for watching and punishing families of suspects (p. 477, Document 170)You can go read document 170 (most of it is in the Furr link above I provided) whilst it's pretty harsh the people to be shot were specified as white guardists, ex kulaks who had escaped labour camps, criminals
*who were all engaged in anti-soviet activity*.and the family members were unmolested unless they lived in key cities in which case they were to be sent to labour camps
You can say this is harsh…. I'd say its pretty comparable to the Burgers rounding the Japanese into camps during ww2
<Various forms of solitary confinement. (p. 3)Solitary confinement is practised daily all over the West
I agree its a form of torture but to point to Soviets as if this is an anomaly is like when the West Germans were trying to find East German crimes after 1991 and the only thing they could prosecute the East German leaders for was the use of water cannons against protestors
Something that isn't even a crime in USA/UK or France.
What with FRance using them to blow peoples eyes out in the recent protests
<Torture (p. 489)Getty is a retarded faggot. Here's the page these dumb trots referred to with the book attached
>He complained about the secret police, that they applied to him intolerable methods. But he never gave any confession: "I don't admit to anything that they write about me." It was at the NKVD. . . . They worked him over pretty hard. Evidently they tortured him severely. Getty is implying Molotov thinks he's innocent. Yet Molotov thought Rubzutak was guilty
>…The trials fully exposed him [Rudzutak] as an active accomplice of the rightists. He actually had personal associations with Rykov and Tomsky.Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 275
So Rudzutak (if we are to believe that dishonest faggot Getty who is pretending Molotov thought Rudzutak was innocent when Molotov actually said he was guilty) if he was tortured…
He never confessed and he never signed anything
But I thought torture turned people into automatons willing to go up in front of a court and give long detailed confessions in cross examinations?!
So which is it? Torture works and you can get people to confess so convincingly in front of a crowd of international diplomats that they go away thinking the trials were real?
Or is it much more likely those accused would never have confessed if they hadn't done it in the first place
The article is a retarded conclusion by any measure. It says Bukharin didn't confess to certain things.
But he did confess to a fucking lot though
For instance he admitted to wanting to overthrow the party but not to espionage (attached)
So Bukharin did admit to stuff he would be shot for but then supposedly denied involvement in other stuff.
But he was tortured or so we're told (with no evidence of his torture)
The entire trial people lied consistently. Bukharin particularly. He only confessed to things when the prosecution mounted evidence piece by piece on him and he admitted to things only when he was caught bang to rights.
The confusion between the Moscow Trials and Ezhovschina shows this author doesn't really know anything