August 22 (morning session)

The Masks Are Torn From the Accused

I consider that the guilt of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Evdokimov and Bakayev has been fully established, and that I can be relieved of the duty of enumerating the many facts, and of analysing the material of the Court investigation, which exposes them to the fullest degree. I merely want to emphasize that by the side of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Evdokimov and Bakayev should stand Smirnov, Ter-Vaganyan and Mrachkovsky. They ought to stand side by side. Together they directed their criminal activities against our government, together they murdered Kirov and, therefore, together and fully must they answer for this.

Smirnov understands this perfectly well, and that is why he adopted a position of denial. At first he denied everything: he denied the existence of a Trotskyite organization, he denied the existence of a centre, he denied his participation in the centre, he denied connection with Trotsky, he denied that he gave any secret instructions, even those which he gave in 1936, and we know that this great conspirator managed to organize the communication of criminal instructions to his adherents even while he was isolated. He denied everything - he denied the existence of the Trotskyite centre in 1931, he denied the existence of such a centre in 1932. he denied everything. The whole of this examination of May 20 consisted solely of the words: "I deny that, again I deny, I deny." That is the only thing left for him to do.

Accused Smirnov, your experience, your skill in deceit, has betrayed you. Exposed by the evidence of Safonova, Mrachkovsky and Ter-Vaganyan, you were compelled to admit that there was a centre, that you were a member of this centre. Your denials were of no avail. You denied that you had received any instructions on terrorism, but you were exposed on this matter by Gaven, and you confessed; you were exposed by Holtzman who received instructions from Trotsky to be conveyed to you personally, and only to you, instructions to the effect that it was now necessary to adopt terrorism. Holtzman, whose Trotskyite allegiance was kept a particularly profound secret, said that he had received these instructions, but did not communicate them; and you think that this can be believed. No, no one will believe this.

Holtzman adopt the same position as Smirnov - I admit everything except terrorism - because he knows that for terrorism he may have to pay with his head. Smirnov was exposed as a terrorist by Holtzman, by Mrachkovsky, by Safonova and by Dreitzer.

On July 21, you, Smirnov, gave somewhat different evidence, that is to say, at first you denied that you had received any instructions from Trotsky to organize terrorism, but here you admitted that you did received them. Your denials came to nought.

When confronted with Mrachkovsky, you continued to deny that you had received from Trotsky and conveyed to Mrachkovsky instructions to organize a terrorist group. Mrachkovsky put you to shame by saying: "Why, Ivan Nikitich, you want to get out of a sordid bloody business with a clean shirt?" I can repeat this: "Do you really think, accused Smirnov, that you will get out of this bloody business unscathed?" In reply to Mrachkovsky you said: "Invention and slander," but later you did confess to something.

You admitted that the bloc  was organized on the principle of the necessity of terrorism, and therefore you were one of the organizers of the terrorist centre. You received instructions on terror from Trotsky. On that basis you developed terroristic criminal activities. True, your arrest hindered you somewhat from taking part in the carrying out of these activities; nevertheless you did all you possibly could to help these activities.

I want to remind you that the confrontation with Safonova during the preliminary investigation, which, in the main reproduced what we saw in this Court, was very characteristic. Smirnov does not venture to deny Safonova's evidence. He invents an elastic form of lies. he knows that Safonova will not slander him, Safonova was formerly his wife, and has no personal grudge against him; therefore, he cannot plead a personal grudge. He says: "I do not remember," "evidently such a conversation may have taken place." He is asked: Was there any talk about organizing terrorism? He replies: "There was not, but there might have been." When now, masking himself, he says: "I have nothing to reply to that," he is guided by the same animal cowardice. But on August 13 he was compelled to admit that this conversation did take place in 1932, that he, Smirnov, bears full responsibility for this, and that now he does not intend to evade responsibility.

I now want to deal with Ter-Vaganyan. He, too at first, adopted a position of denial; but on August 14 he gave more truthful evidence. Summing up his testimony and his behaviour in Court we can draw several definite deductions: we may consider it established that Ter-Vaganyan was a member of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite centre, that he took an active part in organizing the centre, that he carried out the instructions of the centre on the basis of Trotsky's instructions which were received through Smirnov, and of which he learned from Smirnov. He tries to assert that actually he did nothing. But I must say beforehand that even if he "did nothing," what he did is sufficient to deserve the penalty provided for in Arts. 588, 19 and 588, 5811 of the Criminal Code.

Moissei Lurye and Nathan Lurye. We have heard Nathan Lurye's evidence of how he arrived here and for what purpose, of the work he carried on in preparation for terroristic acts under the guidance of Moissei Lurye, of how, in fact, he was practically the successor to the group which had been gotten together here before him by Franz Weitz, the fascist agent and a trusted man of Himmler, chief of the fascist black secret service, chief of the German S. S. detachments and subsequently, chief of the German Gestapo.

You remember all their evidence, and I do not think it is necessary to deal with it in detail. It has been fully, categoriecally, and unquestionably proved that Nathan Lurye and Moissei Lurye prepared to commit terroristic acts. They must bear full responsibility for this crime!

When I spoke of the methods by which these gentlemen operated I showed, tried to show, to what depths these people had sunk, morally and politically. And perhaps one of the most striking and characteristic proofs of the depths of moral turpitude to which these people have sunk, of their lack of even those "moral" principles and rules of conduct by which even hardened criminals and gangsters are guided, is what Reingold told us about here. I refer to their plan to remove the traces of their foul crimes.

Was it an accident, comrades judges, that they, in expectation of successfully carrying out their heinous plan, intended to appoint none other than Bakayev as chairman of the O.G.P.U. - precisely Bakayev, who is known as a man filled with malicious hatred, as a resolute man, persevering and persistent, with a very strong will, strong character and stamina, who would not stop at anything to achieve the aims which he had set himself!

If some of the accused coolly planned to come to power over mountains of corpses of the best people of our Soviet land, then Bakayev was perhaps the most determined and most implacable executor of this plan! It is precisely this man that they intended to appoint as chairman of the O.G.P.U. in the event of their plot being successful.

I will not deal with the ludicrous distribution of portfolios among the conspirators and terrorists. I merely emphasize once again that none other than Bakayev was intended for the post of chairman of the O.G.P.U. Zinoviev and Kamenev did not exclude the possibility that the O.G.P.U. was in possession of the threads of the plot that they were hatching against the state, and, therefore, they considered it to be one of their most important tasks to appoint Bakayev chairman of the O.G.P.U. He was to obtain possession of all these threads and then destroy them, as well as the very people who carried out Zinoviev's and Kamenev's instructions.

Kamenev and Zinoviev do not deny the first part of this, but they deny the second part. That second part is too ghastly, and Zinoviev said it was taken from Jules Verne. But do we not know that there have been such examples in history? Do we not know certain neighbouring states in which such procedure has been applied, where participants in a plot were physically exterminated by the hand of the organizers of the plot, as was the case with Roehm and his henchmen?

Accused Zinoviev, you yourself say that it was intended to appoint Bakayev to the post of chairman of the O.G.P.U. in order to use him for the purpose of removing the traces of your crime. Why, then, do you say this is from Jules Verne? You have chosen a faulty line of defence.

This is not very important for the case; but that is not the question,that is not the point. This is one of the remarkable touches which characterize the people who aspired to the leadership of our country. It proves how fortunate we are that they were removed from this leadership in time!

Zinoviev and Kamenev call this fantastic tales from the Arabian Nights. But, by your leave, what about the murder of Zinoviev's secretary Bogdan? What is that? A tale? Zinoviev could not say anything about that; but Reingold revealed it and Pickel confirmed it.

Zinoviev recommended Bogdan to Bakayev as a suitable person to commit terroristic acts.

Reingold said it, Pickel confirmed it, but Bakayev vigorously denies it and tries to escape from it. But it is a fact which nobody can escape. Reingold and Pickel have proved that Bogdan's "suicide" was really murder. It was done by Bakayev on the instructions of the united centre! "You are hesitating to carry out the instructions of our united Trotskyite-Zinovievite centre? Kill yourself or else we will kill you." That is what Bakayev said to Bogdan, and Bogdan gave way.

This was the beginning of the execution of the plan drawn up by Zinoviev and Kamenev that was to be carried out in the event of the terroristic plot turning out successful. Zinoviev and Kamenev tried to depict Bogdan's suicide as the fate of a "victim"of our Soviet regime. But you yourselves drove Bogdan to suicide by confronting him with the dilemma: either to carry out a terroristic act or to commit suicide.

Comrades Judges, if you link up this episode with all the methods of struggle, all the other methods of "work" adopted by this criminal gang, you will easily understand the truthfulness of the evidence given by Reingold and Pickel, who in this Court again and again exposed Zinoviev, Kamenev and Evdokimov as the perpetrators of a number of grave crimes.