We refute GOLLAN'S

general secretary John Gollan's slanderous attack on Trotsky at a recent CP public meeting in Leeds (reported in ber 3) has raised a num. ber of pertinent questions relating to Stalinist history and methodology.

In reply to questions from the floor on Trotskyism, Gollan claimed that Trotsky's ideas 'were a menace to the Gollan stated that Trotsky had been for the defeat of the Soviet Union in any war with Nazi Germany, repeating the old Stalinist slander that 'whether he [Trotsky] got money directly from Hitler is open to question'.

As is invariably the case with such slanders, no documentary proof was quoted to substantiate the accusations.

This was also the hall-mark of the Moscow Trials, where scores of Communist leaders, all close comrades of Lenin, were sent to their deaths purely on the basis of 'con. lessions' extracted under enormous and prolonged physical and moral pressure exerted by their bureaucratic captors.

In this latest outburst, Gollan has revealed himself yet again as a Stalinist reared in the Vyshinksy - Yezhov - Beria mould.

Gollan makes two accusations.

Firstly, that Trotsky wished for the defeat of the Soviet Union in any clash with Nazi Germany.

Naturally this Stalinist quotes no documents of writings to prove his point, because no such writings exist.

Unconditional There are, however, ample available statements made by Trotsky and the Fourth International calling for unconditional defence of the Soviet Union in war-time, and Gollan is well aware of them.

For reasons of space, it is only possible to quote from a few:

• . let us suppose that Hitler turns his weapons against the East and invades the territories occupied by the Red Army. [Trotsky is referring here to the region ceded to the Soviet Union after the partition of Poland under the terms of the Stalin-Hitler Pact of August 23, 1939.] 'Under these conditions, partisans of the Fourth International, without changing in any way their attitude toward the Kremlin oligarchy, will advance to the forefront, as the most urgent task of the hour, the military resistance against Hitler. The workers will say: "We cannot cede to Hitler the overthrowing of HESS BEHIND HOSCOW TRIAL Trotsky studies the Dewey Commission report, a Commission set up in 1937 to inquire into the charges made against Trotsky at the Moscow Trials.

Stalin; that is our own task", (Trotsky: In Defence of Marxism' pp. 24-25).

And on page 35 of the same work, which almost in its entirety is devoted to the Marxist analysis of why the Soviet Union must be defended against imperialism, Trotsky expands on this question:

We are completely and wholeheartedly for an independent (of Hitler as well as of Stalin) Soviet Ukraine. But what to do if, before having obtained this independence, Hitler attempts to seize the Ukraine, which is under the domination of the Stalinist bureaucracy?

"The Fourth International answers: Against Hitler we will defend this Ukraine enslaved by Stalin. What does "unconditional" defence of the USSR mean? It means that we do not lay any conditions upon the bureaucracy. It means that independently of of the motive and causes of the war we defend the social basis of the USSR [its nationalized property relations] if it is menaced by danger on the part of imperialism' This is but a small sample of the writings which Gollan deliberately ignores when he slanders Trotsky's position on the defence of the Soviet Union.

Gollan has nothing to offer except the same old lies.

The same applies to the other Stalinist slander of Trotsky's alleged relations with the Nazi regime in Germany., It is important first of all to establish the exact conditions in which this lie was first given prominence by the The first Moscow Trial of Old Bolsheviks in August 1936 did not accuse Zinoviev, Kamenev and the rest of the "sixteen' with working on behalf of the Nazis.

They were charged "ir= 'trial' with straightforward counter-revolution, and chiefly with the assassination of the Stalinist leader in Leningrad, S. M. Kirov.

It has long been revealed that Kirov was killed in 1934 by the Stalinist police, on Stalin's orders, as the provocation required for the mass purges that Stalin had already prepared.

It was at the second Moscow Trial of January 1937 that the first allegations were made concerning Trotsky's dealings with the Nazis.

A study of the proceedings of the second Moscow Trial throw a great deal of light not only on the workings and motives of the Soviet bureaucracy, but the source of the slanders Gollan hurls at the Socialist Labour League today.

Defended trials Through its influence in the 'Left Book Club', the British Communist Party was able to get published several books defending the purges and Trials in the Soviet Union. One such work was that of Dudley Collard, 'Soviet Justice and the trial of Radek and others'.

With the obligatory foreward by D. N. Pritt (I welcome Mr Collard's book warmly) 'Soviet Justice' deals in some detail with the 'evidence' given by Radek, who from his desertion from the Left Opposition in 1929 until his arrest, was the most servile of Stalin's publicists.

Radek's testimony is most important, as upon it rested the Stalinist case for Trotsky's collusion with the Nazis, the same slander that Gollan repeated at the Leeds meeting recently.

The indictment at reads:

"The investigation has established that L. D. Trotsky entered into negotiati ons with one of the leaders German National Socialist Party with a view to waging a joint struggle against the 'As testified by the accused Pyatakov, L. D. Trotsky, in his conversation with accused in December 1935, informed him that as a result of these negotiations he had concluded an agreement with the said leader of the National Socialist Party in the following terms:

'(1) To guarantee a generally favourable attitude towards the German government tial auxiliaries to economy.

'(4) To create in the USSR favourable conditions for the activities of German private enterprise.

'(5) In time of war to carry on extensive diversionist activities in war industry enterprises and at the front. These diversionist activities are to be carried on under Trotsky's instructions, in agreement with the German General Staff. Moscow Trial.

Zinoviev, Kamenev and the other Bolsheviks killed after the first Trial were now, of course, posthumously included in the charge of collusion with Hitler, despite the fact that throughout the first trial no reference had been made to their alleged relationship with the Nazis.

We shall return to this indictment, the substance of which Gollan still publicly upholds, in a moment.

And what of the indictment of the third, 1938, Trial:

"The materials in the session of investigating authorities on the present case established that the connections between enemy of the people Trotsky the German political police and the Intelligence Services of other countries were established at a much earlier date. The investigation has definitely established that Trotsky has been connected with the German Intelligence Service since 1921, and with the British Intelligence Service since 1926' ('Verbatim Report of Court Proceedings in case of the Anti-Soviet bloc of Rights and Trotskyists').

These 'materials', claimed to be 'in the possession of the investigating authorities' have never been published. They cannot be, for they never existed.

But lack of documentary evidence apart, the case against Trotsky collapsed under the sheer weight of its internal contradictions.

Take the alleged meeting of the old Bolshevik and Left Oppositionist Pyatakov with Trotsky in 1935, when the details of Trotsky's deal with the Nazis were supposed have been passed Pyatakov to the opposition in the Soviet Union.

It was vital to the Stalinists place. Without 'proof, the whole of the case collapsed for lack of evidence that Trotsky had maintained contact with the 'pro-Nazi' opposition in the USSR.

This is the famous case of Oslo airport where, Pyatakov claimed, his plane had landed in December 1935 before he drove by car to meet Trotsky, who at that time was exiled in Norway.

Unfortunately for the Stalinists, no aeroplane landed at Oslo airport throughout the entire winter months of 19351936, let alone the month of December.

Established

The official records of the airport authorities established this tact beyond all doubt Pyatakov never set foot in Norway either at that time or any other while Trotsky was in the country. Therefore there was no meeting, no negotiations, no plot with Hitler against Stalin and no counter - revolutionary conspiracy with the German General Staff.

All the details concerning the frame-up of the Old Bolsheviks in the Moscow Trials are set out in the 'Moscow Trials Anthology' (New Park Publications, 12s. 6d.) and therefore need not be repeated here.

But certain other aspects of the charges against Trotsky took on an added significance after the Second World War.

The capture of the Nazi archives provided the Allies with all the documentary evidence they required to try the leaders of the Nazi Party as war criminals.

These were the same leaders that the Moscow Trials had alleged were acting in collusion KARL RADEK PYATAKOV All the details concerning the frame-up of the Old Bolsheviks in the Moscow Trials are set out in the 'MOSCOW TRIALS ANTHOLOGY' (New Park Publications 12s 6d).

of Nazi imperialism east.

Here, at last, was the chance to prove for all time the genuineness of the verdicts passed at the three Moscow Trials and at the court-martials of the military leaders also charged with acting in concert with the German General Staff and Intelligence Service.

The Soviet judges could also demand that all the document• material relating to the activities of the Nazi conspiracy in the Soviet Union be published.

Surely this was part of the charge to be brought against the Nazi leaders, that they prepared for war on the Soviet Union through the penetration ot its political and military organs!

Gollan knows that the Soviet judges remained silent on this question.

They studiously avoided all reference to any alleged dealings between Nazi and Soviet leaders throughout the period of the Hitler dictatorship, and in this they had the active assistance of the other allied judges and legal experts.

Campaign

Neither can it be claimed that there were no attempts made to bring this question out into • the open at the Nuremburg Trials.

The Fourth International, including its British section, ments.

The mid-January supplement of the Revolutionary Communist Party's journal 'Socialist Appeal' issued a challenge to the Soviet prosecuting counsel to publish from the Nazi archives the materials which proved Trotsky's guilt.

That challenge went unanswered, as it had to, for there were no such documents.

Similarly in the United States, an appeal was sent to the Chief Justice at the Nuremburg Trials, Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, asking him to put a series of questions to the Nazi defendants at the trial, particularly Hess, who, Stalinists had alleged, served as the main contact between Trotsky and the Nazi regime.

The appeal was signed by many prominent figures in the American labour movement and intellectual circles, including Norman Thomas, veteran Socialist Party leader, Powers Hapgood of the CIO, Frank Crosswaith of the Negro Labour Council, Philip Randolph, President of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, the novelist and critic Edmund Wilson, the philosopher Sidney Hook and scores of other figures of equal standing.

The appeal asked for seven questions to be put to the defendants at the Nuremburg Trials:

1. Did the defendants ever meet with Trotsky or with his son?

2. If so, when and where and what was the occasion?

3. Did the defendants ever meet with anyone purporting to represent Trotsky? If so, whom, when and where, and what was the occasion?

4. To the defendants knowledge, did Trotsky or his son ever have any relations with the Nazi Gestapo or with the Nazi military Intelligence Service?

5. Did Trotsky or his son ever receive any money from the German miltary Intelligence Service, either directly or through any intermediary?

6. Did the other defendant at the Moscow Trial, G. Pyatakov, ever receive a passport from the Gestapo or from any official German source in order to fly to Norway to meet Trotsky? [Pyatakow was alleged at the second Moscow Trial to have flown from Germany to meet Trotsky near Oslo in December 1935-l.e., nearly three years after the Nazis had come to power.] 7. To the defendants' knowledge, were there ever any documents bearing on any of these questions or on their relations with any other of the Old Bolsheviks for antiRussian purposes? If so, what were they and what has become of them?

Needless to say, the prosecution saw to it that none of these questions was in fact put to Hess and his Nazi codefendants. As Trotsky himself remarked in 1937: "The complete absence of evidence is the most terrible evidence against Stalin'.