The transcript of Comrade Stalin with the German writer Lion Feuchtwanger

Manage the daily political newspaper curious thing. There is much much contact with the outer world. Immediately unnecessary, superfluous. From time to time I feel that anyone having me claim. If they are valid, I'm sorry, I try to correct the mistake. And if they are taste like, just send far, far away. I read a lot of documents held on the topic "Journalists and power." Always in the past it was harder than it is now. Came upon a conversation with Stalin L.Feyhtvangerom January 8, 1937. Struck by the similarity of many of the issues with those that we ask each other now, and the responses that we receive. As there are many changes in my life, and if after 70 years, many of the themes look as much burning as then. I decided that this conversation is the best corresponds to the heading "The ideas and people." Hope you get the text conversation the same pleasure as I am. Remchukov

January 8, 1937

Feuchtwanger. I would ask you to find a more feature writer. I know you writers dubbed engineers shower.

Stalin. The writer, if he catches the main needs of the masses at this point, can play a very important role in the development of society. It summarizes vague hypotheses and unconscious attitudes of advanced sectors of society and the mass subconscious act makes conscious.

It forms the public opinion era. It helps the advanced forces of society to understand their tasks and peel precisely on the target. In short, it can be a good member of society office and advanced aspirations of the society. But there is another group of writers who, without realizing the era of new trends, new storms in all his works and services such makarom obscurantist forces of society. The role of this kind of writers are not too small, but from the standpoint of the history of the balance is negative. There is a third group of writers that the flag incorrectly understood objectivism tries to sit between 2-chairs, not lust or to join the advanced sections of society, nor to the obscurantist. Such a group of writers usually shell with 2-sides: the advanced and obscurantist forces. It usually does not play a big role in the development of society in the history of the people, and forgets its history as quickly forgotten as last year's snow.

Feuchtwanger. I would ask you to explain how you understand the difference between the scientific vocation of writer and writer-artist who conveys his perception of the world itself.

Stalin. Science writers usually operate concepts and writers of fiction writers views. They are more directly, art paintings depict something that interests them. Science writers write for the elite, more educated people, and artists to the wider masses. I would have said that the actions of the so-called science writers more parts of the calculation. Writers and artists — people are more specific in their activity even less calculation.

Feuchtwanger. Wanted to ask, what does your definition of the intelligentsia as a cross-class strata in the report of the Constitution of the USSR. Some think that the intelligentsia is not associated with one class has fewer prejudices, great freedom of judgment, but fewer rights. How to read Goethe — acting is not free, is free only to behold.

Stalin. I put ordinary Marxist intellectuals awareness. Nothing new, I did not say, the class — a social group of people which is a durable, permanent position in the production process. The working class produces all, not owning the means of production. The capitalists — have capital. Without them, under the capitalist system, the creation is complete. The landowners have land — an important means of production. Farmers have small scraps of land, rent it, but take in agriculture certain positions. The intelligentsia — the wait element is not a public class. She did not produce, takes place in separate manufacturing process. Intellectuals have the factories — is capitalists. The intelligentsia is in the economies and estates — serves landlords. As intellectuals began to play tricks — it is replaced by another. There is a group of intellectuals, which is not related to the creation, as writers, cultural workers. They see themselves as the "salt of the earth," commanding force standing above the public classes. But it did not turn out severe. Was in Russia in the 70 years of the last century, a group of intellectuals who wanted to rape the story and ignoring the fact that the conditions are not ripe for the country, tried to involve society in the struggle for a republic. Nothing came of it. This one was shot — that's for you independent force of intellectuals!

Another group of Russian intellectuals wanted to rural communities specifically to develop socialism, bypassing the capitalist development. Nothing came of it. She was defeated. Such examples are also many stories of Germany, France and other countries.

When intellectuals set itself a distinct purpose, without regard to the interests of society, trying to do some independent role — it is failing. It degenerates into a utopian. Clearly, as Marx sarcastically mocked Utopians. Always, when the intelligentsia tried to put independent tasks, she suffered a fiasco.

The role of intellectuals — Service, noble enough, but the utility. The better the intelligentsia recognizes the interests of the ruling classes and the better it serves them, the huge role it plays. In this framework, and on this basis its role severe.

Does it follow from all this that the intelligentsia should be less than human?

In a capitalist society should be. In a capitalist society are looking at capital — who have more capital, that are smarter, better one, he has bolshennymi rights. Capitalists they say: the intelligentsia noise, but does not have the capital. Because there are not equal intelligence. We have quite different.

If a capitalist society, man is composed of body, soul, and capital, we have a man consists of soul, body and work opportunities. And everyone can work: possession of capital of benefits we do not give, and even cause some irritation. Because intellectuals we are one hundred percent equal in rights with the workers and peasants. An intellectual can develop all their potential, to work as well as the workers and peasants.

Feuchtwanger. If I have guessed correctly, you will also find that the writer-artist more appealing to the instinct of the reader, and not to his mind.

But then the writer and the artist should be more obscurantist than science writer, because more reactionary instinct than reason. As you know, Plato wanted to remove the writers of his own country's flawless.

Stalin. You can not play on the word "instinct." I read not only the instinct, and the mood, the mood of the masses of the unconscious. This is not the same as instinct, it is something more. In addition, I do not think instincts permanent, motionless. They change.

Now the masses willing to fight against the oppressors in a religious form, in the form of religious wars. So it was in the XVII century and earlier in Germany and France. Later, after some time fighting against the oppressors more conscious — for example, the French Revolution.

Plato was a slave-owning psychology. Slave owners in need of writers, but they turned them into slaves (many writers have been sold into slavery — in fact quite the history of the examples), or kicked them when bad writers serve the needs of the slave system.

As for the new Russian society, the role of the writer here is enormous. Writer so valuable that it was specific, almost without reflection reflects the new mood of the masses. And if you ask who is the fastest reflects new attitudes and trends, the painter makes it faster than a scientific researcher. P
ainter is at the very source, in the cauldron of new attitudes. It can therefore bring the mood in the modern side, and non-fiction comes later. It is not clear why the writer-artist should be conservative or obscurantist. This is wrong. That does not justify and history. First sample storm feudal society conducted painters — Voltaire, Moliere earlier stormed An old society. Later came the encyclopedic.

In Germany, had previously been Heine, Bjorn (true: Bern), later came to Marx, Engels. It is not that the role of all writers reactionary. Part of the obscurantist writers can play the role of protecting the obscurantist sentiments.

Maxim reflects a slightly bitter yet vague revolutionary spirit and zeal of the working class for a long time before they resulted in a revolution in 1905.

Feuchtwanger. In what limits likely in Russian literature criticism?

Stalin. It is necessary to distinguish between criticism and criticism of the business having to engage in propaganda against the Russian regime.

We have, for example, a group of writers who do not agree with our government policy, with state equality. They want to criticize our national policy. You can just criticize. But their purpose is not to criticize, and propaganda against our policy of equality of nations. We can not allow the promotion of pitting one part of the population to another, one civilization to another. We can not afford to constantly reminded that Russian were once the dominant civilization.

There is a group of writers who do not wish that we were fighting against the fascist parts, such elements we have. Writing for the right to promote fascism against socialism — is inappropriate.

If the sample to eliminate propaganda against the policy of Russian authorities, promotion of fascism and chauvinism, the writer among us enjoys the widest freedom, greater than anywhere else.

Criticism of the business, which reveals weaknesses in order to overcome them, we welcome it. We, the leaders themselves hold and provide the widest possible though what all writers such criticism.

But the criticism that wants to overthrow the Russian system does not meet our compassion. Do we have such a sin.

Feuchtwanger. It turned out kind of misunderstanding. I do not believe that the writer must necessarily be obscurantist. But because the instinct behind, like limping for the mind, the writer probably would obscurantist, that not though. So, the sourness from time to time images of murderers, thieves, evoke a sense of sympathy. And in my own works are a reflection of the backward instincts. Maybe because they are read with enthusiasm. It seems to me earlier was more literary works critical of those, or other aspects of Russian life. What is the background of this?

Stalin. Your works are read with great enthusiasm and are in this country as there are elements of the backlog, and since there appears true reality. Do you wish or do not wish to give impetus to the revolutionary development in Germany, in fact, whatever your desire, is it that you have taken the revolutionary perspective of Germany. Read your book, the reader said to myself so on can not live in Germany.

Ideology is always slightly behind the actual development, including literature. And Hegel stated that the owl of Minerva flies at dusk.

At first, there are facts, and later display them in the head. You can not connect the question of the writer's understanding of the world with his works.

Here, for example, Gogol and his "Dead Souls." Gogol's world view was certainly an evil. He was a mystic. He does not consider that serfdom must fall. Misconception that Gogol wanted to fight against serfdom. About this reads his correspondence, full of very obscurantist views. And yet, apart from his will, Gogol's "Dead Souls" own artistic truth had a tremendous impact on a generation of revolutionary intelligentsia of the '40s, '50s, '60s.

Should not be connected with the influence of the world view of the writer or those of his other works of art on the reader. If we had a more critical earlier works? Could be. I was researching the 2-period development of Russian literature.

Prior to 1933 is not enough of the writers who believed in what peasant question can be resolved on the basis of the collective farms. Then there was more criticism.

Facts are assured. Defeated the Russian authorities on the installation of collectivization, which closed the peasantry and the working class.

The problem of relations between the working class and the peasantry was the most important and brought a lot of care revolutionaries in all countries.

It seemed impossible, that the peasantry obscurantist, due to personal property, pulls back, the working class is moving forward. This contradiction has repeatedly led to the revolution. So perished the revolution in France in 1871, died as a revolution in Germany. There was no contact between the working class and the peasantry.

We have this dilemma, which is allowed. Naturally, after such victories less ground for criticism. Maybe it should not pursue these success, so it was more criticism? We think differently. Failure is not so great.

Feuchtwanger. I've only been here 4-5 weeks. One of the first memories is some form of showing respect and love for you seem to me to exaggerate and tasteless. You produce normal human memory and moderate. Are these forms of excess burden to you?

Stalin. I agree with you completely. Frustrating when preomnazhayut to hyperbolic proportions. In the ecstasy of people come over nothing. Of the hundreds of greetings I am responsible only 1-2, do not let much of their print, it is not allow to print very ecstatic welcome as learn about them. In September 10's these greetings — really a complete lack of taste. And they bring me a nasty experience.

I wish I could not justify — can not be justified, as a human being to explain how such rampant, reaching the cloying ecstatic about my personality. Apparently, we have managed to solve the country's huge puzzle, for which generations have fought for centuries — babuvistov, Hebertists, any sect of French, British, German revolutionaries. Apparently, the resolution of the puzzles (her cherished the worker and peasant masses): exemption from the operation is of great ecstasy. People are very happy that we managed to free themselves from exploitation. Almost do not know what to do with their satisfaction.

Very huge deal — the liberation from exploitation, and mass is celebrated in different ways. All this is attributed to me — this is, of course, wrongly, that it is able to make one person? In me they behold the collective concept and throw me around a campfire delight veal.

Feuchtwanger. As a person sympathetic to the Soviet Union, I see and feel the feelings of love and respect for you for quite sincere and trivial. Specifically, as you so love and respect, you will not be able to finish his word, these forms of ecstasy, which confused some of your friends abroad?

Stalin. I tried a couple of times to do it. But it does not work. You speak to them — not good, not good it. People think that I say this from the wrong modesty.

Want about my 55th birthday celebration to raise. I spent through the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) the prohibition of it. Began to receive complaints that I'm in the way they celebrate, to express their feelings, that's not me. Others were that I break. How to forbid these manifestations of enthusiasm? You can not force. There is freedom of expression of views. You can ask a friend.

This is a manifestation of a certain lack of culture. Over time, it will bother. Hard to stop expressing their satisfaction. It is a pity to take stringent measures against the workers and farmers.

Is very significant victory. Earlier, the landowner and the
capitalist was the demiurge, workers, and farmers are not considered as human beings. Now bondage with workers charged. A tremendous victory! The landowners and capitalists expelled workers and farmers — owners of life. Come in veal ecstasy.

People we still lagging behind on the part of the general cultural level, because it is an expression of ecstasy. Law, the ban can not be there to do anything. You can get in a funny position. And the fact that some people abroad is disappointing — there's nothing you can do. Culture is not reached immediately. We have a lot in this area do: built, for example, for one only years 1935 and 1936 in the towns above 2-thousand new schools. By all means try to raise the cultural level, but will affect the results in 5-6 years. Cultural progress goes slowly. Ecstasies grow rapidly and ugly.

Feuchtwanger. I'm not talking about the feeling of love and respect on the part of the worker and peasant masses, and on other occasions. Exhibited in various places of your bust — ugly, badly made. The exhibition layout of Moscow, where the first still think about you — why there is not a good bust? The exhibition Rembrandt, launched with great taste, to which there is not a good bust?

Stalin. The question is natural. I was referring to the masses, not the bureaucrats from different institutions. As for the bureaucrats, it is impossible for them to say that they have no taste. They are afraid of, if not the bust of Stalin, they or newspaper, or the chief of curses, or guest astonished. This is an area of careerism, the typical form of "self-defense" bureaucrats: that has not been touched, you need to put a bust of Stalin.

To every party that overcomes, attach themselves alien elements careerists. They try to protect themselves on the principle of mimicry — busts expose, slogans written in who do not believe. As for the hideous features of busts, it is not only intentionally (I know, it happens), and by an inability to choose. I beheld, for example, in a May Day demonstration and my portraits of my comrades like all the devils. Bear with ecstasy and people do not realize is that the portraits are not suitable. You can not issue an order to exhibit excellent busts — well, to hell with them! No time for such things, we have other things to do and care for these busts and you do not look.

Feuchtwanger. I'm afraid that you use the word "democracy" — I fully understand the meaning of your latest constitution and its welcome — not entirely successful. In the West 150 years the word "democracy" is understood as a formal democracy. Do not go out if you have a misunderstanding due to the consumption of the word "democracy" abroad which are used to attach a specific meaning. It all comes down to the word "democracy." Can not you think of another word?

Stalin. We do not just democracy transferred from the bourgeois states. Our democracy is unusual, we have a supplement — the word "socialist" democracy. It's different. Without this addition will be confusion. With this additive can be appreciated. Together with the fact we do not want to turn away from the word democracy as we in a sense are students, followers of the European Democrats, including students who have substantiated deficit and the ugliness of formal democracy and made formal democracy into a socialist democracy. We do not want to hide this historical fact.

In addition, we do not want to turn away from the word democracy to the same as at the time of the capitalist world inflames the fight for the remnants of democracy against fascism. Under these criteria, we do not want to turn away from the word democracy, we combine our front against the front of the struggle of workers, farmers, intellectuals against fascism for democracy. Keeping the word 'democracy', we extend a hand to them and tell them that after the victory over fascism and the strengthening of formal democracy will have to fight for a higher form of democracy for a socialist democracy.

Feuchtwanger. Maybe I'm a writer attach a lot of importance to the word and the related associations. It seems to me that the bourgeois criticism, based on an incorrect comprehension of the word "democracy" does harm. Russian Alliance has made so many new things, why not make a new word and then?

Stalin. You are wrong. The positive side of retaining the word democracy is higher than the shortcomings associated with the bourgeois criticism. Take the movement of one of the front in France, in Spain. Different layers merged to protect the paltry remnants of democracy. A united front against fascism — is the front of the struggle for democracy. Workers, farmers, intellectuals ask you, Russian people feel about our struggle for democracy, whether correct this fight? We say, "That's right, fight for democracy, which is the lowest stage of democracy. We support you by creating a higher stage of democracy — a socialist democracy. We — the heirs of the Democrats of old times — the French revolutionaries, German revolutionaries, heirs are not left in place, and lifted a democracy to a higher level. "

As for the critics, they need to say that democracy is not invented for malehankih group of writers, and is intended to give the newcomer class — the bourgeoisie the possibility of struggle against feudalism. When feudalism was defeated, the working class has desired to use the Democrats to wage a struggle against the bourgeoisie. Here, for the bourgeoisie, democracy has become unsafe. It was good for fighting the bourgeoisie against feudalism, it was bad when the working class began to use it in the fight against the bourgeoisie.

Democracy has become unsafe, made fascism. No wonder some of the bourgeoisie agree to fascism, because earlier democracy was useful, but now has become unsafe.

The democracy does the working class to take advantage of the different rights in the fight against the bourgeoisie.

This is the essence of democracy, which is not created in order to writers might scratch their languages in print.

If so look at democracy, we have enjoyed working with all conceivable rights. Here for you, and freedom of assembly, press, speech, association, etc.

It is necessary to explain to our friends that range. We prefer to have fewer friends, but persistent friends. A lot of friends, but hesitant — it's a burden.

I know these critics. Some of these critics ask, why do not we legalize the group or, as they say they are, the party of the Trotskyists. They said: legalizuete Trotskyist party — means you have a democracy, not legalizuete — means there is no democracy. And what is a Trotskyist party? As it turns out — we knew long ago — it spies, which together with the agents of the Japanese and German fascism explode mines, bridges, create a train wreck. In case of war against us, they were getting ready to take all measures to organize our defeat: blow up factories, steel road kill and control, etc. We propose to legalize scouts, agents and aggressive foreign countries.

Neither the bourgeois government — America, Britain, France — did not legalize spies and scouts aggressive foreign countries.

Why does it offer us? We are opposed to that of "democracy."

Feuchtwanger. Specifically, as the democracy in the West is already vyscherblena, smells bad, it was necessary to abandon the word.

Stalin. How did the Popular Front is fighting for democracy? And in France, in Spain — the Popular Front government — people are fighting, blood shed, it is — not for the illusion, but for the fact that Parliament had, had the freedom to strike, freedom of the press, of association for workers.

If democracy does not equate with the right writers pull each other's hair in the press, and to recognize it as a democracy for the masses, there is for that fight.

We wan
t to keep the masses from the Popular Front in France and other countries. Bridge to it — democracy, because it is understood by the masses.

There is a difference between France and Germany? German workers want to have again a real parliament, freedom of association, speech and the press? Of course, yes. Cashen in parliament, Thalmann — in a concentration camp in France can the workers go on strike in Germany — not, etc.

Feuchtwanger. Now, there are three concepts — fascism, democracy and socialism. Between socialism and democracy, there is a difference.

Stalin. We are not on the peninsula. We, Russian Marxists, socialists taught democracy in the West — from Marx, Engels, in Jaures, Ged, Bebel. If we have made a new word — it would render more food critics: the Russian, say, reject democracy.

Feuchtwanger. On the process of Zinoviev and others was published protocol. This report was built priemuschestvenno on defendants' confessions. Certainly there are still other materials on this process. Is it possible to publish them as well?

Stalin. What are the materials?

Feuchtwanger. Preliminary results of the investigation. All that proves their guilt but their confessions.

Stalin. In the middle there are two schools of lawyers. One believes that the recognition of the defendants — a more substantial proof of their guilt. The Anglo-Saxon law school believes that the material elements — a knife, gun, etc. — Are not sufficient to establish the perpetrators of the crime. Recognition of the accused is of greater importance.

There is a German school, it gives preference to evidence, and it gives a tribute to the recognition of the accused. It is not clear why some people or writers abroad is not satisfied by the acknowledgment of the defendants. Kirov was killed — that's a fact. Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky was not there. But they pointed out people who have committed this sin, as his inspirations. They all — seasoned conspirators: Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, etc. They are in such cases the documents do not leave. They were denounced by the confrontations of their own people, then they had to admit his guilt.

Another fact — in the past year came the collapse of the military train at the station. The buzz in Siberia. The train was going to the Far East. As stated in the judgment, strelochnitsa arrow erroneously translated and sent the train to another track. Were killed in the crash of 10's Red Army. Strelochnitsa — a young woman — not admitted her guilt, she said, that she was given such an indication. The station attendant was arrested, confessed to some omissions. They were convicted. Not long ago, several people were arrested in the area — Bohuslav, Drobnis, Knyazev. Part arestovannyh in the case of the crash, but have not yet been sentenced, showed that the crash made on the instructions of the Trotskyist group. Knyazev, who was a Trotskyite and Japanese spy was revealed that strelochnitsa not guilty. In them, the Trotskyists, had an agreement with Japanese agents on how to arrange so that the disaster. To disguise the sin strelochnitsu used as a shield and gave her a verbal order a switch incorrectly. The real confirmation against strelochnitsy: She took a needle. Indications people justify that she is not guilty. We have not only the testimony of the defendants. But we attach great importance to the testimony. They say that the testimony given as defendants promised freedom. This is heresy. People experienced it all, they are well aware that the show is over, it pulls the recognition of such sins. Soon there will be a process Piatakov, etc. You can find a lot of fascinating if you will be on the process.

Feuchtwanger. I wrote the play in the life of India, in what is portrayed as Lord Hastings joined with the enemy, who really wanted to make a municipal coup, attributing it not for this, and quite another to sin.

Critics abroad (not me) they say that they do not understand the psychology of the defendants, why do not they defend their own views, and confess.

Stalin. 1st question — why do they fall? I must say that all of these people — Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Radek, Smirnov and others — all of them while Lenin led the fight to him. Now, after the death of Lenin, they call themselves the Bolshevik-Leninists, and with Lenin's life, they fought with him.

Lenin was still on the X Party Congress in 1921, when he passed a resolution against factionalism was that factionalism against the party, especially if people insist on their mistakes, should throw them against the Russian regime, in the camp of counterrevolution. Russian system is — you can be for him, one can be neutral, but if you start to fight with him, then it will certainly lead to a counter-revolution.

These people fought against Lenin and the Party:

During the Peace of Brest in 1918.

In 1921, on the issue of trade unions.

After the death of Lenin in 1924, they fought against the Party.

In particular, heightened struggle in 1927.

In 1927, we produced a referendum in the middle of the party members. Over the platform of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) voted 800 thousand party members, for Trotsky's platform — 17 thousand.

These people struggle deepened, did their part. In 1927, they staged a demonstration against the Russian authorities, went into exile in hiding.

Left in their 8 or 10 thousand people.

They rolled down from stage to stage. Some people do not believe that Trotsky and Zinoviev cooperated with agents of the Gestapo. And their supporters are arrested by the Gestapo, together with the agents. This is a fact. You will hear that Trotsky concluded an alliance with Hess, that blow up bridges and trains, etc., when Hitler will go to war against us. For Trotsky can not return without a defeat of the USSR in the war.

Why they are recognized for their own sins? Since lost faith in the rightness of his position, behold the success everywhere. Unwilling even to the death sentence or tell the people the truth. At least one good thing to do — assist people to find out the truth. These people gave up their little old beliefs. Do they have new beliefs. They believe that to build socialism in our country is impossible. It's a lost cause.

They believe that all of Europe will be shrouded in fascism, and we, the Russian people will perish. To the supporters of Trotsky did not die along with us, they must enter into an agreement with a strong fascist states in order to save their shots and the power that they will receive the consent of the fascist countries. I bring that Radek and Piatakov at the moment they say directly. Stronger fascist states they thought Germany and Japan. They were negotiating with Gus (sic, should be "Hess") in Berlin and the Japanese representative in Berlin. Concluded that the power they receive as a result of the defeat of the USSR in the war, should make concessions to capitalism: Germany to cede the territory of Ukraine or its part, the Land of the Rising Sun — Far East or in part, open access German capital in the European part of the USSR, the Japanese — the Asian part, to grant concessions; dissolve a huge part of the collective and give out "private initiative", as they say, reduce the scope of state industry. Part of it is to give concessionaires. Here terms of the agreement, so they say. Such a departure from socialism they "justify" an indication that fascism, he says, still overcome, and these "concessions" to save the most that can stay. This "concept" they try to justify their activities. Idiotic concept. Their "concept" inspired panic in face of fascism.

Now, when they obmyslili, they believe it all wrong and are willing to tell all before the verdict, to uncover.

Feuchtwanger. If they are idiotic concept, do not you think that they need to be faster to la
nd in a mad house, than in the dock.

Stalin. No. There are a lot of people saying that fascism will capture all. To go against these people. They have always been alarmist. They were frightened of all, when we took power in October, while Brest, when we held the collectivization. Who is afraid of fascism.

Fascism — a heresy, it is a temporary phenomenon. They are in a panic, and therefore make such a "concept." They are for the defeat of the USSR in the war against Hitler and the Japanese. That's why, as supporters of the defeat of the USSR, they have earned the attention of the Nazis and the Japanese, which they send information about each explosion, wrecking about each act.

Feuchtwanger. Vorachivayas to the old process, I wish to say that some strikes, why not 1, 2, 3, 4 defendants, and all pleaded guilty.

Stalin. As it happens immediately? Zinoviev blame. He denies. He is given the confrontations with the caught and convicted of his followers. One, two, third incriminate him. He is, after all, have to confess, being unmasked by the confrontations his supporters.

Feuchtwanger. I myself am convinced that they really want to make a municipal coup. But it proved very nearly everything. There would be more convincing if proved less.

Stalin. It's not quite ordinary offenders. Their remains something of conscience. Here take Radek. We believed him. It has long been uttered Zinoviev and Kamenev. But we did not touch him. We had no other evidence, and in the case of Kamenev and Zinoviev could think that they deliberately slander people. But after a while new people, two 10-ka grassroots people of those arrested, gave themselves a part of the testimony, found a picture of guilt Radek. He had to be arrested. At first, he obstinately denied everything, wrote several letters claiming that he is clean. A month back, he wrote a longish letter, again proving his innocence. But this letter is, of course, he himself seemed unconvincing, and one day he confessed his own sins and put almost all of the things we did not know. When asked why they confess, the common answer is "tired of it all, there is not faith in the rightness of one's own business, it is impossible to go against the people — this ocean. We wish to assist the death figure out the truth, that we were not so damned such Judases. "

This is not ordinary offenders, not thieves, their remains something of conscience. After all, Judas to betray later hanged himself.

Feuchtwanger. About Judas — a legend.

Stalin. This is no ordinary legend. In this legend the Jewish people put their stately folk wisdom.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: