How to write good texts: very useful tips . How to sell over the phone? Key tips and rules from the experience of successful telemarketers
1.
Formulate the topic in two simple sentences. Why such a limitation? Because this is the natural length of an intelligible answer to the verbal question “What did you want to talk about?”
If you can't frame your topic in two sentences that grab the reader's attention, then something is wrong. A two-sentence limit will help sharpen your thoughts, determine which lines and episodes are important and which are secondary. Repeat this technique for each chapter. It really helps to build the thought, plot and structure of the text on a segment of any length.
2.
When researching a topic, try to keep a fresh look at things. Yes, you have read a thousand books on the subject, you are already a bit of an expert, but remain an alien, a child who wonders what adults have come to terms with and does not hesitate to ask questions.
3.
There are details and there are details, but they are not the same thing. Details are the signs of a hero, an episode, telling something important about a person, a landscape, a scene. And the details are malicious, unimportant clarifications that could be dispensed with.
Example:“In 2013, the daily milk yield per cow stood at around 20 liters, and in 2014 it increased to 40 liters.” Why this jumble of numbers, if you can simply write "cows began to give twice as much milk"?
4.
Try to have one, maximum two numbers per paragraph. Unless, of course, you are writing an article on accounting or mathematics.
5.
You should not immediately give up trump cards: it is better to hold back the most amazing episode, and start a little from afar, in the first sentences to confuse the reader a little, but to interest (even in articles, sometimes you can present the main character not immediately).
6.
On the Internet, you can find, patiently googling, at least 20 ways to deal with procrastination. But, as practice shows, only two work properly.
Method A is to calculate in advance how many thousand characters you need to write today - and when procrastination entangles you, start writing as boringly as you like, but detailed plan. Through force, stubbornly - and at the same time without literary processing, just write what you think about this.
This activity in itself brings electrodes to the brain, and after a while it sparks.
Method B- talk to yourself, say out loud in a free form a detailed speech in response to the question "what do I want to say in this piece." Having talked, we, as a rule, find successful formulations or moves for the beginning of this or that piece, and even the entire text. If after a few minutes you realize that today it is easier for you to speak, turn on the pre-prepared voice recorder.
7.
Extra words are the most terrible enemies. After writing a phrase, look at it and discard half of the words. Does not work? Change the wording to make it work.
8.
Do not use constructions of three verbs or adjectives in a row.
9.
It is unacceptable for a clerk like "carried out scheduled repairs." Much better it looks like "refurbished".
10.
Each time you look at a complex description of a complex phenomenon, try to fit it into a capacious phrase of four or five words.
Set yourself a number that you can't go beyond.
Example: if n. has pessimistic forecasts regarding the development of the oil industry”, then we can formulate briefly: “N. doesn't believe in oil."
11.
One of the main misconceptions is that it is necessary to express yourself in a literary way, not to write dryly, to pour water, to expand the text due to the abundance of words, descriptions, and complex structures.
Everything is the opposite.
If you fully expressed a thought or situation and showed all its complexity in three paragraphs, great. May it be so. If, for example, you were asked to write an article in a certain magazine and its editor said “at least 6000 characters”, and you have no more than 3000, then expand your thought, plot, look for shades that it would be great to talk about, remember others situations and describe them. But in general, a smart editor will also accept 3000 - if the author has captured his attention in this short period.
12.
The shorter the better. Imagine that our text contains a very long sentence. Somewhere in the middle, the reader will get lost in it, not following the logic. But as soon as a long sentence is broken into several short ones, attention and positive perception are activated again.
13.
Different sentence lengths make the text dynamic, easier and more fun to read, gradually mastering each line.
14.
If you are writing informational or commercial text, keep in mind the law of high readability: the shorter the word, the higher the readability. In Russian, a word containing four or more syllables is considered long; in a professional environment, there is even a special designation “words 4+”. And when it is necessary to reveal the readability of the text, the following gradation is used:
high readability - up to 10% of long words;
average readability - 10–30% of long words;
low readability - over 30%.
15.
People always carefully read what is placed in the lists. So if part of your story can be presented as a bulleted or numbered list, do so and make sure the result is visually appealing.
16.
Connect your own experience - both positive and negative. The best stories are your personal adventures (the reader can only learn about them from you).
17.
Use visualization words: imagine, look, remember, etc.
18.
Write in aphorisms.
19.
Difficult but possible: write so that you can feel your smile.
Key Tips from the experience of successful telephone sales specialists:
1. Briefly state what your business is about.
Surprisingly, most salespeople have difficulty and confusingly describe their activities over the phone. So, the phrase “we are engaged in IT outsourcing” sounds deadly.
Instead, it's better to say, “We're in the software business for dairies. It allows you to reduce costs by 15-40%. Practice: in 10-15 seconds, tell 15 friends and acquaintances what the essence of your business is. If they understand, you have good wording.
2. Prepare for tough questions.
Call 20 key companies in your field, introduce yourself as a client, and record the answers of managers to questions that baffle you on the speakerphone. Analyze, select the best options and implement at your place.
3. Study your business inside and out.
If you don't know what you're selling, the first very technical question ("What kind of gluten do you have?") will confuse you and could blow the deal. Look up the meaning of the most common terms in your industry in a dictionary and use them actively in conversation. This will add weight to you as an expert.
4. Do not "load" the interlocutor with a long monologue-patter.
One of common mistakes in sales - the desire to bring down all the available information on a potential client from the threshold, without allowing him to insert a word. The person on the other end of the wire will be grateful to you if you state your proposal briefly and clearly, in a calm tone, and, most likely, will want to continue communication.
For example, the following speech combination works well: “Good afternoon, my name is Andrey. (Pause, don't rush!) We supply energy-saving light bulbs for businesses in your sector. We are entering the Moscow market with a new product line. We decide on key companies - we will work with them on special terms. I would like to explain the essence and understand whether we can cooperate with you.
5. Manage the conversation.
To hide uncertainty and seize the initiative, some salespeople begin to speak in a condescendingly authoritative manner. The goal is to make it clear that the subscriber does not understand anything in business and must listen in everything " knowledgeable people". As practice shows, such behavior sharply repels customers.
The reverse side of the coin is too soft, timid approach and complete denial of one's own benefit. “Just a minute… don’t want to waste your time… please read our commercial offer…” Pleading, frightened intonations give the interlocutor the impression that he is dealing with an inexperienced newcomer, and engage in business relationship not worth it.
Here is an effective speech technique for seizing the initiative: “To save time, let's do this. I'll ask a few questions (volumes, documents, preferences), then list options to choose from. If you like it in general, we will talk in detail. If not, no big deal. Good?" This gives you permission to ask questions and can control the conversation.
Surprisingly, most salespeople have difficulty and confusingly describe their activities over the phone. So, the phrase “we are engaged in IT outsourcing” sounds deadly. Instead, it's better to say, “We're in the software business for dairies. It allows you to reduce costs by 15-40%. Practice: tell 15 friends about your business in 10-15 seconds. If they understand, you have good wording.
2. Prepare for tough questions
Call 20 key companies in your field, introduce yourself as a client, and record the answers of managers to questions that baffle you on the speakerphone. Analyze, select the best options and implement at your place.
3. Study your business inside and out
If you don't know what you're selling, the first very technical question ("What kind of gluten do you have?") will confuse you and could blow the deal. Look up the meaning of the most common terms in your industry in a dictionary and use them actively in conversation. This will add weight to you as an expert.
4. Do not "load" the interlocutor with a long monologue-patter
One of the typical mistakes in sales is the desire to bring down on a potential client all the information available from the threshold without giving him a word to insert. The person on the other end of the wire will be grateful to you if you state your proposal briefly and clearly, in a calm tone, and, most likely, will want to continue communication.
For example, the following speech combination works well: “Good afternoon, my name is Andrey. (Pause, don't rush!) We supply energy-saving light bulbs for businesses in your sector. We are entering the Moscow market with a new product line. We decide on key companies - we will work with them on special terms. I would like to explain the essence and understand whether we can cooperate with you.
5. Control the conversation
To hide uncertainty and seize the initiative, some salespeople begin to speak in a condescendingly authoritative manner. The goal is to make it clear that the subscriber does not understand anything in business and must listen to “knowledgeable people” in everything. As practice shows, such behavior sharply repels customers.
The reverse side of the coin is too soft, timid approach and complete denial of one's own benefit. “Just a minute… I don’t want to waste your time… please read our commercial offer…” Pleading, frightened intonations give the interlocutor the impression that he is dealing with an inexperienced newcomer, and it is not worth entering into a business relationship with him.
Here is an effective speech technique for intercepting the initiative: “To save time, let's do this. I will ask a few questions (volumes, documents, preferences), then list options to choose from. If you like it in general, we will talk in detail. If not, no big deal. Good?" This gives you permission to ask questions and can control the conversation.
Key tips from the experience of successful telesales professionals
1. Summarize what your business is about
Surprisingly, most salespeople have difficulty and confusingly describe their activities over the phone. So, the phrase “we are engaged in IT outsourcing” sounds deadly. Instead, it's better to say, “We're in the software business for dairies. It allows you to reduce costs by 15-40%. Practice: tell 15 friends about your business in 10-15 seconds. If they understand, you have good wording.
2. Prepare for tough questions
Call 20 key companies in your field, introduce yourself as a client, and record the answers of managers to questions that baffle you on the speakerphone. Analyze, select the best options and implement at your place.
3. Study your business inside and out
If you don't know what you're selling, the first very technical question ("What kind of gluten do you have?") will confuse you and could blow the deal. Look up the meaning of the most common terms in your industry in a dictionary and use them actively in conversation. This will add weight to you as an expert.
4. Do not "load" the interlocutor with a long monologue-patter
One of the typical mistakes in sales is the desire to bring down all the available information on a potential client from the threshold without giving him a word to insert. The person on the other end of the wire will be grateful to you if you state your proposal briefly and clearly, in a calm tone, and, most likely, will want to continue communication.
For example, the following speech combination works well: “Good afternoon, my name is Andrey. (Pause, don't rush!) We supply energy-saving light bulbs for businesses in your sector. We are entering the Moscow market with a new product line. We decide on key companies - we will work with them on special terms. I would like to explain the essence and understand whether we can cooperate with you.
5. Control the conversation
To hide uncertainty and seize the initiative, some salespeople begin to speak in a condescendingly authoritative manner. The goal is to make it clear that the subscriber does not understand anything in business and must listen to “knowledgeable people” in everything. As practice shows, such behavior sharply repels customers.
The reverse side of the coin is too soft, timid approach and complete denial of one's own benefit. “Just a minute… I don’t want to waste your time… please read our commercial offer…” Pleading, frightened intonations give the interlocutor the impression that he is dealing with an inexperienced newcomer, and it is not worth entering into a business relationship with him.
Here is an effective speech technique for intercepting the initiative: “To save time, let's do this. I will ask a few questions (volumes, documents, preferences), then list options to choose from. If you like it in general, we will talk in detail. If not, no big deal. Good?" This gives you permission to ask questions and can control the conversation.
"True eloquence is the ability to say all that is needed, and no more than necessary."
F. La Rochefoucauld
…………………………..
Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin was by no means always a supporter of market mechanisms in the economy and was far from always the one who was called "right." There was a time before the revolution and in 1917 to 1921, when Bukharin was part of the radical left-wing Bolsheviks, the very ones who were categorically against the existence of private property relations in the economic sphere.
But this was exactly until 1921, when Vladimir Lenin introduced the NEP. This was a turning point, not only for Bukharin, but for very many leftists who literally overnight became "rightists."
Trotsky, Lenin and Bukharin
Then the "favorite" of the party was the extreme left
Thus began their first sin-fall. Having changed their former ideals, they betrayed themselves, and the first betrayal almost always entailed a series of new ones. For having betrayed once, it will be much easier to betray the second, third, fourth time.
However, this is when we are talking about political struggle, ideas, coalitions. this one. And the homeland is different - the homeland can be changed only once.
Bukharin himself, as a person, turned out to be a typical politician, ready to take extreme measures to achieve the goal, ready to hypocrisy (double-dealing) for the sake of success. He was never a particularly principled person. Bukharin participated in a conspiracy against Lenin, intending to arrest him, he suddenly switched from the left to the "right".
Then, having already lost the internal political struggle to Stalin, he hid and began to form a closed opposition. Until everything ended with the defeat of his opposition group.
On the evening of March 5, 1938, the interrogation of the accused Nikolai Bukharin began in the Hall of the House of Unions.
Here's how it started....
"Presiding. Let us pass on to the interrogation of the accused Bukharin.
Bukharin. I have a motion to the court on the following two counts:
firstly, to give me the opportunity to present myself freely before the court, and, secondly, to allow me at the beginning of my presentation to dwell, more or less, as time permits, on an analysis of the ideological and political principles of the criminal “Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites” for the following reasons - Firstly, because relatively little was said about this, secondly, it has a certain public interest, and, thirdly, the citizen public prosecutor asked this question at the previous, if I am not mistaken, meeting.
Vyshinsky. If the accused Bukharin intends to restrict in any way the right of the public prosecutor to ask questions in the course of his explanations, then I think that Comrade Chairman should explain to Bukharin that the right of the prosecutor to ask questions is based on the law.
Therefore, I request that this application be rejected, as provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Bukharin. I misunderstood my request.
presiding. The first question to the defendant Bukharin: do you confirm your testimony at the preliminary investigation about anti-Soviet activities?
Bukharin. I confirm my testimony completely and completely.
presiding. What do you want to say about anti-Soviet activities? And Comrade Prosecutor has the right to ask questions.
Vyshinsky. Permit me to begin the interrogation of the accused Bukharin. Briefly state what exactly you plead guilty to.
Bukharin. Firstly, in belonging to the counter-revolutionary “bloc of Rights and Trotskyites”.
Vyshinsky. From what year?
Bukharin. Since the formation of the bloc. Even before that, I plead guilty to belonging to a counter-revolutionary organization of the right.
Vyshinsky. From what year?
Bukharin. Approximately since 1928. I plead guilty to having been one of the major leaders of this "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites".
I plead, therefore, guilty of what follows directly from this, guilty of the totality of the crimes committed by this counter-revolutionary organization, regardless of whether I knew or did not know, whether I took or did not take a direct part in this or that act, because I answer as one of the leaders, and not as a switchman of a counter-revolutionary organization.
Vyshinsky. What were the aims of this counter-revolutionary organization?
Bukharin. This counter-revolutionary organization, to put it briefly...
Vyshinsky. Yes, for now it's short.
Bukharin. Essentially speaking, it pursued—although, so to speak, it may not have been sufficiently conscious and did not dot the i's—its main goal was the restoration of capitalist relations in the USSR.
Vyshinsky. The overthrow of Soviet power?
Bukharin. The overthrow of Soviet power was the means to achieve this goal.
Vyshinsky. Way?
Bukharin. As is known...
Vyshinsky. By violent overthrow?
Bukharin. Yes, by violent overthrow of this power.
Vyshinsky. With help?
Bukharin. With the help of using all the difficulties that are encountered in the path of Soviet power, in particular, by using the war, which predictively stood in the future.
Vyshinsky. Which stood prognostic in perspective with whose help?
Bukharin. From foreign countries.
Vyshinsky. On terms?
Bukharin. On conditions, to be specific, of a number of concessions.
Vyshinsky. Up to...
Bukharin. Up to territorial concessions.
Vyshinsky. That is?
Bukharin. If we put all the dots over the "i", - on the conditions of the dismemberment of the USSR.
Vyshinsky. Rejection from the USSR of entire regions and republics?
Bukharin. Yes.
Vyshinsky. For example?
Bukharin. Ukraine, Primorye, Belarus .
Vyshinsky. In favor?
Bukharin. AT the benefit of the States concerned, which geographically and politically...
Vyshinsky. Exactly?
Bukharin. In favor of Germany, in favor of Japan, partly for England."
The purpose of the Right-Trotskyist bloc was to assist foreign powers to saw up the USSR
Vyshinsky. So what was the agreement with the relevant circles about? I know of one agreement that the bloc had.
Bukharin. Yes, the bloc had an agreement.
Vyshinsky. And also by weakening the defense capability?
Bukharin. You see, this issue was not discussed, at least in my presence.
Vyshinsky. And what about sabotage?
Bukharin. With sabotage, the situation was such that in the end, especially under the pressure of the Trotskyist part, the so-called contact center, which arose approximately in 1933, despite a number of internal disagreements and manipulative political mechanics, which is of no interest to the investigation, - after various ups and downs, disputes and other things, an orientation towards sabotage was adopted.
Vyshinsky. Did this weaken the defense capability of our country?
Bukharin. Of course.
Vyshinsky. Consequently, was there an orientation towards weakening, towards undermining the defense capability?
Bukharin. This was not formal, but in fact it is.
Vyshinsky. But the actions and activities in this direction were clear?
Bukharin. Yes.
Vyshinsky. Can you say the same about acts of sabotage?
Bukharin. As for acts of sabotage—due to the division of labor and certain of my functions, which you know, I mainly dealt with the problems of general leadership and the ideological side, which, of course, did not exclude either my awareness of the practical side of the matter, or the adoption of a number of my hand practical steps.
Vyshinsky. I understand that you had a division of labor.
Bukharin. But I, Citizen Procurator, say that I am responsible for the bloc.
Vyshinsky. But did the bloc at the head of which you stood set the task of organizing acts of sabotage?
Bukharin. As far as I can judge from various separate things that pop up in my memory, this is depending on the specific situation and specific conditions.
Vyshinsky. As you can see from the process, the situation was quite specific. Did you and Khodzhaev talk about the fact that they do little harm, that they harm badly?
Bukharin. There was no talk about intensifying sabotage.
Vyshinsky. Let me ask the defendant Khodzhaev.
presiding. Please.
Vyshinsky. Defendant Khodzhaev, did you have a conversation with Bukharin about speeding up sabotage?
Khojaev. In August 1936, at my dacha, when I was talking with Bukharin, he pointed out that wrecking work was poorly organized in our nationalist organization.
Vyshinsky. And what should be done?
Khojaev. To intensify and not only intensify sabotage, but we must go over to organizing insurrection, terror and the like.
Vyshinsky. Accused Bukharin, is Khodjaev speaking correctly?
Bukharin. No.
Vyshinsky. Did you set out to organize an insurrectionary movement?
Bukharin. There was a rebel orientation.
Vyshinsky. Was there an orientation? Are you on North Caucasus sent Slepkov to organize this case? Did you send Yakovenko to Biysk for the same purpose?
Bukharin. Yes.
Vyshinsky. And this is not what Khodzhaev says in relation to Central Asia?
Bukharin. I thought that when you ask about Central Asia, my answer should be about Central Asia only.
Vyshinsky. So you deny this fact for Central Asia, but not the establishment of a bloc, but I asked you about the establishment of a bloc.
Bukharin. And I pointed out to you that this issue was resolved on a case-by-case basis, depending on geographic, political and other conditions.
Vyshinsky. Do you deny Khodzhaev's testimony? I have now invited Khodzhaev to testify against you because it is important for me to illustrate the fact that your “bloc of Rights and Trotskyists” gave assignments, as you say, from case to case, depending on the situation, to organize an insurrectionary, subversive, wrecking movement. Do you agree with this?
Bukharin. I agree with this. But I just need to clarify so that there is no confusion. Those uprisings you spoke about took place in 1930, and the “bloc of Rights and Trotskyites” was organized, as you know, Citizen Procuror, in 1933.
Vyshinsky. But his tactics were no different from those of your center right. Do you agree with this?
Bukharin. I agree.
Vyshinsky. Does this mean that the organization of the insurrectionary movement also took place in the activities of the “bloc of Rights and Trotskyites”?
Bukharin. Had a place.
Vyshinsky. And are you responsible for this?
Bukharin. I have already said that I am responsible for the entire set of actions .
Vyshinsky. Installation on the organization of terrorist acts, on the murder of party leaders and Soviet government did the block have
Bukharin. It was, and I think that this organization should be dated, approximately, in 1932, in the autumn.
Vyshinsky. And what is your attitude to the murder of Sergei Mironovich Kirov? Was this murder also committed with the knowledge and on the instructions of the "Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites"?
Bukharin. This was not known to me.
Vyshinsky. I ask: was this murder committed with the knowledge and on the instructions of the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites"?
Bukharin. And I repeat that I don't know, Citizen Procurator."
I'll stop here for a bit. Bukharin, having confessed to the totality of the charges, began to deny his involvement in the murder of Kirov. They say this act of terrorism is not his doing.
Bukharin undertook to deny that he was involved in the murder of Sergei Mironovich Kirov
"Vyshinsky. Did you not know about the murder of Sergei Mironovich Kirov specifically?
Bukharin. Not on purpose, but...
Vyshinsky. Let me ask the accused Rykov.
presiding. Please.
Vyshinsky. Defendant Rykov, what do you know about the murder of Sergei Mironovich Kirov?
Rykov. I do not know about any participation of the right and the right part of the bloc in the assassination of Kirov.
Vyshinsky. In general, do you know about the preparation of terrorist acts - the murders of members of the Party and the government?
Rykov. I, as one of the leaders of the right part of this bloc, participated in the organization of a number of terrorist groups and in the preparation of terrorist acts. As I said in my testimony, I do not know of a single decision of the right center, through which I was related to the “bloc of Rights and Trotskyites”, regarding the actual execution of the murders ...
Vyshinsky. About the actual implementation. So. Do you know that the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyists" set as one of its tasks the organization and commission of terrorist acts against the leaders of the party and government?
Rykov. I said more than I personally organized terrorist groups, and you ask me if I knew about these tasks through some third party.
Vyshinsky. I ask, did the “bloc of Rights and Trotskyites” have anything to do with the assassination of Comrade Kirov?
Rykov. As regards the right side of this assassination, I have no information, and therefore I am still convinced that the assassination of Kirov was carried out by the Trotskyists, without the knowledge of the Rights. Of course, I might not have known about it."
........
Alexei Rykov also refused to plead guilty to the murder of Kirov
"Vyshinsky. Were you connected with Yenukidze?
Rykov. With Yenukidze? Very little.
Vyshinsky. Was he a member of the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites"?
Rykov. Has been since 1933.
Vyshinsky. In this bloc, did he represent which section, the Trotskyist or the Right, which one he gravitated towards?
Rykov. Must have represented the right.
Vyshinsky. Okay, please sit down. Allow the accused Yagoda to ask. Defendant Yagoda, do you know that Yenukidze, whom the accused Rykov was talking about now, represented the right part of the bloc and was directly involved in organizing the murder of Sergei Mironovich Kirov?
Berry. Both Rykov and Bukharin are telling lies. Rykov and Yenukidze participated in a meeting of the center where the question of the assassination of Sergei Mironovich Kirov was discussed.
Vyshinsky. Did the right have anything to do with it?
Berry. Direct, since the bloc is a Right-Trotskyite bloc.
Vyshinsky. Did the defendants Rykov and Bukharin, in particular, have anything to do with this murder?
Berry. Direct.
Vyshinsky. Did you, as a member of the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" have anything to do with this murder?
Berry. Had.
Vyshinsky. Are Bukharin and Rykov now telling the truth that they did not know about this?
Berry. This cannot be, because when Yenukidze told me that they, that is, the “bloc of Rights and Trotskyists”, had decided at a joint meeting the question of committing a terrorist act against Kirov, I categorically objected ...
Vyshinsky. Why?
Berry. I declared that I would not allow any terrorist acts. I considered it completely unnecessary.
Vyshinsky. And dangerous to the organization?
Berry. Of course.
Vyshinsky. Nonetheless?
Berry. Nevertheless, Yenukidze confirmed...
Vyshinsky. What?
Berry. What are they at this meeting ...
Vyshinsky. Who are they?
Berry. Rykov and Yenukidze at first categorically objected...
Vyshinsky. Against what?
Berry. Against the commission of a terrorist act, but under pressure from the rest of the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites"...
Vyshinsky. Mostly Trotskyist?
Berry. Yes, under pressure from the rest of the “bloc of Rights and Trotskyists,” they agreed. That's what Yenukidze told me.
Vyshinsky. After that, did you personally take any measures so that the murder of Sergei Mironovich Kirov was carried out?
Berry. Me personally?
Vyshinsky. Yes, as a member of the block.
Berry. I gave the order...
Vyshinsky. To whom?
Berry. To Leningrad Zaporozhets. It was a little different .
Vyshinsky. We will talk about this later. Now I need to find out the participation of Rykov and Bukharin in this villainy.
Berry. I gave orders to Zaporozhets. When Nikolaev was detained...
Vyshinsky. First time?
Berry. Yes. The Zaporozhets arrived and reported to me that a man had been detained...
Vyshinsky. Who's in the briefcase?
Berry. There was a revolver and a diary. And he freed him.
Vyshinsky. Did you approve it?
Berry. I took note of this.
Vyshinsky. Did you then give instructions not to put obstacles in the way of Sergei Mironovich Kirov being killed?
Berry. Yes, I did... Not so.
Vyshinsky. In a slightly different edition?
Berry. It wasn't like that, but it doesn't matter .
Vyshinsky. Did you give instructions?
Berry. I confirmed.
Vyshinsky. Confirmed. Sit down."
...................................
Let's remember some details. The man who was detained with a pistol near Kirov's house was Leonid Nikolayev. He was not properly checked and released. Then he was detained exactly the same way again and released again. Although his intentions about Kirov should have been clear to the "authorities".
Leonid Nikolaev, a man with a weapon, who was condoned by the UNKVD authorities of the Leningrad region.
And then Nikolaev for the third time with a weapon ended up in Smolny, he waited for Kirov there for a long time, having waited, he fulfilled his plan.
presiding (to the Prosecutor). Any questions?
Vyshinsky. One more question for Bukharin. Is your attitude to terror positive or negative, to terror against Soviet leaders?
Bukharin. I understand. The first time I raised the question of terror in this connection was during a conversation with Pyatakov, and I knew that Trotsky insisted on terrorist tactics. I objected then.
Vyshinsky. When was this the case?
Bukharin. But, in the end, with Pyatakov was found mutual language under the formula that everything will resolve itself, and one way or another the differences will be settled, and then I reported to you, citizen public prosecutor ...
Vyshinsky. Reported to the court in my presence...
Bukharin. I reported to the court in your presence that the orientation towards terror went, in essence, in fact, already along the Ryutin platform.
Vyshinsky. I understand. I want to know that your attitude towards terror was positive?
Bukharin. So what do you want to say?
Vyshinsky. That you were in favor of killing the leaders of our party and government.
Bukharin. You ask ... I, as a member of the "right-Trotskyist center", was a supporter of ...
Vyshinsky. Terrorist acts.
Bukharin. Was.
Vyshinsky. Against who?
Bukharin. Against the leaders of the party and government.
Vyshinsky. Details will be told later. Have you become such a supporter since about 1929-1930?
Bukharin. No, I think since about 1932.
Vyshinsky. And in 1918 you were not a supporter of the assassination of the leaders of our party and government?
Bukharin. No, I was not.
Vyshinsky. Were you a supporter of Lenin's arrest?
Bukharin. Arrest? There were two such cases, of which I told Lenin himself about the first, and kept silent about the second for secret reasons, about which I can give a more detailed explanation if you like. It was.
Vyshinsky. It was?
Bukharin. Yes.
Vyshinsky. And about killing Vladimir Ilyich?
Bukharin. It was said for the first time about the detention for 24 hours. There was such a formula, and in the second ...
Vyshinsky. And if Vladimir Ilyich does not surrender?
Bukharin. But Vladimir Ilyich, as you know, did not join the armed struggle, he was not a bretter.
Vyshinsky. So, you expected that Vladimir Ilyich, when you came to arrest him, would not resist?
Bukharin. You see, I can refer to another person. When the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries arrested Dzerzhinsky, he also offered no armed resistance.
Vyshinsky. It depends each time on the specific situation. So, in this case, you did not count on resistance?
Bukharin. No.
Vyshinsky. Didn't they count on the arrest of Comrade Stalin in 1918?
Bukharin. There was some talk back then about...
Vyshinsky. I'm not asking about conversations, but about the plan to arrest Comrade Stalin.
Bukharin. And I say that if I do not agree with your characterization of this as a plan, then allow me to prove to the court what really happened. Then, one might say, we did not have a plan, but there was a conversation.
Vyshinsky. About what?
Bukharin. There was talk about drawing up, again, a new government of "Left Communists."
Vyshinsky. I ask: did you have a plan to arrest Comrade Stalin in 1918?
Bukharin. Not Stalin, but there was a plan to arrest Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov.
Vyshinsky. All three—Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov?
Bukharin. Quite right.
Vyshinsky. So, not comrade Stalin, but comrades Stalin, Lenin and Sverdlov?
Bukharin. Yes sir.
Vyshinsky. Was there an arrest plan?
Bukharin. I say: there was no plan, but talk about it.
Vyshinsky. And what about the murder of comrades Stalin, Lenin and Sverdlov?
Bukharin. In no case.
Vyshinsky. I will petition the court to call witnesses on this issue by the end of the session today or at the next court session. : former active member of the group of “Left Communists” Yakovleva, former active member of the group of “Left Communists” Osinsky, Mantsev and then the “Left” Socialist-Revolutionaries, members of the Central Committee of the “Left” Socialist-Revolutionaries Karelin and Kamkov in order to interrogate them on the question of whether he was whether and what plan Bukharin, the "Left Communists" whom he then led, together with the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries, had a plan of arrest and murder in relation to comrades Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov. So far I have no questions.
Bukharin. Allow me to start.
presiding (after a meeting with members of the court). The court decided to satisfy the petition of the public prosecutor to call Yakovleva, Osinsky, Mantsev, Karelin and Kamkov as witnesses.
Vyshinsky. This satisfies me quite well.
presiding. Do you have any questions for Bukharin yet?
Vyshinsky. Not yet.
presiding. I explain to the defendant Bukharin that he is not speaking in defense and not having the last word.
Bukharin. I understand it.
presiding. Therefore, if you wish to say something about your criminal anti-Soviet activities, please, you have the floor.
Bukharin. I want to dwell on the question of the restoration of capitalism. Allow me?
Vyshinsky. Of course, that's your main specialty."
...............................
This is a very important point of the entire trial. Bukharin tells what all this was for, what goals their bloc pursued, what motivated them
On the morning of March 5, 1938, Nikolai Bukharin ascended the oratory for the penultimate time, using the right given to him by law and court
Bukharin. I would like to first dwell on the ideological principles, not in the sense of rejecting responsibility for practical criminal, counter-revolutionary activities. I would not at all want the proletarian court to have such an opinion.
I want to answer the question that the citizen public prosecutor put to Rakovsky—in the name of what the “bloc of Rights and Trotskyists” carried out such a criminal struggle against Soviet power. .
I am aware that I am not a lecturer and should not be preaching here, but I am a defendant who must bear responsibility as a criminal standing before the court of a proletarian country.
But precisely because it seemed to me that this process has public importance and this question was extremely little covered, I thought it would be useful to dwell on a program that has never been written down anywhere, on the practical program of the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" and open the brackets of one formula - what is the restoration of capitalism, as it is was realized and conceived in the circles of the “bloc of Rights and Trotskyites”.
I repeat that when I want to dwell on this side of the matter. I by no means want to absolve myself of responsibility for various practical things, for my counter-revolutionary crimes. But I want to say that I was not a switchman of the counter-revolution, but one of the leaders of the counter-revolution, and as one of the leaders I answer to a much greater extent, I bear a much greater responsibility than any of the switchmen.
So I cannot be suspected of wanting to slip away or shrug off responsibility, even if I was not even a member of a Right-Trotskyite organization.
The court and the public opinion of our country, as well as the public opinion of other countries, so far as progressive humanity is concerned, will be able to judge how people have reached such a stage, how we all turned into bitter counter-revolutionaries, traitors to the socialist homeland, how we turned into spies, terrorists, restorers of capitalism, and what, after all, are the ideas and political attitudes of the "Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites."
We went to betrayal, crime, treason. But why are we doing this? We turned into an insurgent detachment, organized terrorist groups, engaged in sabotage, wanted to overthrow such a valiant leadership of Stalin, the Soviet power of the proletariat.
One of the most common answers is that the logic of the struggle forced us to be counter-revolutionaries, conspirators, traitors, that it led us to such disgrace, to such a crime, as a result of which we are in the dock. I'm not saying that such things do not happen in public life, there is logic here, the logic of the struggle is combined with the methods of struggle, with the attitude .
I would like to dwell on these data, although I am convinced that, in fact, such terminology sounds rather strange in relation to such criminal activity, but nevertheless it seems to me that it is still important to dwell on this.
It has been proven many times and chewed on tens of thousands of times that the Right deviation, when it was only in its infancy and was in an embryonic state, from the moment of its inception set itself the task of restoring capitalism.
I'm not going to talk about this. I wanted to talk about the other side of the case, from the point of view of a much more important, from the objective side of this case, because here the problem of sanity and judgment comes into play in terms of crimes revealed in court, especially since I am one of the leaders in the dock. We need to start here from the starting point.
Right counter-revolutionaries were, as it were, for the first time a “deviation,” as if, at first glance, they were those who began with dissatisfaction with collectivization, with dissatisfaction with industrialization, that, supposedly, industrialization was destroying production. It was, at first glance, the main thing. Then came the Ryutin platform.
When all state machines, all means, all best forces were thrown into the industrialization of the country, into collectivization, we found ourselves, literally in 24 hours, on the other side, we found ourselves with fists, with counter-revolutionaries , we then found ourselves with capitalist remnants, which then still existed in the field of commodity circulation. From this follows the main meaning, the assessment, from the point of view of the subjective, is clear.
Here we have a very interesting process of revaluation of individual farming, of crawling into its idealization, into the idealization of the owner. Such was the evolution. The program includes the prosperous peasant economy of the individual, and the kulak, in fact, turns into an end in itself. .
Over the collective farms is ironic. Among us, counter-revolutionary conspirators, at that time such a psychology came out more and more: collective farms are the music of the future.
We need to develop rich owners . Such an enormous revolution has taken place in attitudes and in psychology. In 1917, none of the members of the party, including me, would have thought of pitying some White Guards killed, but during the liquidation of the kulaks, in 1929-1930, we pity those who were dispossessed for so-called humanitarian reasons. Which of us would have thought of imputing the devastation in the area of our economy in 1919, imputing this devastation to the Bolsheviks, and not sabotage? Nobody.
It would just sound quite openly like treason. But already in 1928, I myself gave a formula regarding the military-feudal exploitation of the peasantry, that is, I imputed the costs of the class struggle not to a class hostile to the proletariat, but to the leadership of the proletariat itself. This is a 180 degree turn.
This means that here the ideological and political attitudes have grown into counter-revolutionary attitudes. The kulak economy and its interests have actually become a program item. The logic of struggle has led to the logic of ideas and to a change in our psychology, to a counter-revolutionization of our aims.
Take industry. At first we had a cry against over-industrialization, excessive budgetary tension and so on. And in fact it was software requirement, was the ideal of a kulak-agrarian country with an industrial appendage. And psychologically?
And psychologically, at one time we preached socialist industrialism, began with a shrug of the shoulders, with irony, and then with anger, basically, to look at our huge, gigantically growing factories, as some kind of gluttonous monsters that devour everything, take away funds consumption from the general public, and that they are a known danger. The heroic efforts of the leading workers...
presiding. Defendant Bukharin, you again did not understand. You do not have the last word now. You were asked to testify about your anti-Soviet counter-revolutionary activities, and you are giving a lecture. In the last word, you can say whatever you want. The third time I explain to you."
.............................
The presiding judge Vasily Stepanovich Ulrich had to remind Bukharin more than once that he was not at his lecture, but in court
Bukharin. Then let me give you a very brief...
Vyshinsky. Tell me, Defendant Bukharin, how in practice this was clothed in your anti-Soviet activity.
Bukharin. Then let me list some program points. And now I will pass on to the exposition of my counter-revolutionary practical activities. Is that possible, citizen chairman?
presiding. Be shorter, please. You will have the opportunity to make a speech as your own advocate.
Bukharin. This is not my defense, this is my self-accusation. I didn't say a single word in my defense.
If I practically formulate my program setting, then it will be in relation to the economy — state capitalism, economic man-individual, reduction of collective farms, foreign concessions, concession to monopoly foreign trade and the result is the capitalization of the country.
Vyshinsky. What were your goals? What is your overall prediction?
Bukharin. The forecast boiled down to the fact that there would be a greater tilt towards capitalism.
Vyshinsky. And it turned out?
Bukharin. But it turned out to be completely different.
Vyshinsky. And it turned out to be a complete victory for socialism.
Bukharin. It turned out to be a complete victory for socialism.
Vyshinsky. And the complete collapse of your forecast.
Bukharin. And the complete collapse of our forecast. Inside the country, our actual program—this, it seems to me, must be said in all words—is a slide towards bourgeois-democratic freedom, towards a coalition, because freedom of parties follows from a bloc with the Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and others;
the coalition follows quite logically from blocking for the struggle, because if you choose allies for overthrowing the government, then on the second day, in the event of a mental victory, they would be accomplices of the authorities. Slipping not only onto the rails of bourgeois-democratic freedom, but, in a political sense, onto rails where there are undoubtedly elements of Caesarism.
Vyshinsky. You say just fascism.
Bukharin. If in the circles of the “bloc of Rights and Trotskyites” there was an ideological orientation toward the kulaks and at the same time an orientation toward a palace and state coup, a military conspiracy, and a Praetorian guard of counter-revolutionaries, then this is nothing but elements of fascism.
If those elements of state capitalism that I spoke about are operating in the field of economics ...
Vyshinsky. In short, you have slipped into outright frenzied fascism.
Bukharin. Yes, this is correct, although we did not put all the dots over the “and”. Here is a formulation that characterizes us as conspirators, restorers of capitalism, true from all points of view. And quite naturally, this was accompanied by the degeneration and rebirth of our entire ideology, our entire practice and methods of struggle.
Now let me go straight to the presentation of my criminal activities.
Vyshinsky. Maybe I can first ask two or three biographical questions?
Bukharin. Please.
Vyshinsky. Have you lived in Austria?
Bukharin. Lived.
Vyshinsky. For a long time?
Bukharin. 1912-1913 years.
Vyshinsky. Did you have any connection with the Austrian police?
Bukharin. Did not have.
Vyshinsky. Did you live in America?
Bukharin. Yes.
Vyshinsky. For a long time?
Bukharin. For a long time.
Vyshinsky. How many months?
Bukharin. Seven months.
Vyshinsky. Were you not connected with the police in America?
Bukharin. Absolutely not.
Vyshinsky. From America to Russia you traveled through...
Bukharin. Through Japan.
Vyshinsky. How long have you been there?
Bukharin. week.
Vyshinsky. Haven't you been recruited this week?
Bukharin. If you want to ask such questions...
Vyshinsky. I have the right, on the basis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to ask such questions.
presiding. The prosecutor has all the more the right to ask such a question, because Bukharin is accused of attempting to assassinate the leaders of the party back in 1918, that you raised your hand against the life of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin back in 1918.
Vyshinsky. I do not go beyond the Code of Criminal Procedure. Anything—you can say no, and I can ask.
Bukharin. Absolutely correct.
presiding. The defendant's consent is not required.
Vyshinsky. Did you have any connections with the police?
Bukharin. Absolutely.
Vyshinsky. How is Chernov on the bus? I'm asking you about connections with some police agency.
Bukharin. No ties to any police authorities.
Vyshinsky. Then why did you come so easily to the bloc that was doing espionage work?
Bukharin . I don't know anything about espionage.
Vyshinsky. How do you not know?
Bukharin. So.
Vyshinsky. What did the block do?
Bukharin. There were two testimonies regarding espionage - Sharangovich and Ivanov, that is, two provocateurs.
Vyshinsky. Defendant Bukharin, do you consider Rykov a provocateur?
Bukharin. No, I don't.
Vyshinsky (to Rykov). Defendant Rykov, do you know that the “bloc of Rights and Trotskyites” carried on espionage work?
Rykov. I know there were organizations that did espionage work.
Vyshinsky. Tell me, did the Belarusian national-fascist organization, which is part of your “Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites”, led by the accused Sharangovich, carry out espionage work?
Rykov. I have already said about this.
Vyshinsky. Was she a spy?
Rykov. Yes.
Vyshinsky. Was she connected with Polish intelligence?
Rykov. Yes.
Vyshinsky. Did you know about it?
Rykov. Knew.
Vyshinsky. Did Bukharin not know?
Rykov. In my opinion, Bukharin also knew.
Vyshinsky. And so, accused Bukharin, it is not Sharangovich who speaks of this, but your friend Rykov.
Bukharin. But still, I didn't know.
presiding. Comrade Prosecutor, do you have any more questions?
Vyshinsky. I would like to explain to the accused Bukharin. Do you now understand why I asked you about Austria?
Bukharin. Communication with the Austrian police was that. that I was sitting in a fortress in Austria.
Vyshinsky. Accused Sharangovich, were you a Polish spy, even though you were in prison?
Sharangovich. He was, although he was sitting.
Bukharin. I was in a Swedish prison, twice in a Russian prison, in a German prison.
Vyshinsky. Just because you've been in jail doesn't mean you couldn't be a spy.
Accused Rykov, you confirm that after all the imprisonments and imprisonments in prisons different countries Did Bukharin, together with you, know about Sharangovich's espionage connection with Polish intelligence? Did you know and approve of it?
Rykov. I knew about organizations that do espionage work .
Vyshinsky. The fact that Bukharin was in different prisons did not prevent him from approving the connection with the Polish intelligence of his accomplices. Do you understand it?
Rykov. No, I don't understand.
Vyshinsky. Bukharin understands this.
Bukharin. I understand, but I deny it.
presiding. Continue on.
Bukharin. I should briefly say step by step. My counter-revolutionary activity, in essence speaking, insofar as we are talking about a Right deviation, about its evolution up to a “bloc of Rights and Trotskyites” with an appropriate method of struggle, with corresponding criminal actions, in fact, was consciously laid down as early as 1919-1920, when From my students at Sverdlovsk University, I cobbled together a certain group, which very quickly began to develop into a faction.
The composition of this group is known, it is in the investigative materials, and, as far as I can navigate from the remarks of Citizen Prosecutor, he is aware of this.
Vyshinsky. Among your students was Slepkov, whom you sent to the North Caucasus to organize uprisings?
Bukharin. Quite right. I can give a few more facts.
Vyshinsky. Of the same kind?
Bukharin. No, not that kind.
Vyshinsky. But this kind?
Bukharin. No.
Vyshinsky. Well, like this?
Bukharin. Let me, in one sense, I can not reveal all the content.
Vyshinsky. Go on.
Bukharin. A well-known cadre cell was created, which then entered, as one of the constituent parts, into the total counter-revolutionary organization of the Rights, and then, consequently, "into the Right-Trotskyist bloc."
Approximately in 1923, I wrote a so-called memorandum, which was supposed to be handed over to the Central Committee, but I did not submit it there, and it got circulation in the circles of this “school”, in which a number of attitudes were outlined, which then grew, blossomed and bear corresponding poisonous fruits. There I spoke about the fact that in the leadership of the party the crisis will be replaced by one ...
Vyshinsky. We are now completely uninterested in what you said there.
Bukharin. In 1928, when elements of a crisis in relations between the proletariat and the peasantry set in in the country, and the party leadership, headed by Stalin, outlined a line for overcoming difficulties and attacking the kulaks, an opposition began to take shape - at first only as an opposition.
One of the episodes is that this year I came for tendentiously selected materials to the then head of the OGPU - G.G. Yagoda, who gave me appropriately selected materials, which I then used to form my own counter-revolutionary ideology and corresponding actions based on it.
........................
The prosecution unsuccessfully tried to force Rykov and Bukharin to confess to espionage, but one way or another they ran into a wall of non-confession. The investigating authorities of the NKVD and the USSR Prosecutor's Office were never able to collect all the solid reliable evidence of their involvement in espionage in order to completely expose them.
Prosecutor Andrei Vyshinsky, realizing that he would not be able to get Rykov and Bukharin's confession of espionage, changed tactics. He began to ask questions about the history of the organization of the "rights" in the CPSU(b).
Prosecutor Andrey Vyshinsky was a very strong orator who never, under any circumstances, got lost in court, holding the punch and taking the initiative.
The experienced orator Bukharin had a very, very strong opponent
"Vyshinsky. When did your counter-revolutionary right-wing organization take shape?
Bukharin. Approximately 1928-1929, my rapprochement with Tomsky and Rykov dates back, then my connections and probing among the then members of the Central Committee , illegal meetings that were illegal in relation to the Central Committee, and therefore, the organization crossed the boundaries of Soviet state legality, and on this basis, a kind of organization of leadership of a right-wing organization quickly grew up, which can be depicted as a hierarchical ladder, something like this:
troika - Rykov, Tomsky and I, which was then part of the Politburo, the opposition members of the Central Committee, according to their attitudes, then already developing into a counter-revolutionary group, then various groups, the main constituent parts which should be named as follows:
Bukharin and his notorious “shkolka”, firstly, Tomsky and the cadres of trade unionists, secondly, Rykov and his secretaries and people of the Soviet apparatus, thirdly, Uglanov with Moscow district workers and a group in the Industrial Academy, fourthly.
Thus, the top of this counter-revolutionary organization was formed here.
Vyshinsky. Where did Yagoda go?
Bukharin. Yagoda stood aside.
Vyshinsky. Was he connected to you?
Bukharin. Yes, he was tied.
Vyshinsky. Helped you pick biased material?
Bukharin. Quite right.
Vyshinsky. So he was a member...
Bukharin. I I’m talking now about the hierarchical ladder of leadership, and therefore about Yagoda ...
Vyshinsky. I did not want to simply offend the accused Yagoda.
Bukharin. Here began the search for blocks. First, my meeting with Kamenev at his apartment. Secondly, a meeting with Pyatakov in the hospital, at which Kamenev was also present. Thirdly, a meeting with Kamenev at Schmidt's dacha.
I forgot to say that as far back as 1928, on the basis of and in connection with the action of the opposition representatives, who at that time had not yet developed into counter-revolutionary attitudes, of an entire group of the Central Committee and on the basis of an appropriate plan, I drew up the so-called platform of 1928.
I mention it not because it received wide circulation and not because, as is well known, its ideas then formed part of all practical measures and it became an ideologically shaping principle, but because in the second probe even with Trotskyist-Zinoviev circles. namely, during my meeting with Kamenev and Pyatakov, I showed the economic part of this platform to the persons in question.
I don't know if you're interested in the details...
presiding. In my opinion, these episodes can be told briefly.
Bukharin. Good. Meeting with Kamenev at his apartment. Here there were sharp slanderous talk about the leadership of the party. party regime, famine organization, civil war in the country, slandering the party leadership and so on and so forth.
Date at the hospital . I repeat that since here the economic platform received this well-known sound, there was no agreement here, but probing, probing and trying to reach an agreement were here.
And, finally, thirdly, a date at the dacha of Vasily Schmidt which was not there at the time and which was attended by myself, my secretary Zeitlin, Kamenev and Tomsky.
The conversation here was relatively brief and consisted of a discussion of the tactics that we, members of the Central Committee who were in opposition, should adhere to at the then upcoming plenum of the Central Committee. Moreover, Kamenev's position was that he incited us to speak, and we also waited.
So I consider all these three attempts as a search for a criminal connection and a criminal blockade against the leadership of the Party and against the Party with those circles that were grouped around Kamenev-Zinoviev, on the one hand, and the Trotskyist Pyatakov, on the other.
In 1930-1931, the next stage in the development of the counter-revolutionary organization of the right begins. At that time there was a great aggravation of the class struggle in the country, sabotage of the kulaks, resistance of the kulaks to the policy of the party, and so on.
I consider this stage a transition to “double bookkeeping” on all fronts. The troika has become an illegal center, and therefore, if earlier this troika was the head of opposition circles, it has now become the center of an illegal counter-revolutionary organization. And since, I repeat, they were illegal in relation to the Party, they thereby became illegal in relation to the organs of Soviet power.
Close to this illegal center was Yenukidze, who had contact with this center through Tomsky . Uglanov also stood close to him at that time, whose share in the party organization was quite large, because in the recent past, approximately by this time, he was in charge of the Moscow party organization.
By the same time, around the end of 1931, the participants in the so-called “school” were transferred to the periphery—to Voronezh, Samara, Leningrad, Novosibirsk, and this fact of their transfer to the periphery was already used for counter-revolutionary purposes.
Vyshinsky. How was it used?
Bukharin. It was used in the sense that we, the members of this illegal troika, members of the center right, including myself, are giving these decomposed people a direct task, a direct instruction, primarily to recruit people. As for Yagoda, as far as my memory serves me, according to Rykov, he then demanded a special position for himself, precisely at that period with special persistence.
Vyshinsky. In what sense is the special position?
Bukharin. A special position within the right-wing organization in the sense of especially conspiratorial forms of cover, which is quite understandable in connection with his position in the official Soviet hierarchy.
Vyshinsky. Did he achieve this position?
Bukharin. He has achieved this position. Approximately by the autumn of 1932, the next stage in the development of the right-wing organization begins, namely: the transition to the tactics of the violent overthrow of Soviet power.
Vyshinsky. What year do you start?
Bukharin. I start it, approximately, in the summer of 1932 . But I, a citizen public prosecutor, must say that in general, in all this periodization, one must keep in mind that it is conditional, because, for example, I will point out the fact that Yakovenko was sent with the consent of me and the right center; I mentioned the facts about which you interrogated me and about which I gave you an affirmative answer. They belong to an earlier period.
From this, I only conclude that the discrepancy between dates can in no way serve as a refutation of the criminality of this or that act, because there was no sharply delineated boundary here. In addition, in some cases, as in the case of Yakovenko, there was such a heated situation that it caused a corresponding criminal reaction on our part.
Turning to the tactics of violent overthrow, in general, I date the moments when the so-called Ryutin platform was recorded.
..............................
I'll stop here and explain something. Bukharin chose a tactic that reduced the degree of guilt by reducing the volume of crimes he committed. Simply put, he softened the more aggravating moments, as much as possible.
One such moment was the very history of the bloc of right-wingers and Trotskyists. He claims that the bloc was formed around 1932, and at the same time the installation for terror (that is, armed struggle) was set. Then, when the so-called Ryutin (Uglan) platform came out.
However, there is other evidence. This is Amber Draw, whom I have quoted many times before.
Amber Draw argued that Bukharin and the opposition relied on terror against the authorities as early as 1929, aiming to destroy the current course
In addition, Amber Draw claimed that the union of the "right" and the Trotskyists was formed at the same time, in 1929
This was three years before the Ryutin platform
That is, Bukharin reduced his counter-revolutionary activities, directly related to terror, for three whole years. At the trial, he kept silent about the fact that they "right" almost immediately agreed to a political alliance with the Trotskyists.
"Bukharin. Quite a lot has been said here about the Ryutin platform, and perhaps it is not necessary to dwell on it. It was called Ryutinskaya for secret purposes, for reinsurance against failure, it was called Ryutinskaya in order to cover the right center and its most leading figures.
In addition, I must say more: it seems to me that the Ryutin platform—I therefore allow myself to hold your attention for a few minutes more—the Ryutin platform, as far as I remember during the trial, this platform of the Right counter-revolutionary organization, was perhaps already the actual platform and other groups, including Kamenev, Zinoviev and Trotskyites.
Just at this very moment, such a situation arose that Trotsky had to throw off his leftist uniform. When it came to the exact formulations of what should be done in the end, his right platform was immediately revealed, that is, he had to talk about decollectivization and so on.
Vyshinsky. That is, you ideologically armed Trotskyism as well?
Bukharin. Quite right. There was such a correlation of forces that Trotsky pressed in the sense of sharpening the methods of struggle, and to a certain extent we armed him ideologically (to the Prosecutor). No more need for the Ryutin platform?
Vyshinsky. It's up to you.
Bukharin. No, I'm asking, are you interested in this or not?
Vyshinsky. I'm interested in your crime.
Bukharin. All right, but there are so many of these crimes, Citizen Prosecutor, that you need to choose the most significant of them.
Vyshinsky. I'm interested in all of them, not in a sample, but from beginning to end.
presiding. _ As long as you beat around the bush, don't say anything about crimes.
Bukharin. So you don't consider the illegal organization a crime, you don't consider the Ryutin platform a crime either?
Vyshinsky. That's not the point, but they tell you that you beat around the bush.
presiding. Defendant Bukharin, I ask you not to argue, but to speak if you want to speak.
Bukharin. I will speak."
presiding. In 15 minutes, according to the rules, the meeting should be over, I ask you to round off your thoughts or finish.
Vyshinsky. You talked about Yagoda here. I want to ask Yagoda. Accused Yagoda, please tell me, did you demand that the bloc put you in a particularly conspiratorial position?
Berry. Yes, such a request was on my part.
Vyshinsky. Do you remember under what circumstances it was and with whom you talked about it?
Berry. I spoke with Rykov.
Vyshinsky. Accused Rykov, do you confirm this?
Rykov. I confirm, I already spoke about this in my preliminary testimony.
Vyshinsky. Go on.
Bukharin. In the Ryutin platform, a transition to the tactics of the violent overthrow of Soviet power was recorded. .
In this connection, it seems to me, it is necessary to stop at the 1932 conference. These sent peripheral workers, who mainly consisted of these “young”, they returned from their places and, on the initiative of Slepkov and with my sanction, they convened a conference at the end of the summer of 1932, at which there were reports from the localities.
Vyshinsky. Illegal?
Bukharin. Illegal. The conference was illegal, the work was illegal, the reports were illegal and the reports were about illegal work.
Vyshinsky. Was the conference counter-revolutionary, were the reports counter-revolutionary, and were the reports about counter-revolutionary work?
Bukharin. Yes, it was all counter-revolutionary.
At this conference, among the items on the agenda, among other things, was the question of the Ryutin platform, and the conference tested this Ryutin platform. After that, a meeting of the “three” plus Uglanov took place..
I did not participate in this meeting, as I was on vacation, but upon returning from vacation, I fully agreed with this platform and bear full responsibility for this. The Ryutin platform was tested on behalf of the right center. The essence of Ryutin's platform included a "palace coup", terror, a course towards a direct link with the Trotskyists.
By this time, the idea was ripening in right-wing circles, and not only in the top circles, but also, as far as I remember, among some of the peripheral workers, the idea “ palace coup". At first, this idea was expressed by Tomsky, who was associated with Yenukidze.
This idea came to Tomsky in connection with the possibilities of using the official position of Yenukidze, in whose hands the protection of the Kremlin was then concentrated . We have here the logic of struggle and the disappearance of paths for legal work, the development of this idea, the strengthening of the connection between Tomsky and Yenukidze and Rykov with Yagoda. Tomsky said that Yenukidze agreed to take an active part in this coup.
Tomsky also said that Yenukidze recruited Peterson. And here, to put it ironically, from an academic formulation of the question, the question matured into a practical formulation, because there were elements of the organization of this revolution.
Consequently, even then a plan was outlined and organizational forces were selected to implement this plan, that is, to recruit people to carry out a “palace coup”. At that time, a political block arose with Kamenev and Zinoviev. During this period there were meetings with Syrtsov and Lominadze.
I must say, only I ask that the court not understand it in such a way that I want to soften my accusations that there was a politically not entirely indifferent tendency in this group, that the rightists were not united with the Trotskyists, the Trotskyists counted on terror, and the rightists hoped for an insurrectionary traffic. The right oriented the organization towards a mass action.
I think that this is not a mitigation, but in this case I am telling what happened and what was known from the reports that took place then. We expected to attract the masses.
I talked with Pyatakov, Tomsky and Rykov. Rykov was talking to Kamenev and Zinoviev was talking to Pyatakov.
In the summer of 1932 I spoke for the second time at the People's Commissariat for Heavy Industry with Pyatakov. It was very easy for me to talk then, since I worked under the direction of Pyatakov. He was then my master. I was supposed to go into his office on business without arousing any suspicion. It did not arouse any suspicions and the fact that I spent a long time in his office. You never know what things could be!"
...............................
There is one more point here - the "right" defendants, primarily Bukharin, blamed the main responsibility for terror precisely on the Trokists and Trotsky himself. Again, with great calculation - to avoid responsibility for the murders of Soviet leaders.
The "right" defendants Yagoda, Bukharin and Rykov shifted the main responsibility for terror to L. Trotsky and his supporters
The tactics are convenient - Pyatakov is dead, and Trotsky is behind the cordon, this can be shifted to him
Vyshinsky. Used all legal opportunities for illegal conversations?
Bukharin. I used legal opportunities for anti-Soviet, illegal purposes. Pyatakov spoke in this conversation, which took place in the summer of 1932, about a meeting with Sedov regarding Trotsky's instigation of terror.
At that time, Pyatakov and I believed that these were not our ideas, but we decided that we would very quickly find a common language and that differences in the struggle against Soviet power would be eliminated. Tomsky and Rykov, perhaps I am mistaken, spoke with Kamenev and Sokolnikov.
I remember that during that period Tomsky especially insisted on carrying out a coup d'état and on concentrating all forces, while members of the right center were oriented towards the insurrectionary movement.
By the end of 1932, the Ryutin platform dates from the autumn to the end of the summer of 1932, the conference dates from ...
presiding. The meeting is coming to an end.
Bukharin. Then I will only finish with the thought that by the end of 1932 a counter-revolutionary bloc of Rights, Trotskyites and Kamenev-Zinovievites, had already been formed.
presiding. This is where the session ends. The next meeting will be held on March 7 at 11 am.
CHAIRMAN:
Military jurist V. V. Ulrikh, Chairman of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR
SECRETARY:
Military lawyer 1st rank A. A. Butner "
..................................
According to the transcript of the meeting, we see all the tactics of the accused leaders of the "Right" - Rykov, Bukharin and partly Yagoda
- They deny blaming espionage
- Rykov and Bukharin shield each other
- They hide the fact that they went on terror and an alliance with the Trotskyists back in 1929
- They claim to be against terror
- They shift the responsibility for terror to Trotsky and the Trotskyists
That was their defense strategy. They sometimes sought to minimize their involvement in specific criminal activities.