Bukharin went on to elaborate the negotiations for and the structure of the alleged “bloc,” from his conversation with Kamenev in 1928 on, with special attention to the Ryutin Platform. Again Ulrikh intervened, “So far you are still beating about the bush, you are saying nothing about your crimes.”
Bukharin spoke of the planned coup of 1935 by Yenukidze and Peterson—of which nothing had ever come. And, continuing his evidence at the next session, on the morning of 7 March, he developed this theme to include the Tukhachevsky group. (Vyshinsky here objected to his use of the term “palace coup.”) He admitted also sending insurrectionary organizers to the provinces, but denied all knowledge of their connection with White Guard and German fascist circles. Again there was a long tussle as Vyshinsky tried to get him to admit and Rykov to confirm that he knew of this. But this time, Rykov rallied and supported Bukharin’s point.
Rykov went on to deny knowing that Karakhan was a spy. And on the whole issue of negotiation with Germany, Bukharin admitted that Trotsky had spoken of ceding the Ukraine, but that he himself “did not consider Trotsky’s instructions as binding on me.” On Karakhan’s alleged negotiations:
Did you endorse these negotiations?
Or disavow? I did not disavow them; consequently I endorsed them.
I ask you, did you endorse them, or not?
I repeat, Citizen Prosecutor: since I did not disavow them, I consequently endorsed them.
Consequently you endorsed them?
If I did not disavow them, consequently I endorsed them.
That’s what I am asking you: that is to say, you endorsed them?
So then ‘consequently’ is the same as ‘that is to say’.
What do you mean, ‘that is to say’?
That is to say, I endorsed them.
But you say that you learnt of this
.
Yes, the one does not contradict the other in the slightest.
113
Vyshinsky again started to hammer at the espionage theme, raising with Rykov the matter of the Byelorussians. And now, for half an hour, came one of the most striking exchanges in the whole of the public trials:
Isn’t this an espionage connection?
No.
What kind of connection is it?
There was an espionage connection there, too.
But was there an espionage connection maintained by a part of your organization with the Poles on your instructions?
Of course.
Espionage?
Of course.
Bukharin included?
Of course.
Were you and Bukharin connected.
Absolutely.
So you were spies?
(No reply.)
And the organizers of espionage?
I am in no way better than a spy.
You organized espionage, so you were spies.
It may be said, yes.
It may be said, spies. I am asking, did you organize connections with the Polish intelligence service and the respective spy circles? Do you plead guilty to espionage?
If it is a question of organization, then in this case, of course, I plead guilty.
Accused Bukharin, do you plead guilty to espionage?
I do not.
After what Rykov says, after what Sharangovich says?
I do not plead guilty.
When the organization of the Rights was set up in Byelorussia, you were at the head of it; do you admit that?
I have told you.
I am asking you, do you admit it or not?
I took no interest in Byelorussian affairs.
Did you take an interest in espionage affairs?
No.
And who did take an interest?
I received no information with regard to activities of this kind.
Accused Rykov, was Bukharin receiving any information with regard to activities of this kind?
I never spoke to him about it.
114
After going over the ground again, Vyshinsky only got Rykov back to his old line:
I mean to say that we did not personally direct this development; however, it is not a question of direct leadership but of general leadership. We absolutely and definitely bear responsibility for this.
There is no point in making a pious face, accused Bukharin. Better admit what exists. And what exists is the following: you had a group of accomplices, fellow-conspirators in Byelorussia, headed by Goloded, Chervyakov and Sharangovich. Is that right, Sharangovich?
It is.
