DEWEY: There are a few things first for the record. The Platform of the Opposition has been identified as extending from page 23 through to 195 of the book that was put in evidence this morning.
GOLDMAN: Let the record show that the book, The Real Situation in Russia, by Leon Trotsky, contains the Platform of the Opposition, beginning on page 23 to 195, and has been introduced before the Commission as Exhibit No.13.
DEWEY: The next is a telegram from President Cardenas, which was sent to the border at Laredo, but was not delivered there and has been retransmitted, giving the members of the Commission leave to pass the border. As you see, we did pass, and it will be appended to the permanent record. I understand that this telegram, as well as several others I will bring attention to, have already been appended to the record by our reporter.
The next copies, two cables received from abroad. One from Zurich on April 7th, Switzerland, gives a mandate to New York to hold a commission there. And one from Paris, of which I am reading the translation: “The French Committee gives full powers to the American Committee to conduct the international inquiry and will send delegates to New York.” This was already appended to the record. These are, of course, answers to the cables of invitation to the European groups.
Several telegrams have been received from labor unions, trade unions, in congratulation of the efforts to have a fair and impartial hearing, and they also have been appended to the permanent record.
They come from the Electrical Workers Union of Minneapolis, Local 292, the Drivers Union, Local 544, Minneapolis, the President of the Warehouse and Inside Workers Union, Local 20,136 of Minneapolis, and the agent of the Furniture Workers Union of Minneapolis. From Los Angeles, from the Patrolman Sailors Union of the Pacific, President of District Council No.4, Maritime Federation of the Pacific. From Philadelphia, Chapter 10 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
As I said, these will be or already have been appended to the permanent record.
I wish also on my own behalf to make a brief statement: As Chairman of this Preliminary Commission of Inquiry, I am, of course, responsible for the conduct of its internal affairs. I wish first to say that Mr. Beals – that he was in the city the day of the final draft of the opening address read by me at the first session, April 10th, is entirely correct. My remark this morning that he was not here to be consulted referred to the previous days in which the other members of the Commission were conferring together about the material to be contained in the opening address. I am sure that if we had had the benefit of Mr. Beals’s counsel, that address would have benefited.
Mr. Beals’s statement this morning was the first knowledge I had that he had not seen the opening document. I do not say this to excuse myself, but because I accept fully the fact that it was the responsibility of the Chairman to make sure that he had seen the document and approved or disapproved its contents. I mention the fact, then, simply formally to acknowledge that responsibility and formally to record my regret that it was not satisfactorily fulfilled.
BEALS:I would just like to remark that the matter of who was to blame, if anybody, for my not having seen the statement of the Commission prior to its delivery is quite immaterial. As I stated, I feel not in harmony with the rest of the Commission. I had to mention the fact as my reason for making independent opinions – in short, my several constructive suggestions, which I still hope the Commission will accept. I repeat, I am in accord with the Commission’s statement with the exception of the reservations previously made this morning.
GOLDMAN: Since we are making declarations for the record, I would like to make one myself: The Commission’s counsel, Mr. Finerty, has advised the Commission that the absence of relations between the USSR and Mexico is not necessarily a legal obstacle to the extradition of one in Mexico accused of a crime by the USSR. I have no references at hand, but if I am not in error, Mr. Finerty is supported by the possibility of the USSR asking for such extradition through a mutually friendly power, of which there are many. Moreover, the Commission should note that the USSR was in no way legally barred from asking Mr. Trotsky’s extradition from Norway before, during or after the trial of Zinoviev et al., in August. Finally, Mr. Trotsky has stated that he is not responsible for the absence of relations between the USSR and Mexico, and that in any case, he is now ready to proceed to the soil of any country which has an extradition treaty with the USSR, there to stand trial in response to a request from the USSR for extradition. He has repeatedly asked through the world press that the USSR seek his extradition; he repeats the challenge today through the world press represented here, and awaits the action of the Soviet Government.
Now, this morning, Mr. Chairman, I meant to read into the record certain excerpts which will throw light on the attitude of Mr. Trotsky to the defendants in the trial of Zinoviev and Kamenev, especially to the main defendants, Zinoviev and Kamenev. I would like the indulgence of the Commission for three or four minutes, to read into the record certain very important excerpts from letters and documents, and pamphlets written by Mr. Trotsky. Now, a letter sent by Leon Trotsky from Alma-Ata, his place of exile prior to his forced journey to Turkey, dated May 9, 1928:
“The sense of the declaration is: Speak out what is! No exaggerations, no blinking the facts of the actual official efforts to get out of the hole, but also no diplomacy, no falsehood, no lies, no rotten, petty politics in the spirit of Zinoviev-Kamenev-Pyatakov ...
It is superfluous to say that the tone of the letter must be entirely tranquil, so that what is may be seen quite clearly – namely, that the policy of narrow-mindedness of the epigones has not embittered us in the slightest – politics knows no anger – we look higher and further than that ...”
Here is a quotation from another letter sent ―
TROTSKY: Excuse me, the letter concerns our declaration to the Congress of the Communist International. I explained in the letter in what manner we should make our declaration.
GOLDMAN: The first letter read now to the Commission?
FINERTY: What date?
GOLDMAN: May 19, 1928. Here is another letter Mr. Trotsky sent from Alma-Ata, on August 10, 1928:
It is clear to every thinking man that it is not Zinoviev-Kamenev-Pyatakov and Co. who are inside the Party, but we and you. We participate actively in the Party’s life. Our documents are read by the Congress delegations. Some hundreds of signatures under our manifestoes are a great political fact. But the former chairman of the Comintern ―
The former chairman is Zinoviev.
– and all his miserable group do not exist politically. Zinoviev himself is forced to declare that now one can only keep quiet and wait. These people have re-entered not the Party, but the Centrosoyus [central coöperative organization].
TROTSKY: That is because Zinoviev had the name of a functionary on this body.
GOLDMAN: Mr. Trotsky underlines to say that Zinoviev after his capitulation was named as a functionary in the central cooperative organization. In the book My Life, by Trotsky, on page 427 ―
FINERTY: Published when?
GOLDMAN: 1929. On page 427, there is an excerpt which gives Mr. Trotsky’s characterization of Zinoviev during the attack on Petrograd.
FINERTY: Is that the English edition?
GOLDMAN: The English edition.
TROTSKY: That is not so important.
GOLDMAN: I am not going to read it. I am just giving the page. In a letter to Mikhael Okudzhava, dated May 26, 1928, from Alma Ata, Mr. Trotsky says:
The way we have progressed has convinced me beyond any doubt that we were and are right, not only against the weather-cocks and turncoats (Zinovievs, Kamenevs, Pyatakovs, etc.) but also against our dear friends on the left – the ultra-lefts (Sapronov) .... (Excerpt from My Life, page 552.)
TROTSKY: Sapronov denied the necessity for the defense of the Soviet Union. This was a distinction between our opposition and the ultra-lefts.
GOLDMAN: In The History of the Russian Revolution, Volume No.1, by Leon D. Trotsky, on page 500, there is a characterization of Kamenev and Zinoviev. Also on page 45 of Volume No.2. The excerpt from Volume No.1 was written some time in 1930, and Volume No.2 was written some time in May 1932. These are characterizations made by Mr. Trotsky of Kamenev and Zinoviev. In the Russian Bulletin, translated in the Militant April 19, 1930 – the Militant published in New York – there are excerpts from that Russian Bulletin, written by –
FRANKEL (Trotsky’s secretary): Written under the name of “Alpha.”
GOLDMAN: Written under the name of “Alpha,” but actually by Mr. Trotsky. I have excerpts here which can be found in the Militant, entitled Lessons on the Capitulations – Some Reflections. I have some more excerpts from the Russian Bulletin, from a letter from the USSR, dated November 25 and 26. It is written November 15, 1931, and published in the Bulletin, November-December 1931 ―
DEWEY: You mean the Bulletin of the Opposition?
GOLDMAN: The Bulletin of the Opposition: The excerpt reads:
... No news on the capitulationist front. Zinoviev is painfully writing a book on the Second International. Politically neither he nor Kamenev exists ...
Another excerpt from the article Zinoviev and Kamenev, appearing in the Russian Bulletin of the Opposition in July 1935, written by Mr. Trotsky: “... Their personal fate is profoundly tragic. When the future historian wants to show how cruelly epochs of great shocks destroy people, he will use the example of Zinoviev and Kamenev ...” This was written May 23, 1933.
TROTSKY: And July 1933 is the time of the “unified center,”
GOLDMAN: You mean the alleged unified center?
TROTSKY: Yes; I said that satirically.
GOLDMAN: Here is the declaration of Kamenev and Zinoviev to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and to the Control Commission. It reads as follows:
To the Central Committee of the CPSU and to the Control Commission: Comrades Yaroslavsky and Shkiriatov have brought to our attention a document of L. Trotsky dated January 4, 1932, which is an ignoble invention on Trotsky’s part, pretending that we discussed with Comrade Stalin in 1924-25 the opportunity for a terrorist act against Trotsky, and that subsequently, when we went over to the Opposition, we told him of this discussion. All this is a perfidious lie, with the evident purpose of compromising our party. Only a diseased mentality like Trotsky’s, thoroughly empoisoned with the thirst of making a sensation before bourgeois audiences and always ready to come out with the dribble and hate of the past of our party, is capable of imagining such an ignoble lie. It is beyond question that never could we have discussed such a question, nor even made an allusion to it in the Party circles, and we never said any such a thing to Trotsky.
All this has been invented by him from beginning to end, and is one of the methods adopted in the infamous struggle that he is carrying on against the party of Lenin and its leadership in the past as at present, for the profit and pleasure of counter-revolution. The statement from Trotsky pretending that in our Bolshevik Party one can be forced to make lying statements on this subject is the established procedure of a master blackmailer.”
GOLDMAN: Have you the date of this?
VAN HEIJENOORT (Trotsky’s Secretary): The 13th of February 1932.
DEWEY: February ―
GOLDMAN: February 13, 1932. That was a little while before the alleged unified center.
TROTSKY: It was the time of the preparation of the center, after the meeting with Smirnov in the Summer of 1931.
GOLDMAN: This is an excerpt from a letter of Mr. Trotsky to Albert Weisbord, published in the Militant September 10, 1932. The letter was written on May 24, 1932, and the following is the excerpt:
Zinoviev and Kamenev represent highly qualified elements. Under the régime of Lenin, they accomplished very responsible work, in spite of their insufficiency, which was well understood by Lenin. The régime of Stalin condemned Zinoviev and Kamenev to political death. The same thing can be said of Bukharin and many others. The ideological and moral decomposition of Radek is witness not only of the fact that Radek is not made of first-class material, but also of the fact that the Stalinist régime can rely only upon impersonal “chinovniks” or morally decomposed individuals.
This letter was translated into German and French, sent to all groups and sections of the International Left Opposition, and published in the International Bulletin.
TROTSKY: “Chinovniks” means “functionaries” or “bureaucrats.”
GOLDMAN: This is what Trotsky thought of Zinoviev and Kamenev, Bukharin and Radek.
LAFOLLETTE: What is the date of that?
GOLDMAN: May 24, 1932 – that is the date of the letter. Now, will you proceed with the statement you were making with reference to Radek, Mr. Trotsky, at the time of the conclusion of the last session?
TROTSKY: I stated that in May, 1932 – the same time as I wrote Weisbord – I believe, a German paper, the Berliner Tageblatt, published a special issue concerning the Soviet Union, and in it was an article by Radek. The article of Radek was almost, as a work, directed against me. He said in the German publication that I had lost my belief in Socialism. I answered in the Russian Bulletin with an article entitled, A Light-Minded Man on a Serious Question.
GOLDMAN: That was when?
TROTSKY: It was in May 1932. My answer is published in No.28 of the Russian Bulletin, June 1932. The article is published in a special issue of the Berliner Tageblatt – that is, Radek’s article.
FINERTY: Will a copy of that be furnished for the record?
GOLDMAN: Yes, a copy will be furnished for the record.
TROTSKY: Yes, the whole Bulletin will be put in evidence. On November 21, 1935 – it was three weeks before Pyatakov’s flight to Oslo ―
GOLDMAN: Pardon me, you mean the alleged flight to Oslo.
TROTSKY: In my answers all these references are in quotations. (Laughter.) Radek described – it is an interview about the history of the Civil War – how Stalin was the organizer of the victories, without mentioning my name. This is three weeks before the alleged flight of Pyatakov to Oslo. In January 1935 Zinoviev, Kamenev and others were sentenced in connection with the Kirov assassination to some years in prison. During the trial they devoted themselves to proving their efforts “to re-establish capitalism.” In the Bulletin of the Opposition, I described this accusation as a frame-up. Who came to Vyshinsky’s defense? Radek! He wrote in Pravda, “It is not a question of knowing whether capitalism is the ideal of Messrs. Trotsky and Zinoviev, but whether the building of Socialism is impossible in our country.” That was January 1935, when Radek was supposed to be a leading member of, an alleged leading member of, the alleged parallel center. In his last article, in August 21, 1936, he denounces me as having given the order to Blumkin to attack the Soviet representatives abroad for the purpose of getting money for my counter-revolutionary activity. He was not arrested at that time. He was free at that time – that is, Radek, and a member of the same center. He wrote his article about the Hetman Trotsky, in which he says about me: “He forced Blumkin to steal money from the Soviet commercial representatives abroad to be used for counterrevolutionary activity.” That was the answer to me from my “representative” in the Soviet Union.
STOLBERG: It was in Pravda?
TROTSKY: It was published in Pravda and Izvestia. I quoted from Izvestia, which I received from New York, dated the 21st of August, 1936.
GOLDMAN: This refers to a document that was introduced as an exhibit.
TROTSKY: Will you permit me one quotation more? In Spain, Maurin began to publish a paper called Adelante, with a list of contributors. I was named without my previous authorization. I wrote on the 3rd of October, 1933, to the editor of this Spanish paper. It is in French. I wrote it in French. Named in the list was also Karl Radek. I wrote: “The name of Radek gives to this list an absolutely fantastic and incomprehensible character. I insist that the editor cease to make misuse of my name.”
GOLDMAN: Now, were you in communication with Radek, either directly or indirectly, since you left the Soviet Union, Mr. Trotsky?
TROTSKY: The only communications are represented by the quotations; no other communication.
GOLDMAN: You mean that you wrote about him, but you did not write to him?
GOLDMAN: Did you receive any letters from him?
GOLDMAN: Did you send letters to him through an intermediary?
GOLDMAN: For the purpose of the record and for the information of the Commission, I shall go into the question of Vladimir Romm, as the alleged intermediary between Mr. Trotsky and Radek, later on.
DEWEY: I was going to ask you whether the famous letter will come up later.
GOLDMAN: It will come up later. Now, Mr. Trotsky, how long have you known Pyatakov, another defendant in the last trial, the January trial of this year?
TROTSKY: Personally, I met him for the first time during the Civil War. It was in 1918 or 1919. I had some information about him before, in emigration, in exile, but for the first time I met him after the October Revolution.
GOLDMAN: What were your personal relations with him?
TROTSKY: Very good.
GOLDMAN: Was he a member of the Left Opposition?
TROTSKY: He was a member of the Left Opposition.
GOLDMAN: From the very beginning?
TROTSKY: From 1923 to the end of 1927.
GOLDMAN: What happened to him in 1927?
TROTSKY: He capitulated.
GOLDMAN: Was he expelled at the Fifteenth Congress?
GOLDMAN: That was in November 1927?
TROTSKY: In December.
GOLDMAN: December of 1927?
GOLDMAN: When did he capitulate?
TROTSKY: He capitulated openly, publicly; he capitulated in February 1928. He was the first “Trotskyite” who capitulated publicly.
GOLDMAN: And after that did you have any correspondence with him at all?
GOLDMAN: Either when you were in the Soviet Union or outside of the Soviet Union?
GOLDMAN: Have you written any letters or any articles which would give an idea of what you thought of Pyatakov?
TROTSKY: Yes, many articles and letters.
GOLDMAN: Will you cite some of these articles and letters for the benefit of the Commission?
TROTSKY: Here is a letter about two conciliatory Oppositionists who began to capitulate. It is from Alma-Ata, and 1928 is the date. It must have been the first half of 1928:
... The essence of the platform written by you is only this: “It would be well to return to the Party and to restore the world to harmony.” But to return by what door? There are two doors: The Zinovievist-capitulationist one and the Bolshevik one, through the continuation and extension of the ideological struggle. There is not any third door; there has not been and there will not be. Pyatakov looked for it, Safarov looked for it. Sarkis looked for it. Who are they? Political corpses. Who believes in them? Nobody. They don’t even believe in themselves. They opened the door for Pyatakov, not only into the party but into the State bank.
He was named the chief of the State Bank after the capitulation – that is, Pyatakov. But a more important letter is written by me on March 17, 1928, to Byeleborodov.
GOLDMAN: Who is Byeleborodov?
TROTSKY: Byeleborodov was a very prominent member of the Bolshevik Party and a former member of the Central Committee.
GOLDMAN: Was he a Left Oppositionist?
TROTSKY: Yes. He was also arrested and deported to Siberia and then capitulated. I wrote:
Dear Alexandre Gavrilovitch: ... You speak in your letter, on the basis of Pravda, of Pyatakov’s little letter of confession. We received the copy of Pravda with this letter only today. You speak of Pyatakov’s deceitful and stupid document with indignation. I can fully understand that, but I must acknowledge that I myself do not harbor this sentiment, since for a long time I have considered Pyatakov to be a man politically finished. In moments of frankness he told me more than once, in a tired and skeptical tone, that politics did not interest him, and that he wants to return to the position of “spetz.” More than once I told him, half smiling, half-seriously, that if, one fine morning, he found himself under Bonaparte, he would take his portfolio and would go to his office, inventing on the way some miserable pseudo-Marxist “theory” in order to justify himself ... When we entered into sharp but transitory discussions with you, what distressed me most was the fact that some comrades do not want, so to speak, to see that Pyatakov is a political corpse, who pretends to be alive and hastily invents all sorts of sophisms to give himself the appearance of a revolutionary politician. Evidently, some great European or world revolutionary wave can revive Pyatakov: Lazarus was revived, although he was dead ... In such a case Pyatakov, left to himself, will inevitably make leftist errors. Lenin’s word was also correct at the time when he said that it is impossible to rely on Pyatakov in great questions.
... I have had occasion to speak with Pyatakov hundreds of times, in company as well as tête à tête. This fact alone testifies that I was never indifferent to the question of knowing whether Pyatakov would be with us or against us. But it is precisely these numerous meetings and discussions which have convinced me that Pyatakov’s thinking, with all his capacities, is absolutely devoid of dialectic force, and that in his character there is much more insolence than will power. For me it was clear a long time ago that at the first test of “Split” this material would not hold ...
FINERTY: What is the date of that?
TROTSKY: March 17, 1928.
GOLDMAN: Subsequent to that, did you ―
TROTSKY: It was subsequent to his first declaration of capitulation.
GOLDMAN: Subsequent to that date, did you write anything against Pyatakov?
TROTSKY: He is named in almost each article devoted to the capitulators.
GOLDMAN: The Commission will note that his name was included in the excerpt that I read this afternoon with particular reference to Zinoviev and Kamenev. His name is included with Zinoviev and Kamenev. Is there anything else that you would like to read to us which would throw light on your attitude toward Pyatakov?
TROTSKY: If you permit me, I will quote three or four lines from a letter from prison concerning the capitulators.
GOLDMAN: What prison?
TROTSKY: From the isolator. It is not indicated here for conspirative purposes.
GOLDMAN: A prison in what country?
TROTSKY: In the Soviet Union.
GOLDMAN: When did you receive this letter?
TROTSKY: This letter was sent October 12, 1930, and published in the Bulletin of the Opposition, November-December 1930.
GOLDMAN: And at that time, could letters be sent from prison?
TROTSKY: Yes; not in a legal way. I will show you letters which we received from prisons at that time. The prisons had very many people in them. They were very crowded, and that is the reason why the order was not severe. We had at that time a possibility to communicate with some comrades in prison by letters sent through intermediaries. They sent to us their programmatic declarations, which I will submit in original form to the Commission. They had very important declarations. They had their magazine in prison. I will later explain the reason for this liberalism by the bureaucracy, which tried to introduce a split in our ranks. I quote: “We do not discuss with the capitulators. We merely exclude them from our ranks and keep them out of the argument.” From Siberia, at that time, I received a collective photograph, with a capitulator who capitulated after the photo was taken, and he is indicated in there with a cross.
GOLDMAN: I introduce the photo which the witness refers to, showing the picture of thirteen men and a woman.
TROTSKY: There are the names on the back.
GOLDMAN: And the names of the persons whose photos were taken are on the back, with one face marked by a cross, indicating a capitulator. I introduce that as Exhibit No.14.
DEWEY: That cross might have been made at any time since.
GOLDMAN: When you received this photo. Mr. Trotsky, did you take a look at it immediately?
GOLDMAN: You took it out from an envelope?
TROTSKY: If you took a chemical analysis of it, I am sure it would prove the ink is at least five – five or six years old.
GOLDMAN: Did you take the photo out of an envelope?
TROTSKY: I am not sure that it was in an envelope.
GOLDMAN: You took it out?
GOLDMAN: At the time you took it out, did you see the cross on the face?
TROTSKY: It was made especially for me. At the same time, if you permit two lines that Rakovsky wrote – it was published by me in November-December, 1930 – in a letter ―
GOLDMAN: Who is Rakovsky?
TROTSKY: Rakovsky is my old friend, my genuine old friend, the former Chairman of the Council of the People’s Commissariat of Ukraine. He was later the ambassador to London and Paris, a member of the Central Committee, and a member of the Left Opposition. He resisted until 1934. We had news – I am not sure it is correct – that he tried to escape from Siberia and that he was wounded; that he remained for some time in the hospital in the Kremlin, and only after that he capitulated. The only thing I am sure about is that he capitulated in 1934. He wrote in 1930 about relations in deportation, the isolator, and about the capitulations.
GOLDMAN: Have you anything, letters or other material, to indicate your relationship with Rakovsky, and what you thought of him?
TROTSKY: My relationship with him?
GOLDMAN: What you thought of him?
TROTSKY: I have now in my hands – the Commission asked me to be as brief as possible, but I can present two or three quotations.
GOLDMAN: Well, we will come to them.
FINERTY: Mr. Goldman, I suggest that Mr. Trotsky state the period over which he published articles hostile to Pyatakov.
GOLDMAN: Will you state the dates between which you published articles and wrote letters characterizing Pyatakov?
GOLDMAN: From what date to what date?
TROTSKY: That I will present tomorrow.
GOLDMAN: In general, give us the dates, the time when you began writing articles against Pyatakov and the time you finished.
TROTSKY: I must say that Pyatakov was not a journalist. He was an administrator. Radek reminded me of his existence every month, by his articles, and I answered in the Bulletin of the Opposition. Pyatakov I forgot for months and years. He was a quiet and calm administrator and forgotten by the whole world. But I believe in every article I mentioned among the foremost prominent capitulators – I named Pyatakov. Those were in the first year of the capitulations; then he lost his importance for me.
FINERTY: Did you during the period of 1931 to 1936 – do you have anything in which you wrote something about Pyatakov?
TROTSKY: I must try to find it out.
GOLDMAN: Do you know G.Y. Sokolnikov?
TROTSKY: I knew him very well.
GOLDMAN: When did you first meet him?
TROTSKY: I was in correspondence with him during the war. He was a contributor to the Russian paper edited by me in Paris, called Nashe Slovo.
GOLDMAN: When was that, in what year?
TROTSKY: It was from 1914 to 1916. I edited the paper during two and a half years and he contributed, from Switzerland, articles.
GOLDMAN: Did you see him in Moscow or Petrograd upon your return from the United States?
TROTSKY: Yes, he was a member of the Central Committee during the October Revolution, with Stalin. They were both editors of the central organ of the Party, Pravda – Stalin and Sokolnikov.
GOLDMAN: When was that?
TROTSKY: It was 1917.
GOLDMAN: Was he a member of the Left Opposition?
STOLBERG: Was he a member of the Bolshevik Party before 1914?
STOLBERG: Was he a member of the Bolshevik Party before 1914?
TROTSKY: He was a member of the Bolshevik Party, but I believe he belonged at that time to a certain opposition in the Bolshevik Party. But I am not very well acquainted with his past.
GOLDMAN: What group did he belong to in the years when the Left Opposition was waging its political struggle against the majority of the Party?
TROTSKY: To the right wing of the Party.
GOLDMAN: To the Bukharin group?
TROTSKY: Not Bukharin. He had a more individual position. The best characterization is by a statement of Radek in 1927. In August 1927 – in the beginning of September 1927, immediately after the session of the Central Committee in August 1927 – Radek wrote:
The tendency toward Thermidorian degeneration of the Party and its leading institutions is expressed in the following points: ... (d) in the line of augmenting the weight of the Party apparatus as against the organizations at the base of the Party, which finds its classic expression in the declaration of Stalin to the Plenum (August 1927): “These cadres can be removed only by civil war” – in the declaration which is ... the classic formula of the Bonapartist coup d’état; (e) in the foreign policy projected by Sokolnikov. It is necessary to name these tendencies openly as Thermidorianism ... and to say openly that they find their complete expression in the Central Committee in its right wing (Rykov, Kalinin, Vorishilov, Sokolnikov) and partly in the center (Stalin). It is necessary to say openly that the Thermidorian tendencies are growing ...
GOLDMAN: For the benefit of those who might not be so well acquainted with the theoretical terms, would you mind explaining what “Thermidor” means?
TROTSKY: “Thermidor” is the reaction after the revolution, but a reaction which does not succeed in changing the social basis of the new order.
GOLDMAN: It refers ―
TROTSKY: It is an analogy cited from the French Revolution. The French Revolution destroyed the feudal property rights in favor of the bourgeoisie, but in the Bonapartist regime, the order of reaction, the new form of property remained, the bourgeois form of property remained. The same idea is ―
GOLDMAN: To the best of your information, when was Sokolnikov expelled from the Party?
TROTSKY: Sokolnikov was not expelled from the Party.
GOLDMAN: Sokolnikov was not expelled from the Party?
TROTSKY: No, he was a sympathizer of the Right. He was a friend of Kamenev; he was suspected of being an Oppositionist. But at the Fifteenth Congress he declared that he had no differences with the Party. His words were met with applause, and he was elected a member of the Central Committee at the same Congress which expelled us.
DEWEY: Would he give the date of the Fifteenth Congress for those of us who are not so familiar with it?
GOLDMAN: December 1927. Was Sokolnikov ever in disfavor with the ruling, bureaucratic apparatus, as far as you know – before the trials, I mean?
TROTSKY: Sokolnikov has original ideas. He has a very inventive mind, and that is the reason why he is not fit, he does not fit into the bureaucratic régime.
GOLDMAN: Did you ever have any communication from him when you left Russia?
GOLDMAN: Did you in any way communicate with him since you left Russia?
GOLDMAN: Either directly or indirectly?
GOLDMAN: Do you know L.P. Serebryakov, one of the defendants?
TROTSKY: Yes; he is a real old member of the Bolshevik Party, one of the builders of the Bolshevik Party, the same as Smirnov. He was a member of the Central Committee for a certain time, and secretary of the Central Committee. He took part in the Civil War – a friend of mine, a good friend, and a member of the Left Opposition from 1923 to 1929, or the end of 1928. He capitulated.
GOLDMAN: Since his capitulation, have you had any communication with him?
GOLDMAN: Did you write any letters to him?
GOLDMAN: Receive any letters from him?
GOLDMAN: Did you give any messages to anybody to transmit to him?
TROTSKY: To nobody.
GOLDMAN: Now tell us what you know of N.I. Muralov, one of the defendants in the last trial.
TROTSKY: Muralov was a member of the Central Control Commission, one of the heroes of the Civil War, and commander-in-chief of the Moscow Military District, my friend, and my companion in hunting. We were in the best relations with him. He is not a political man. He is a soldier, a revolutionary soldier, and very honest, an exceptionally honest man. He abandoned the Opposition without any declaration, a written declaration. But he abandoned politics. He became a “spetz,” just as Pyatakov, and stayed in Siberia. He is an agronomist by profession. [“Spetz” is an abbreviation for “specialist” – A.M.G.]
GOLDMAN: When did you hear from him last?
TROTSKY: I had some information about him. I believe, in 1929 or 1930. It is possible that I have a postal card from him, but a personal card. I am referring – I am not sure about that either.
GOLDMAN: Did you ever send him any letters on political matters?
TROTSKY: On political matters? The mail communications with the Oppositionists were interrupted from 1930, 1931, and 1932, absolutely.
GOLDMAN: You mean you could not get any communications?
TROTSKY: We tried many times to reach Rakovsky and Muralov and others.
GOLDMAN: In what years?
TROTSKY: 1931 and 1932. But we must absolutely abandon every attempt in this respect, because the control became very severe. All letters were confiscated. Beginning from 1930, the GPU began to accuse people in relations with me of espionage. It was a very dangerous thing to send letters to me.
GOLDMAN: Since that time, you did not have any letters from Muralov?
GOLDMAN: Send any?
GOLDMAN: Did you know anyone by the name of Y.A. Livshitz?
TROTSKY: Only from the reports about the trial.
GOLDMAN: You don’t know him personally?
GOLDMAN: You had no communications from him or sent any communications to him?
GOLDMAN: Do you know Y.N. Drobnis?
GOLDMAN: What were your relations with him?
TROTSKY: Our relations were of a friendly nature. He worked in the Ukraine. He was an old worker and member of the Party, two times condemned to death by the Whites during the Civil War. One time he was fusillated [shot – A.M.G.] by the Whites, but only wounded. When the Whites must abandon the town, the Reds found him among the corpses. He belonged to the Opposition, but not to my group. He belonged to the group of Sapronov. It was named an ultra-left group. But he was in sympathy personally with me. Before my deportation he came to me and gave me a gift.
GOLDMAN: Where, in Alma-Ata or Moscow?
TROTSKY: No, in Moscow. He gave me a pencil and fountain pen.
GOLDMAN: Was he expelled from the Party, to the best of your knowledge?
GOLDMAN: Did he capitulate?
TROTSKY: Yes, in 1928 or 1929.
GOLDMAN: He was expelled at the Fifteenth Congress, was he?
TROTSKY: Yes, with all the others.
GOLDMAN: Since then, have you heard from him?
GOLDMAN: Have you written to him?
GOLDMAN: Do you know M.S. Boguslavsky?
GOLDMAN: What do you know about him; what were your relations with him?
TROTSKY: He was connected with Drobnis and Sapronov, and had been for a long time in the same group.
GOLDMAN: The ultra-left group?
TROTSKY: The ultra-left group. He was in that group, he belonged to them, but he did not have any animosity to me. We were personally friendly. He was for a certain time the chairman of an important commission of the Council of the People’s Commissariat. I met him there and got to know him personally.
GOLDMAN: Was he expelled at the Fifteenth Congress?
TROTSKY: In the same manner as the others.
GOLDMAN: When did he return to the Party – when did he capitulate?
TROTSKY: It was together with Smirnov in November of 1929.
GOLDMAN: Did you have any communication with him prior to his capitulation, before his capitulation?
TROTSKY: Possibly, in the time I was in Alma-Ata, he wrote me a letter before his capitulation.
GOLDMAN: You don’t remember?
TROTSKY: I don’t remember.
GOLDMAN: After his capitulation, did you communicate with him?
GOLDMAN: You received no letters from him?
GOLDMAN: You sent him no messages?
GOLDMAN: Do you know I.A. Knyazev?
GOLDMAN: When did you first see the name?
TROTSKY: Only from the reports of the trial.
GOLDMAN: Do you know S A. Rataichak?
GOLDMAN: When did you first see the name?
TROTSKY: From the records of the trial.
GOLDMAN: Do you know B.O. Norkin?
GOLDMAN: When did you first see the name?
TROTSKY: From the trial report.
GOLDMAN: Do you know A.A. Shestov?
GOLDMAN: You first saw the name from the reports of the trial?
GOLDMAN: Is the same true of M.S. Stroilov?
TROTSKY: The same, absolutely.
GOLDMAN: You never knew him?
GOLDMAN: You first saw the name in the reports of the trial?
GOLDMAN: What about Y.D. Turok?
TROTSKY: The same.
GOLDMAN: And I. Y. Hrasche?
TROTSKY: The same.
GOLDMAN: You never knew him, and the first time you saw the name was in the reports of the trial?
GOLDMAN: What about G.E. Pushin?
TROTSKY: The same.
GOLDMAN: And the first time you saw the name was in the reports of the trial?
GOLDMAN: How about V.V. Arnold?
TROTSKY: The same.
GOLDMAN: You never knew him?
DEWEY: We will take a short recess now.
GOLDMAN: Now. Mr. Trotsky, you have given us a short biography of the principal defendants in the two trials, and you have mentioned certain defendants whom you have identified as not knowing at all. You have told us that the main defendants were either never Trotskyites or, if they were at one time, were capitulators. Can you give us an idea briefly as to the followers of yours who actually remained loyal to the Left Opposition up to the present time, the recent period?
TROTSKY: I name two. Rakovsky and Sosnovsky.
GOLDMAN: When did Rakovsky capitulate?
TROTSKY: In 1934.
GOLDMAN: When did Sosnovsky capitulate?
TROTSKY: After Rakovsky, immediately.
GOLDMAN: After Rakovsky?
TROTSKY: Immediately, yes.
GOLDMAN: What other friends of yours remained with you?
TROTSKY: The Elzins, father and son.
TROTSKY: E-l-z-i-n. Dr. Elzin and son, the editor of my works in the Soviet Union, the former editor of my works. Another brother of his died in deportation. Then there is the name of Dinglestedt, who is eight years in prison; Solnzev, who died a year and a half ago on the way from one prison to another; Yakovin, a brilliant scholar, who was an exceptionally brilliant man, who is in prison for eight years. I can name Victor Serge, who succeeded in finding the possibility to go abroad, thanks to the intervention of the French authors and artists. Victor Serge is a very gifted author. He is half Russian and half French. I can name Alexandra Sokolovskaya, my first wife, who is in Siberia, separated from my grandchildren. I don’t know anything about their fate. And I could name many others not so known.
GOLDMAN: Now, during the period of your exile did you communicate with some of these people to whom – whose names you mentioned?
TROTSKY: I communicated with our comrades in the prisons in the first years, but, as I said, the communications were later interrupted by the more severe control.
DEWEY: Might we identify the date when the severe control came into effect?
GOLDMAN: Up to what time, up to what date were you able to communicate with your friends in the Soviet Union?
TROTSKY: It is difficult to name the exact date, because the régime became from time to time more efficient. We tried to send letters, and one of ten letters succeeded in reaching the person in some way. It was, for example, the same with our son.
GOLDMAN: You are referring now to the son who remained in Russia, Sergei?
TROTSKY: Sergei. We sent five – my wife. I abstained from writing in order not to compromise him, but my wife wrote him five or six letters, and then she received one time an answer. Then she tried to send him money through the bank, to have assurance that he was living. But the money came back one time and a second time, and then we lost all communication with him. In the same way it was with our friends in Siberia.
GOLDMAN: Will your record show when was the last time you actually received some communications from your friends in Russia?
TROTSKY: I believe, maybe later there were one or two or three times we had letters, but later is the critical year.
GOLDMAN: After 1931, you say you might have had one or two or three communications?
GOLDMAN: You had no regular communications?
TROTSKY: They were abandoned at the time. Our systematic work to sustain or to have regular communications with them was abandoned. You know, we had three or four Russian comrades abroad who helped us to write postal cards to our friends in Siberia, with general news. From time to time, I wrote also my political opinions on some questions to our friends, young friends, and put them on postal cards and sent out to trusts and known businesses. From time to time, we received answers. It was our method of communication.
GOLDMAN: Have you in your possession some of the things you received?
GOLDMAN: Can you show us samples of one or two of these answers or replies? These came from Russia? (indicating).
TROTSKY: These came from Russia.
GOLDMAN: When is that dated?
TROTSKY: It is not dated at all.
GOLDMAN: Have you any idea when you received it?
TROTSKY: Here is one of 1929, and here is one ―
GOLDMAN: At any rate, I want to show the Commission a sample of a document received from Russia. If the Commissioners can read it, they are welcome to read it.
TROTSKY: Will you show the Commission the theoretical work written in prison?
GOLDMAN: Showing the Commission the letter written in such handwriting that it would require a magnifying glass.
BEALS: Was this letter sent through ordinary mails?
GOLDMAN: It would require a magnifying glass to read this. I show it to the Commission without introducing it into evidence – a theoretical work, I believe.
TROTSKY: It is by the comrades named by me before – the younger comrades like Yakovin and those others. It is an analysis of the economic and political situation in the Soviet Union.
GOLDMAN: Received by Mr. Trotsky in a small box, a little larger than a match box. How many pages of the, Bulletin of the Opposition does this work take up?
TROTSKY: Our Bulletin was not so rich as to publish the work as a whole. We published only the more important parts of this work.
GOLDMAN: How many pages of the Opposition Bulletin did you take up?
TROTSKY: I don’t know; it was in many issues. I can’t say offhand.
FINERTY: What is the date of that?
GOLDMAN: When did you receive that, if you remember?
TROTSKY: You can find it out in the Bulletin. I believe it was 1930 or 1931. It was sent in by the mail, sent by a foreigner who visited the Soviet Union, a sympathizer who had connections with the relatives of the people in prison. And I assure the Commission that it is a very serious work, in spite of the extraordinary ―
DEWEY: Can you tell us the date of the Opposition Bulletin in which this material was utilized?
TROTSKY: If you will permit me, I will get it in ten minutes.
DEWEY: Any time will do.
GOLDMAN: I am not introducing this into evidence.
BEALS: Up to what date was the Opposition Bulletin printed?
TROTSKY: I will find out.
BEALS: Up to what date was the Bulletin printed?
GOLDMAN: Are you still printing that now?
TROTSKY: Yes; the last issue is devoted to the last Moscow trial. I received it from Paris five days ago.
BEALS: You get correspondence for the Bulletin from Russia?
TROTSKY: Unfortunately, in the last times we have no correspondence. The people became absolutely afraid of the idea to be in communication with the Bulletin, and the news we have is mostly from foreigners, sympathizers who visited as tourists the Soviet Union.
BEALS: Up to what time have you correspondence from the Soviet Union published in the Bulletin?
TROTSKY: The last correspondence is from 1931. Then it was more constantly correspondence from letters and communications, such as the meeting of Smirnov in the street with my son. In London one of our English friends met a Russian sympathizer, and he writes his impressions on the news he received from him. We have information, but no regular communication, in spite of certain experience that we have established in illegal communication, because at no time, I believe, in the human history, can you find such a régime as is now in the Soviet Union – a police regime, such a totalitarian police regime.
GOLDMAN: Did you ever make any efforts to get the Russian Bulletin into Russia?
TROTSKY: Yes, we published it in photo form. It is the same, in similar format, by photo. We succeeded in the first years to send this into Russia. For the last years, we abandoned this because it was totally in vain.
GOLDMAN: Did you have any information with reference to those followers or friends of yours who are still in the prisons of the Soviet Union?
TROTSKY: In recent times, we had very good information through Victor Serge. He came in 1936 – he came abroad due to a certain international campaign in his favor. He came abroad directly from Siberia. He was in Siberia with Elzin, one of the most prominent Oppositionists.
GOLDMAN: Did anyone ever escape from the Russian exile – succeed in escaping?
TROTSKY: He didn’t escape.
GOLDMAN: I don’t mean Serge, but any Left Oppositionist.
TROTSKY: Yes, one worker escaped through Persia.
GOLDMAN: In what year?
TROTSKY: In 1935.
GOLDMAN: What is his name?
TROTSKY: His name now is Tarov. But he has another name. He is trying to get to France. I am not sure if it is advisable to give his genuine name. But I can name it in an executive session, because if he succeeds in getting to Europe, we will have one of the best witnesses for the Commission.
GOLDMAN: How about Dr. Ciliga?
TROTSKY: He is a Yugoslavian.
GOLDMAN: Did he belong to the Left Opposition?
TROTSKY: He came to the Soviet Union as a Stalinist. In 1929 he became an Oppositionist, he and his four comrades from the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. He was a member of the Politburo of the Yugoslavian Communist Party.
GOLDMAN: He is available as a witness for the Commission?
TROTSKY: Yes, a very important witness. Politically, he is not with us, he is more between the Marxists and the Anarchists, politically. But it is not a question of his political opinions, but the sincerity of his deposition.
GOLDMAN: You gave us an idea of the relationship that existed between the loyal followers of the Left Opposition and the capitulators. Can you give us any more information that you have at your disposal showing the relationship between these two groups, outside of the photograph you introduced into evidence, and the letters?
TROTSKY: I can only refer to the eighty-four articles written by me, and the books, and my correspondence, because I presented only a few quotations.
GOLDMAN: I think that you misunderstand me. I don’t mean what you wrote about them. I mean the relationship that existed between the persons who remained loyal to the Left Opposition in the Soviet Union, and the capitulators.
TROTSKY: I could quote a letter from an Oppositionist who denounces Radek. He asked him for money for a sick Oppositionist in Siberia. Radek answered – I will quote what this Oppositionist writes: ”in response to a request to help a deported Bolshevik who is gravely ill, Radek refused, adding: ‘He will return more rapidly.’ He measures with his disgusting little standard!” When friends are split, the antagonism is more bitter than between the ruling group and the Opposition as a whole. It is a historical and political law that the relationship between the Oppositionists and the capitulators was all these years more bitter than the relationship between the Oppositionists and the Stalinists.
GOLDMAN: Among the defendants, then, of the last two trials, there is not a single former Oppositionist who did not capitulate before the trials – is that right?
TROTSKY: With the exception only of Muralov; he did not capitulate officially, but abandoned politics. He declared to the bureaucracy that he was not an Oppositionist, only a “spetz.” All of the others capitulated officially, and became my bitterest enemies.
GOLDMAN: Can you give us any opinion as to whether or not Zinoviev had a family?
TROTSKY: Yes. Victor Serge gives us information that after the Kirov assassination there were from 60,000 to 100,000 deportations from Leningrad to Siberia of the families – I ask you to note this number – from 60,000 to 100,000. He pictured the situation of the families at the railroad stations in Siberia, the mothers, the children, and the old fathers, and so on.
GOLDMAN: You mean the families of the Oppositionists?
TROTSKY: The former Oppositionists, the relatives of the Oppositionists.
GOLDMAN: Who were deported?
TROTSKY: To Siberia.
GOLDMAN: And from your personal knowledge, do you know whether Zinoviev had a family, wife and children?
TROTSKY: His son was arrested and his brother-in-law, who is not accused of being with the terrorist group. His brother was met by Victor Serge and Dr. Ciliga in Siberia.
GOLDMAN: How about Muralov – has he a family?
TROTSKY: Yes, but I don’t know anything about him.
GOLDMAN: And Kamenev?
TROTSKY: Also, children and a wife. His first wife is my sister. The first papers announced her deportation to Siberia. She is an old woman, absolutely not a member of our political group, and never took part in our political activity.
GOLDMAN: How about Radek? Do you know whether he has a family?
TROTSKY: I have no information about his family. He has a wife and son-in-law, but I don’t know their fate.
GOLDMAN: This ends the examination with reference to the relationship to the defendants, and I wish now to proceed to the question of the evidence produced at the last two trials.
FINERTY: It was suggested that perhaps the record should show more information as to who Blumkin was.
TROTSKY: This political work was published in November-December, 1931, in the Bulletin of the Opposition.
GOLDMAN: Referring to the ―
TROTSKY: Here is only a dozen pages in this issue, but later in articles ―
GOLDMAN: Let the record show that the witness is referring to a document received from the Soviet Union some time in 1930 in a match box, written on very small cards in small characters, exceedingly small.
LAFOLLETTE: Microscopic, I would say.
GOLDMAN: Microscopic is still better. Mr. Trotsky, can you give us any information about Blumkin? Some Commissioners are anxious to know what you know about Blumkin.
DEWEY: What is his position, or was his position, in the Party?
GOLDMAN: What his position was in the struggle between the factions.
TROTSKY: He belonged to the Left Opposition. He was a member of my military secretariat during the War, and personally connected with me. Then he was separated from me by the authorities and sent abroad to Constantinople in Turkey. His past – he had a very extraordinary past. He was a member of the Left Social Revolutionary Party and he participated in the insurrection against the Bolsheviks. He was the man who killed the German ambassador, Mirbach, and the Bolsheviks officially had to prosecute him. He disappeared, and then he came back, and he declared after the revolution in Germany and after the denunciation of the Brest-Litovsk peace – he appeared again before us and said: “I am now a Bolshevik; you can test me.” He was sent to the front, where he was a very good fighter and a very courageous man. I employed him in my military secretariat and throughout, when I needed a courageous man, Blumkin was at my disposal.
GOLDMAN: Did he belong to the Left Opposition?
TROTSKY: He belonged to the Left Opposition.
GOLDMAN: Did he capitulate?
TROTSKY: In a very modest manner.
GOLDMAN: Was he expelled from the Party?
TROTSKY: I believe he was cautious not to compromise the Left Opposition by his past.
GOLDMAN: Do you know whether he was expelled from the Party?.
TROTSKY: No, not even expelled, because of his cautious attitude.
GOLDMAN: What was his official position in the Soviet Union? I mean, what did he do there, in what Ministry was he?
TROTSKY: He was in the service, the last time, of the Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
GOLDMAN: That is how he happened to be in Constantinople?
GOLDMAN: He was an employee of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs?
GOLDMAN: Any other questions?
DEWEY: I have difficulty in pronouncing the name of Mrachkovsky. It says in the August trials, the English report, on page 43, that from 1923 to 1927 all correspondence passed, through his hands – that all of Trotsky’s correspondence passed through his hands. Is that a correct statement?
TROTSKY: No, he was from 1923 to 1927 – he was a member in the Urals and not in Moscow. I was in Moscow and had my own secretariat. It is absolutely an exaggeration to present him as a closest collaborator of mine; it is an absolute falsehood.
DEWEY: It is also stated that he was one of your closest and most devoted followers.
TROTSKY: Yes, he was in the Red Army, one of the chiefs, a general of the Army. I had in the Red Army many others. He was one of them, a very good soldier, a very good fighter. He had sympathy for me personally. I can say Rakovsky was my friend for thirty-five years. I can’t say the same for Mrachkovsky, a much younger comrade, with whom I worked together in the Civil War as with many others.
GOLDMAN: Any other questions on this? If none, I shall proceed now to examine Mr. Trotsky on the evidence produced by Holtzman, Berman-Yurin and Fritz David to the effect, as they claim, they met Mr. Trotsky personally in Copenhagen and received instructions from him for the purpose of committing terroristic acts against some of the leaders of the Soviet Union. When did you leave Turkey for Copenhagen?
TROTSKY: It was November 14, 1932.
GOLDMAN: Who were with you at that time?
TROTSKY: In Copenhagen or on the trip?
GOLDMAN: Who were with you when you started from Constantinople?
TROTSKY: There was a French friend, Comrade P. Frank, a German friend – I will name him only Oscar – I can notify the Commission who he is. He is a real person.
FINERTY: I would suggest that Mr. Trotsky give an initial.
TROTSKY: Jan Frankel, who is at my left. That is all.
GOLDMAN: Was your wife with you?
GOLDMAN: So there were four people who started out from Constantinople?
TROTSKY: An American, Field, an American couple, Field and his wife – they give a deposition about the trip, and the Commission can notify him ―
GOLDMAN: We will come to that.
TROTSKY: But, you know, it was the first trip and with certain danger. The Fields were not officially with us. They were on the same boat, but as independent travelers.
GOLDMAN: That was on the first trip out of Turkey, after your exile?
GOLDMAN: What route did you take to Copenhagen; do you remember?
TROTSKY: Yes, it was through France, from Marseilles to Dunkerque by the ship Ejsberg to Denmark, and then by railroad to Copenhagen.
GOLDMAN: Did any other people join you on the trip?
TROTSKY: We had few friends at that time in Denmark, but on the trip friends from France joined us.
GOLDMAN: Mr. Trotsky, I am going to ask Mr. Frankel questions later on, so if you don’t remember, we’ll just pass it up.
TROTSKY: I must say, I made this trip two times, one time for Copenhagen and the other time for Marseilles. I think my fellow-travelers – I don’t remember quite who was there the first time and who was there the second time.
GOLDMAN: Do you remember when you arrived in Copenhagen?
TROTSKY: It was, I believe, on November 23d.
GOLDMAN: Where was your son Leon Sedov at the time you made your trip?
TROTSKY: In Berlin.
GOLDMAN: Did he join you on the way to Copenhagen?
GOLDMAN: Do you know of any efforts that were made either by you or your wife or by any other member of the party to get him to join you in Copenhagen?
TROTSKY: It was agreed between us that he would come to Copenhagen. But all his efforts – it was the time of ―
GOLDMAN: I will ask you that later,
GOLDMAN: Where did you live when you were in Copenhagen?
TROTSKY: I don’t remember the address, It was a small villa of a dancer.
GOLDMAN: You occupied the whole villa?
GOLDMAN: How many rooms were there?
TROTSKY: I believe five or six rooms and two stories.
GOLDMAN: Who lived there with you?
TROTSKY: We lived, my wife, my collaborators, and I in the house. The house was occupied not only by the inhabitants, but our friends who came from France, from England, from Holland, from Germany – and I believe we had visitors, about three visitors.
GOLDMAN: Did these visitors live there in Copenhagen?
GOLDMAN: You mean stayed there overnight?
GOLDMAN: Actually remained there overnight?
TROTSKY: They organized a guard for day and night. There was a relief of five or six persons who remained on the first story and we, my wife and myself, were on the second story.
GOLDMAN: Do you have a record of the names of the people who were there while you were in Copenhagen?
GOLDMAN: Would you give us the list of names? I am talking to Mr. Frankel, the secretary of Mr. Trotsky, I am looking at a list of names, and I see that you are the one who enumerates these names in your statement.
GOLDMAN: We shall wait until you testify before putting the list of names into evidence.
FINERTY: Mr. Goldman, would it not be well to refresh his recollection so that he could testify to that according to his recollection?
GOLDMAN: Will you look at this list of names, Mr. Trotsky, and See whether you can say whether this list has the correct names?
TROTSKY: Pierre Frank, a French friend, I remember him very well. Oscar, a German; Jan Frankel; Gerard Rosenthal, my French lawyer; Denise Naville, the wife of P. Naville, both are our best friends; Jeanne Martin des Pallières, the wife of my son; Julien, an Italian émigré. This is his pseudonym. Grylewicz, a German émigré. He is the former German official editor of the Russian Bulletin. Before Hitler’s victory, we edited the Bulletin in Germany, and, after that, we transferred it to France. He was in Germany the responsible editor. Lucienne Tedeschi is the wife of Julien, also an Italian comrade. R. Molinier, a French comrade; Feroci, an Italian comrade; Jungclas, a German comrade in Copenhagen; Sneevliet, a deputy of the Parliament in Holland and a friend of mine, Bruno is a German émigré, Field and his wife, the Americans, were named before. Lesoil, a Belgian from Charleroi, a very well known militant in the workers’ movement, Hippe, a German worker, who is now in prison.
FRANKEL: He was in prison.
TROTSKY: He is now out of prison. He was for two years in prison. Schneeweiss, also a German worker who is now in emigration. The Engineer Sch. – I knew him very well. He is abroad.
FRANKEL: He is in prison now.
TROTSKY: There were three or four young students from Hamburg, who came in with their bicycles. Attorney Cohn from Berlin, he was attorney for my son and he made all the efforts to secure him the possibility to come to Copenhagen. He didn’t succeed. He asked me by telephone if he could help me to remain in Denmark – he would address the Prime Minister. I answered with positive gratitude. He came especially for that purpose to Copenhagen. He was a friend of Karl Liebknecht. Perhaps Mr. Otto Ruehle knows him – I am sure very well. He was a very well known man. Then, the German émigré in Paris, Bauer, and Senin, who is a Russian – I believe a Lithuanian citizen. He was the only one of the visitors who knew the Russian language, the only one.
GOLDMAN: Now, Mr. Trotsky, were there other visitors who visited you in Copenhagen outside of the people whose names you have just read to us?
TROTSKY: There was Wicks from England.
GOLDMAN: Any other names that you remember?
TROTSKY: In any case, Mr. Goldman, it was not Berman-Yurin, not Holtzman, and not Fritz David. (Laughter)
GOLDMAN: I wanted to ask you that, but you took that out of my mouth.
TROTSKY: There were two weeks in Norway when I was absolutely sure that Senin must be Berman-Yurin or Fritz David, because it was there stated, in the Pravda, about a visit from a man who knew the Russian language. That was some weeks after his visit.
GOLDMAN: How did he appear there to you?
TROTSKY: He came as a friend.
GOLDMAN: You are talking now about Senin, the one you knew as Senin?
TROTSKY: They were two brothers in Germany, Senin and Well. Senin is a pseudonym. Their genuine name is Sobolevitzius. I had the suspicion, as other friends who worked in the German organization, that the so-called Trotskyite was more or less an agent of the Stalinists. He came to assure me that it was not true – that is. Senin came, and we had a conversation for one hour or a bit more. And then he and his brother organized a split in our organization. They published a paper. We were absolutely sure it was paid for by the GPU. On another occasion, I was sure, in Norway ―
GOLDMAN: In where?
GOLDMAN: You were sure where?
TROTSKY: In August, 1936, in Norway, during the first trial, when I had the first information concerning Berman-Yurin, I searched in my memory and asked: “Who could it be?” I concluded it was Senin; I was sure it was Senin. I wrote to my son, asking if it was not Senin. Then I received letters that Senin is abroad. I was convinced Berman-Yurin is a person absolutely unknown to me after that.
GOLDMAN: Well, for the purpose of making the record clear, I shall ask you these questions you already answered. Did you meet anyone by the name of Fritz David while you were in Copenhagen?
GOLDMAN: Did you ever have any conversations with him while you were there?
GOLDMAN: By the way, who rented the house for you?
TROTSKY: Molinier, the French comrade.
GOLDMAN: Did he publish anything about where you lived?
TROTSKY: No; it was an absolute secret.
GOLDMAN: And when anyone wanted to see you, could he walk into your room?
TROTSKY: It was more difficult than here, because here there is only a guard. There, there was a guard, and we were incognito. Nobody knew where I was.
GOLDMAN: The fact was that you were incognito?
DEWEY: Mr. Goldman, these guards he refers to were his friends?
GOLDMAN: When you say guards, do you mean regular police officers or your friends?
TROTSKY: There were two policemen at the entrance, but they did not control officially. They were only there to assure order and quietness for the Government. The guard, the official guard who controlled all visitors, were my friends.
GOLDMAN: Did you meet anyone by the name of Holtzman while you were in Copenhagen?
GOLDMAN: Did you have any conversations with him at the house where you lived?
GOLDMAN: You say Senin was the only one who spoke with you in Russian.
TROTSKY: Not about terrorism. (Laughter)
GOLDMAN: I didn’t ask you that question. I will later on. Now, you didn’t see any other visitors?
TROTSKY: Yes, I remember one more – excuse me. It was the Norwegian Falk. He is a Norwegian Marxist who came in order to propose to me that I go to Norway for a lecture also.
GOLDMAN: Anybody else that you can remember now?
TROTSKY: The Danes. There was one Boeggild, the organizer of my lecture, who visited us in this house. But only at the last evening before our departure, when we had no more reason for secrecy, we admitted the visit of the delegation of Danish students, and we had a general discussion with them on Socialism.
GOLDMAN: What did you do when you were in Copenhagen?
TROTSKY: I gave a lecture to the students, and then a radio message for the United States, in my English which was not better than it is now.
GOLDMAN: Will you furnish the Commission copies of the speech?
GOLDMAN: When did you leave Copenhagen?
TROTSKY: We left Copenhagen the 2nd of December.
GOLDMAN: And who left with you?
TROTSKY: Ten or twelve, I believe, of the people named before, my collaborators. Then, the French friends named before – on the same ship.
GOLDMAN: When did you first meet your son?
TROTSKY: I met him in Paris in the Gare du Nord.
GOLDMAN: On what date?
TROTSKY: It was the 5th of December.
GOLDMAN: And that was the first time you met your son since when?
TROTSKY: Since he departed from Turkey in 1931.
GOLDMAN: When did he depart from Turkey?
TROTSKY: In February.
GOLDMAN: Where did he go to?
GOLDMAN: What city did he go to?
TROTSKY: To Berlin.
GOLDMAN: What was he doing in Berlin?
TROTSKY: He was studying.
GOLDMAN: Was your son’s wife, Jeanne des Pallières, Leon Sedov’s wife, in Copenhagen?
GOLDMAN: When did she arrive there?
TROTSKY: She had the possibility to be there because she is a French citizen. She has her passport.
GOLDMAN: She –
TROTSKY: She could leave Berlin freely for Copenhagen.
GOLDMAN: When did she come to Copenhagen?
TROTSKY: It was the 26th, or the 25th, I believe, of December.
GOLDMAN: And how long did she stay there?
TROTSKY: As long as we – my wife and I.
GOLDMAN: Did she go with you to Paris?
TROTSKY: On the same ship to France.
GOLDMAN: She didn’t go back to Berlin?
GOLDMAN: She didn’t go back to Berlin?
TROTSKY: No, she went back to Paris for a sojourn. She has her mother in Paris.
GOLDMAN: From Copenhagen, did your daughter-in-law go direct to France or first to Berlin?
TROTSKY: She went with us together to Paris.
GOLDMAN: And the first time you met your son since 1931, when he departed for Berlin, was in Paris on December 5th?
GOLDMAN: And while you were in Copenhagen, did you see your son at all?
TROTSKY: No, he was in Berlin at the time.
GOLDMAN: Did you have contact with your son?
TROTSKY: Yes, by telephone, two times a day. We asked every day if he could come, what was the situation with his visa, and so on.
DEWEY: Well, there are records of those telephone calls in Copenhagen. They will have to find out there, I suppose.
GOLDMAN: The Commission will have to find out in Copenhagen whether there were records of those telephone conversations.
TROTSKY: There were efforts made to ask for them, but the central telephone exchange refuses. They must have an order from the superiors. It is a delicate matter for private sources to get that information. But we have many other proofs.
GOLDMAN: Now, I have many documents dealing with Sedov’s presence in Berlin at the time that Holtzman, according to his testimony at the trial, at the time that Holtzman says that he met Sedov at the Bristol Hotel in Copenhagen. I wish to enumerate for the benefit of the Commission these documents. Some of them are in foreign languages and have not as yet been translated. A list of these documents in general and the contents of these documents has been made, including the contents of the documents. I wish to read them for the benefit of the Commission, read them all into the record.
We have first the statement or depositions of various people describing the trip and the arrangement for the residence where Mr. Trotsky and his secretaries and his wife lived while in Copenhagen, and the measures taken to guard him, showing the impossibility of unobserved visitors. We have statements from people who knew Sedov and did not see him. We have statements from people who knew Sedov and lived in Berlin, and they saw him there in Berlin, and we have an additional list of visitors. The first is a statement by Mr. Frankel, who is sitting here with Mr. Trotsky. Now, I will ask the Commission whether it is their desire for me to put Mr. Frankel on the witness stand and cross examine him, or whether you will be satisfied with the statement of his. I think it is best to put him on the stand to testify as long as he is here, so he will be subject to cross examination by the Commission. So, I will prefer to put him on the stand.
FINERTY: It will be after Mr. Trotsky’s testimony?
GOLDMAN: After Mr. Trotsky completes all his testimony, but when I am dealing with this particular subject. We have a statement from Pierre Naville, whose name was read before, testifying in general to the character of the house, and so forth. We have a statement by Oscar in a similar connection which shows that Holtzman, Berman-Yurin and Fritz David could not have been present without their knowledge. And a statement by Anton Grylewicz ―
TROTSKY: And his wife.
GOLDMAN: Anton Grylewicz testifies to the fact that:
Trotsky’s son was not in Copenhagen, as I can testify under oath. (1) I was in Trotsky’s house every day. (2) I know that Com. Trotsky, his wife, and Sedov’s wife telephoned Sedov every day. I also used this means of communication to Sedov twice. Again, my wife, who personally or telephonically spoke with Sedov in Berlin every day of my absence, reported to me in some letters to Copenhagen her conversations with Sedov.
TROTSKY: Permit me, Mr. Goldman, a remark, that to our friends this trip to Copenhagen was a very important event. They were all our friends, and were more or less implicated in our family story. They knew in Copenhagen that we waited for our son, and they knew him in Berlin. They knew that our son was very busy trying to get a visa.
FINERTY: Mr. Goldman, Mr. Trotsky’s secretary might have the telephone bills.
GOLDMAN: Have you any records of your telephone bills?
FRANKEL: I don’t believe it, because there was an arrangement with the owner of the house about telephone calls. Only Molinier can say.
TROTSKY: It is possible.
GOLDMAN: Grylewicz further states that letters were given him by Sedov for his father, two letters of introduction.
TROTSKY: I have the letters in my possession now.
GOLDMAN: It reads as follows: “If Sedov had himself gone to Copenhagen, he would certainly have brought the letters with him.” There is a statement from Jungclas to the effect that he repeatedly heard phone calls put in for Berlin. A statement by Oscar Cohn, who confirms that Sedov was not present and that he, Cohn, was in Trotsky’s villa daily. The same thing by Feroci, and the same type of declaration by Pierre Frank, and also by Leon Lesoil. There is one from E. Falk, from Oslo, a letter to Attorney Puntervold, who represented Trotsky in Norway. He is not a member of the organization, and he is a political opponent. He writes as follows:
None of my acquaintances knew where Trotsky resided, and I remember quite well that this secrecy gave rise to some discussion. The reason given for this was an endeavor to prevent demonstrations or other disagreeable incidents. It is certain that a stranger could not have obtained the address unaided ... I assume that I waited in these rooms [in Trotsky’s house] about an hour. Then I was taken upstairs to a little room which appeared to serve as Trotsky’s office. Trotsky did not pace the floor during our conversation ...
This refers to the testimony of one of the defendants to the effect that Trotsky was pacing the floor.
TROTSKY: That I was what?
GOLDMAN: You were walking up and down.
TROTSKY: The room was very small; it was absolutely impossible. (Laughter)
GOLDMAN: I have a statement by Gérard Rosenthal similar in character to the former statements, and he also recalls Natalia Trotsky’s impatience to see Sedov again, as well as her telegram to Herriot, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France at that time. I have a statement of one Bruno, who requests his name be kept secret, in general similar to the others, and to the effect that he never heard the names of Holtzman, Berman-Yurin or David. He gives the plan of the house. He also testifies that he knew Sedov personally, and did not see him in Copenhagen. He saw him shortly before his departure, November 1932, from Berlin, and didn’t see him again until after his return. Here is another statement to a similar effect, a statement by Moelle and his sister. These were Danish people who make a formal statement that they did not see Sedov in Copenhagen. Then there is a statement by Julien, who was present during several telephone conversations that Natalia Trotsky had with her son, and since Mrs. Trotsky did not know German, a friend had to make the connections for her.
TROTSKY: Julien’s wife, she is an Italian, but she is from Austria – an Austrian section belonging to Italy.
GOLDMAN: We have also a statement from Lucienne Tedeschi to the same effect, and we have a letter of Mr. Trotsky of October 12, 1936, from his Norwegian internment to his son, giving him memories and facts about the trip to Copenhagen. We have a statement by Esther and B.J. Field similar to the other declarations on many points, also adding material on the Grand Hotel in Copenhagen referring to the Konditori Bristol, the Bristol Confectionery, showing the connection between the so-called Hotel Bristol and this confectionery. We would probably call it, in the States, an ice-cream parlor. We have a statement of Jeanne Martin similar to the others, and three documents demonstrating the strictness of the control over the visits: a) Signed requests of journalists asking interviews with Trotsky; b) List of students who visited Trotsky compiled for control; and c) The plan of seating arrangements for reception to the intellectuals. We have an affidavit by Oluf Boeggild – I presume a Danish citizen – and also by Karen Boeggild, stating that they also saw Trotsky and never saw Sedov and heard nothing about his presence there. And we have here documents and depositions concerning Sedov’s presence in Berlin during Trotsky’s presence in Copenhagen. First and most important is a photostatic copy of Sedov’s passport, with an explanation of this photostatic copy showing that Sedov was in Berlin, and that the passport is free from anything indicating that he went to Denmark; showing further that he did go to France at the time indicated by the witness.
TROTSKY: The passport is in the possession of our son, who sent us this from Paris.
GOLDMAN: Of course, the Commission in Paris can make an examination of Sedov on that matter, and the original of the passport will be produced. I have a copy of the telegram sent by Natalia Sedov, Mr. Trotsky’s wife, to Herriot, the Minister of Foreign Affairs in France.
TROTSKY: He was Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs.
GOLDMAN: This telegram asks for a visa for Sedov to permit him to come from Berlin to France. I have the copy of the telegram.
TROTSKY: During our trip back from Denmark, we crossed France to Turkey. My wife sent a telegram with the help of our French lawyer Rosenthal, who wrote the text of the telegram, to the Prime Minister, Herriot, asking him to permit our son to come to France from Berlin. This telegram of my wife and the telegraphic order of Herriot to the French Consul in Berlin, telling him to give a visa to Leon Sedov for five days in France, is here. He came to France for five days and met us at the Gare du Nord.
GOLDMAN: Here is the copy of the telegram which Herriot sent to the French Consul in Berlin authorizing a visa for Sedov. Then there are documents concerning Sedov’s residence in Berlin during the time Trotsky and his wife were in Copenhagen. There is a certificate of police registration ―
DEWEY: Mr. Goldman, might I interrupt one minute? You have not identified the meetings of the mother and Sedov.
GOLDMAN: As soon as I am through. The statement of Anna Grylewicz to the effect that during her husband’s absence she saw Leon Sedoy daily in Berlin. Her husband was the editor of the Russian Bulletin. She says as follows: “My husband and I were in daily contact with L. Sedov personally or by telephone. During the time my husband was in Copenhagen, Leon Trotsky’s son. L. Sedov, called me up every day, and I spoke to him about all incoming mail, etc.”
TROTSKY: Her address was the address of the Russian Bulletin.
GOLDMAN: Then we have the statement of Alfred Schoeler, who between November 20th and December 3rd saw Sedov daily in Berlin. We have the letter of Franz and Alexandra Pfemfert to Trotsky, proving the same thing. And then a statement by Olberg, one of the defendants in the trial, in the first trial, who in his testimony makes this statement, on page 87 of the official report of the proceedings:
Before my departure for the Soviet Union, I intended to go to Copenhagen with Sedov to see Trotsky. Our trip did not materialize, but Suzanna, Sedov’s wife, went there. On her return, she brought a letter from Trotsky, addressed to Sedov, in which Trotsky agreed to my going to the USSR, and expressed the hope that I would succeed in carrying out the mission entrusted to me. Sedov showed me this letter.
Thus we use his testimony on our behalf to show that Sedov never went to Copenhagen.
TROTSKY: Can I make a remark? I communicate to the Commission that Olberg was really in communication with my son in Berlin. He was one of the defendants who really knew the situation of my son, that he could not go to Copenhagen and that his wife went to Copenhagen, and he gave this explanation before the court. It is a certain discrepancy Mr. Vyshinsky did not remark.
GOLDMAN: Well, you don’t expect him to catch everything. In the matter of the Bristol Hotel, concerning which a good deal of controversy has been raging in the press, we offer a statement in the Social Democratic press of September 1, 1936, cited also in the New York Post by Ludwig Lore, writing in a column called Behind the Cables, to the effect that no such hotel existed in Copenhagen at the time that Mr. Trotsky was there. The question of the existence of that hotel has been taken up. The Communists have now a new version with reference to that incident. We give the Communist version, and in addition we offer a statement by Mr. Trotsky replying to the Communist explanation of the existence of the Hotel Bristol. In short, their explanation, as the Commissioners probably know, is that there was a Grand Hotel, but there was a café, known as the Bristol Café, therefore intimating that the witness was legitimately mistaken, when he said he met Sedov in the Hotel Bristol.
TROTSKY: In the vestibule.
GOLDMAN: I therefore offer a photograph from a not very favorable source, as far as we are concerned, from Soviet Russia Today. We offer the photograph from the March 1937 issue. It attempts to show that there is a Hotel Bristol. We offer this for the examination of the Commissioners, and in addition we offer an explanation which is part of the affidavit made by Esther and B.J. Field. And, further, we offer many documents. There is an explanation of B.J. and Esther Field with reference to this photograph, and also with reference to this confectionery of Bristol, its location, its distance from the hotel, and other relevant matters. Then, we have a list of speeches, press statements, film addresses, and interviews showing what Mr. Trotsky said at the time, the tone of the conversations, his attitude towards the defense of the Soviet Union, all contradicting the testimony of Berman-Yurin, Fritz David and Holtzman to the effect that what Mr. Trotsky was actually interested in was the organization of terroristic acts against Stalin and his loyal followers.
There was there a report at that time to the effect that Zinoviev died in Russia. This is of interest because Holtzman, David and the others did not mention a single thing about that report.
TROTSKY: It was in the world press and an important event – the news about the death of Zinoviev. I received at that time cables from London asking me for a necrological article about Zinoviev.
We talked about this many times, because it was to us very important news. The terrorists who came to me for instructions to go back to work with the terroristic center guided by Zinoviev did not mention this news at all, according to the reports of the Moscow trial.
I should say, alleged terrorists.
GOLDMAN: I will quote some excerpts from the Copenhagen Sozial-Demokraten cited by Dagbladet, August 20, 1936, and also from the statement made by Karen Boeggild. The Dagbladet says:
“Trotsky and five or six others were in my home,” Boeggild relates, “when suddenly I had a telephone call from a friend who told me that a newspaper had just come out with a telegram from Moscow that Zinoviev had died. Trotsky arose, deeply moved, and spoke about as follows: ‘I have fought against Zinoviev politically for many years. In some matters, I was also united with him. I know all Zinoviev’s mistakes, but in this moment I will not think about them, I will only think about the fact that throughout his life he tried to work for the labor movement,’ and then Trotsky continued for a bit to honor the memory of his dead adversary and co-fighter with eloquent phrases.” It was, Boeggild says, very moving to hear Trotsky’s solemn speech in this little group. This experience, inspired, as it was later to appear, by a false report, in no way indicated [the paper says] that Trotsky was planning assassinations in union with Zinoviev. The news about the Copenhagen conspiracy seems to us, if possible, more fantastic than all the other charges.
Now I quote from the affidavit of Karen Boeggild:
I further remember that Mr. Trotsky held a brief memorial speech for Zinoviev at a little gathering in my home, when the false news of Zinoviev’s death arrived. He portrayed him as a former friend who in recent years has become his adversary.
At the time of the report of the death of Zinoviev, Trotsky was supposed to have been plotting with Zinoviev the assassination of Stalin. The excerpt of the affidavit by, in German, by ―
DEWEY: Excuse me, how long will you take?
GOLDMAN: Three or four more minutes. Then there are other excerpts from the Danish press, showing what Trotsky’s attitude was. Now, I introduce all these documents under a general heading of “Copenhagen,” with reference to the claim made by Holtzman, Fritz David, and Berman-Yurin – or, rather, made specifically by Holtzman – that he met and made arrangements with Sedov in Berlin to meet Sedov in the Hotel Bristol in Copenhagen and that they actually met there, and was taken by him to see Trotsky, with whom he had a conversation, and in which conversation Trotsky was supposed to have given him instructions to commit terroristic acts in the Soviet Union.
What I want to show to the Commission from all of these documents is that Sedov was never in Copenhagen; that the first time he met Mr. and Mrs. Trotsky, his father and mother, was in Paris; that he made every effort to meet them in Copenhagen, with no success; that his wife reached Copenhagen, but not Sedov; and that conversations that Mr. and Mrs. Trotsky had with Sedov were only by telephone from Copenhagen to Berlin. That is the purpose of the introduction of all these documents. Mr. Trotsky will argue about the relevancy and about the conclusiveness of all this testimony that Sedov was not in Copenhagen, in his final argument.
Are there any questions which the Commission would like to ask at this time?
DEWEY: You are introducing this for no other purpose, are you not, relative to getting this message –
GOLDMAN: These proofs, these exhibits, will show that it was impossible for anybody to visit Trotsky without the knowledge of the secretaries who were there, and that they testified that no one by the name of Fritz David, or Berman-Yurin, or Holtzman was present at Mr. Trotsky’s house. That is the only purpose. I am producing this testimony further to show that Sedov never met Holtzman in Copenhagen, and that he never left Berlin. Pardon me, I want to ask one question. To your knowledge, was your son Sedov ever in Copenhagen?
GOLDMAN: That Sedov was never in Copenhagen. That is the purpose of the introduction of my testimony.
TROTSKY: For one purpose more, if you permit. From the testimony and the documents, it is absolutely clear that it was of no purpose for my son to come to Copenhagen and to deny it afterwards. Because I was in Copenhagen, it is clear from these documents that my son was not in Copenhagen. That is, there would be no reason for him to deny it. It is absolutely clear from the depositions of Holtzman, Berman-Yurin, and the others. Because Berman-Yurin and David, who were sent by my son to Copenhagen, allegedly sent – they did not mention his presence in Copenhagen.
GOLDMAN: That is the conclusion that you draw from that. And one incidental purpose of the introduction of these exhibits is this:
That it proves that in Copenhagen, where Mr. Trotsky was supposed to have plotted the death of many leaders, he was discussing and talking about questions such as the defense of the Soviet Union and the organization of groups belonging to his tendency. Nevertheless ―
DEWEY: I want to know what the object of the introduction of the testimony about the telegrams of Herriot is.
GOLDMAN: The object is to show the efforts made by both Mr. and Mrs. Trotsky in order to get their son to see them in France.
TROTSKY: It was the 3rd of December, and the telegram of my wife was sent the 3rd of December, after we left Copenhagen, Denmark. The order of Herriot was given the 3rd or 4th of December, and my son came on the 5th of December.
GOLDMAN: Now, I introduce all of these documents which will be translated – some of them, as I see, are in foreign languages; they will be translated. Many of them are in English. The Commissioners are free to look over them. They are available here. They will at all times be available for the Commission.
FINERTY: And available later, I assume, for the whole Commission.
GOLDMAN: Yes, by that time they will be translated. I introduce them under the general term “Copenhagen Exhibits.” I also introduce this list showing what the documents actually contain.
DEWEY: Is there any connection in these documents about how long the persons were staying in Copenhagen? I don’t mean every one of them; whether they were there a day or two?
GOLDMAN: The statements of the particular persons will indicate how long they were in Copenhagen. The list will be marked Exhibit No.15, and the documents will be Exhibit No.16.
DEWEY: We will now adjourn this session.
Last updated on: 22.4.2007