Red Symphony

G.—I again repeat to you that all this, which you have set out in such a literate form, has a name which we have already repeated to excess in this endless conversation:  the natural contradictions of Capitalism and if, as you claim, there is yet someone else’s will and activity apart from the proletariat, then I want you to indicate to me concretely a personal case.

Rakovsky—You require only one?  Well, then listen to a small story:

“They” isolated the Tsar diplomatically for the Russo-Japanese War, and the United States financed Japan;  speaking precisely, this was done by Jacob Schiff, the head of the bank of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., which is the successor of the House of Rothschild, whence Schiff originated.  He had such power that he achieved that States which had colonial possessions in Asia supported the creation of the Japanese Empire, which was inclined towards xenophobia;  and Europe already feels the effects of this xenophobia.  From the prisoner-of-war camps there came to Petrograd the best fighters, trained as revolutionary agents;  they were sent there from America with the permission of Japan, obtained through the persons who had financed it.  The Russo-Japanese War, thanks to the organized defeat of the Tsar’s army, called forth the revolution of 1905, which, though it was premature, but was very nearly successful;  even if it did not win, it still created the required political conditions for the victory of 1917.  I shall say even more.  Have you read the biography of Trotzky ?  Recall its first revolutionary period.  He is still quite a young man;  after his flight from Siberia he lived some time among the emigres in London, Paris, and Switzerland;  Lenin, Plekhanov, Martov and other chiefs look on him only as a promising newcomer.  But he already dares during the first split to behave independently, trying to become the arbiter of the reunion.  In 1905 he is 25 years old and he returns to Russia alone, without a party and without his own organization.  Read the reports of the revolution of 1905 which have not been “pruned” by Stalin;  for example that of Lunatcharsky, who was not a Trotzkyite.  Trotzky is the chief figure during the revolution in Petrograd.  This is how it really was.  Only he emerges from it with increased popularity and influence.  Neither Lenin, nor Martov, nor Plekhanov acquire popularity.  They only keep it and even lose a little.  How and why there rises the unknown Trotzky, gaining power by one move greater than that which the oldest and most influential revolutionaries had ?  Very simple:  he marries.  Together with him there arrives in Russia his wife—Sedova.  Do you know who she is ?  She is associated with Zhivitovsky, linked with the bankers Warburg partners and relatives of Jacob Schiff, i.e. of that financial group which, as I had said, had also financed the revolution of 1905.  Here is the reason why Trotzky, in one move, moves to the top of the revolutionary list.  And here, too, you have the key to his real personality.  Let us jump to 1914.  Behind the back of the people who made the attempt on the Archduke there stands Trotzky, and that attempt provoked the European War.  Do you really believe that the murder and the war are simple coincidences? ... as had been said at one of the Zionist congresses by Lord Melchett.  Analyze in the light of “non-coincidence” the development of the military actions in Russia.  “Defeatism” is an exemplary word.  The help of the Allies for the Tsar was regulated and controlled with such skill that it gave the Allied ambassadors the right to make an argument of this and to get from Nicholas, thanks to his stupidity, suicidal advances, one after another.  The mass of the Russian cannon fodder was immense, but not inexhaustible.  A series of organized defeats led to the revolution.  When the threat came from all sides, then a cure was found in the form of the establishment of a democratic republic, an “ambassadorial republic” as Lenin called it, i.e. this meant the elimination of any threat to the revolutionaries.  But that is not yet all.  Kerensky was to provoke the future advance at the cost of a very great deal of blood.  He brings it about so that the democratic revolution should spread beyond its bounds.  And even still more:  Kerensky was to surrender the State fully to Communism, and he does it.  Trotzky has the chance in an “unnoticed manner” to occupy the whole State apparatus.  What a strange blindness!  Well that is the reality of the much praised October revolution.  The Bolsheviks took that which “They” gave them.

G.—You dare to say that Kerensky was a collaborator of Lenin ?

Rakovsky—Lenin—no.  Of Trotzky—yes:  it is more correct to say—a collaborator of “Them.”

G.—An absurdity!

Rakovsky—You cannot understand ... precisely you ?  It surprises me.  If you were to be a spy and, while hiding your identity, you were to attain the position of commander of the enemy fortress, then would you not open the gates to the attacking forces in whose service you actually were ?  You would not have become a prisoner who had experienced defeat ?  Would you not have been in danger of death during the attack on the fortress if one of the attackers, not knowing that your uniform is only a mask, would have taken you for an enemy ?  Believe me:  despite the statues and mausoleum, communism is indebted to Kerensky much more than to Lenin.

G.—You want to say that Kerensky was a conscious and voluntary defeatist?

Rakovsky—Yes to me that is quite clear.  Understand that I personally took part in all this.  I shall tell you even more:  Do you know who financed the October revolution?  “They” financed it, in particular through those same bankers who had financed Japan in 1905, i.e. Jacob Schiff, and the brothers Warburg;  that means through the great banking constellation, through one of the five banks who are members of the Federal Reserve, through the bank of Kuhn, Loeb & Co.;  here there took part also other American and European bankers, such as Guggenheim, Hanauer, Breitung, Aschberg, the “Nya Banken” of Stockholm.  I was there “by chance,” there in Stockholm, and participated in the transmission of funds.  Until Trotzky arrived I was the only person who was an intermediary from the revolutionary side.  But at last Trotzky came:  I must underline that the Allies had expelled him from France for being a defeatist.  And the same Allies released him so that he could be a defeatist in allied Russia... “Another chance.” Who arranged it?  The same people who had succeeded that Lenin passed through Germany.  Yes, “They” were able to get the defeatist Trotzky out of a Canadian camp to England and send him on to Russia, giving him the chance to pass freely through all the Allied controls;  others of “Them”—a certain Rathenau—accomplishes the journey of Lenin through enemy Germany.  If you will undertake the study of the history of the revolution and civil war without prejudices, and will use all your enquiring capabilities, which you know how to apply to things much less important and less obvious, then when you study informations in their totality, and also study separate details right up to anecdotal happenings, you will meet with a whole series of “amazing chances.”

G.—Might, let us accept the hypothesis that not everything was simply a matter of luck.  What deductions to you make here for practical results?

Rakovsky—Let me finish this little story, and then we shall both arrive at conclusions.  From the time of his arrival in Petrograd Trotzky was openly received by Lenin.  As you know sufficiently well, during the interval between the two revolutions there had been deep differences between them.  All is forgotten and Trotzky emerges as the master of his trade in the matter of the triumph of the revolution, whether Stalin wants this or not.  Why?  This secret is known to the wife of Lenin—Krupskaya.  She knows who Trotzky is in fact;  it is she who persuaded Lenin to receive Trotzky.  If he had not received him, then Lenin would have remained blocked up in Switzerland;  this alone had been for him a serious reason, and in addition he knew that Trotzky provided money and helped to get a colossal international assistance;  a proof of this was the sealed train.  Furthermore it was the result of Trotzky’s work, and not of the iron determination of Lenin that there was the unification round the insignificant party of the Bolsheviks of the whole Left-wing revolutionary camp, the social-revolutionaries and the anarchists.  It was not for nothing that the real party of the “non-party” Trotzky was the ancient “Bund” of the Jewish proletariat, from which emerged all the Moscow revolutionary branches, and to whom it gave 90% of its leaders;  not the official and well-known Bund, but the secret Bund, which had been infiltrated into all the Socialist parties the leaders of which were almost all under its control.

G.—And Kerensky too?

Rakovsky—Kerensky too..., and also some other leaders who were not Socialists, the leaders of the bourgeois political fractions.

G.—How is that?

R —You forget about the role of freemasonry in the first phase of the democratic-bourgeois revolution?

G.—Were they also controlled by the Bund?

Rakovsky—Naturally, as the nearest step, but in fact subject to “Them.”

G.—Despite the rising tide of Marxism which also threatened their lives and privileges?

Rakovsky—Despite all that;  obviously they did not see that danger.  Bear in mind that every mason saw and hoped to see in his imagination more that there was in reality, because he imagined that which was profitable for him.  As a proof of the political power of their association they saw that masons were in governments and at the pinnacle of the States of the bourgeois nations, while their numbers were growing all the time.  Bear in mind that at that time the rulers of all the Allied nations were freemasons, with very few exceptions.  This was to them an argument of great force.  They fully believed that the revolution would stop at the bourgeois republic of the French type.

G.—In accordance with the picture which was given of the Russia of 1917 one had to be a very naive person to believe all this...

Rakovsky—They were and are such.  Masons had learned nothing from that first lesson which, for them, had been the Great Revolution, in which they played a colossal revolutionary role;  it consumed the majority of masons, beginning with the Grand Master of the Orleans Lodge, more correctly the freemason Louis XVI, in order then to continue to destroy the Girondistes, the Hebertistes, the Jacobins etc., and if some survived it was due to the month of Brumaire.

G.—Do you want to say that the freemasons have to die at the hands of the revolution which has been brought about with their cooperation?

Rakovsky—Exactly so.  You have formulated a truth which is veiled by a great secret.  I am a mason, you already knew about that.  Is that not so?  Well, I shall tell you this great secret, which they promise to disclose to a mason in one of the higher degrees, but which is not disclosed to him either in the 25th, nor the 33rd, nor the 93rd, nor any other high level of any ritual.  It is clear that I know of this not as a freemason, but as one who belongs to “Them”...

G.—And what is it?

Rakovsky—Every masonic organization tries to attain and to create all the required prerequisites for the triumph of the Communist revolution;  this is the obvious aim of freemasonry;  it is clear that all this is done under various pretexts;  but they always conceal themselves behind their well-known treble slogan.  (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity—Transl.) You understand?  But since the Communist revolution has in mind the liquidation, as a class, of the whole bourgeoisie, the physical destruction of all bourgeois political rulers, it follows that the real secret of masonry is the suicide of freemasonry as an organization, and the physical suicide of every more important mason.  You can, of course, understand that such an end, which is being prepared for every mason, fully deserves the secrecy, decorativeness and the inclusion of yet another whole series of secrets, with a view to concealing the real one.  If one day you were to be present at some future revolution then do not miss the opportunity of observing the gestures of surprise and the expression of stupidity on the face of some freemason at the moment when he realises that he must die at the hands of the revolutionaries.  How he screams and wants that one should value his services to the revolution?  It is a sight at which one can die ... but of laughter.

G.—And you still deny the inborn stupidity of the bourgeoisie?

Rakovsky—I deny it in the bourgeoisie as a class, but not in certain sectors.  The existence of madhouses does not prove universal madness.  Free-masonry is also a madhouse, but at liberty.  But I continue further:  the revolution has been victorious;  the seizure of power has been achieved.  There arises the first problem:  peace, and with it the first differences within the party, in which there participate the forces of the coalition, which takes advantage of power.  I shall not explain to you that which is well known about the struggle which developed in Moscow between the adherents and opponents of the peace of Brest-Litovsk.  I shall only point out to you that which had already become evident then and was later called the Trotzkyist opposition, i.e. these are the people, a part of whom have already been liquidated and the other part is to be liquidated:  they were all against the signing of the peace treaty.  That peace was a mistake and an unconscious betrayal by Lenin of the International Revolution.  Imagine to yourself the Bolsheviks in Versailles at the Peace Conference, and then in the League of Nations, finding themselves inside Germany with the Red Army, which had been armed and increased by the Allies.  The Soviet State should have participated with arms in the German revolution... Quite another map of Europe would then have emerged.  But Lenin, intoxicated with power, with the help of Stalin, who had also tasted the fruits of power, supported by the national Russian wing of the party, having at their disposal the material resources, enforced their will.  Then was born “Socialism in one country,” i.e. National-Communism, which has to-day reached its apogee under Stalin.  It is obvious that there was a struggle, but only in such a form and extent that the Communist State should not be destroyed;  this condition was binding on the opposition during the whole time of its further struggle right up to the present day.  This was the reason for our first failure and all those which followed.  But the fight was severe, cruel, although concealed in order not to compromise our participation in power.  Trotzky organized, with the help of his friends, the attempt on Lenin’s life by Kaplan.  On his orders Blumkin killed the ambassador Mirbach.  The coup d’etat which was prepared by Spiridonova with her social-revolutionaries had been co-ordinated with Trotzky.  His man for all these affairs, who was immune from all suspicions, was that Rosenblum, a Lithuanian Jew, who used the name of O’Reilly, and was known as the best spy of the British Intelligence.  In fact he was a man from “Them.”  The reason why this famous Rosenblum was chosen, who was known only as a British spy, was that in case of failure the responsibility for assassinations and conspiracies would fall not on Trotzky, and not on us, but on England.  So it happened.  Thanks to the Civil War we rejected conspiratorial and terrorist methods as we were given the chance of having in our hands the real forces of the State, insofar as Trotzky became the organizer and chief of the Soviet Army;  before that the army had continuously retreated before the Whites and the territory of the USSR was reduced to the size of the former Moscow Principality.  But here, as if by magic, it begins to win.  What do you think, why?  As the result of magic or chance?  I shall tell you:  when Trotzky took over the top command of the Red Army then he had by this in his hands the forces necessary to seize power.  A series of victories was to increase his prestige and forces:  it was already possible to defeat the Whites.  Do you think that that official history was true which ascribes to the unarmed and ill-disciplined Red Army the fact that with its help there was achieved a series of victories?

G.—But to whom then?

Rakovsky—To the extent of ninety per cent they were indebted to “Them.”  You must not forget that the Whites were, in their way, democratic.  The Mensheviks were with them and the remnants of all the old Liberal parties.  Inside these forces “They” always had in their service many people, consciously and unconsciously.  When Trotzky began to command then these people were ordered systematically to betray the Whites and at the same time they were promised participation, in a more or less short time, in the Soviet Government.  Maisky was one of those people, one of the few in the case of which this promise was carried out, but he was able to achieve this only after Stalin had become convinced of his loyalty.  This sabotage, linked with a progressive diminution of the help of the Allies to the White generals, who apart from all that were luckless idiots, forced them to experience defeat after defeat.  Finally Wilson introduced in his famous 14 Points Point 6,[1] the existence of which was enough in order to bring to an end once and for all the attempts of the Whites to fight against the USSR.  The Civil War strengthens the position of Trotzky as the heir of Lenin.  So it was, without any doubt.  The old revolutionary could now die, having acquired fame, if he remained alive after the bullet of Kaplan, he did not emerge alive after the secret process of the forcible ending of his life, to which he was subjected.

G.—Trotzky shortened his life?  This is a big favourable point for our trial!  Was it not Levin who was Lenin’s doctor?

Rakovsky—Trotzky? ... It is probable that he participated, but it is quite certain that he knew about it.  But as far as the technical realization is concerned ... that is unimportant:  who knows this?  “They” have a sufficient number of channels in order to penetrate to wherever they want.

G.—In any event the murder of Lenin is a matter of the greatest importance and it would be worth while to transfer it for examination to the next trial... What do you think, Rakovsky, if you were by chance to be the author of this affair?  It is clear that if you fail to achieve success in this conversation... The technical execution suits you well as a doctor.

Rakovsky—I do not recommend this to you.  Leave this matter alone;  it is sufficiently dangerous for Stalin himself.  You will be able to spread your propaganda as you wish;  but “They” have their propaganda which is more powerful and the question as to qui podest—who gains, will force one to see in Stalin the murderer of Lenin, and that argument will be stronger than any confessions extracted from Levin, me or anyone else.

G.—What do you want to say by this?

Rakovsky—That it is the classical and infallible rule in the determination of who the murderer is to check who gained ..., and as far as the assassination of Lenin is concerned, in this case the beneficiary was his chief—Stalin.  Think about this and I very much ask you not to make these remarks, as they distract me and do not make it possible for me to finish.

G.—Very well, continue, but you already know.

Rakovsky—It is well known that if Trotzky did not inherit from Lenin then it was not because by human calculations there was something missing in the plan.  During Lenin’s illness Trotzky held in his hands all the threads of power, which were more than sufficient to enable him to succeed Lenin.  And measures had been taken to declare a sentence of death on Stalin.  For Trotzky the dictator it was enough to have in his hands the letter of Lenin against his then chief—Stalin, which had been torn from her husband by Krupskaya, to liquidate Stalin.[2]  But a stupid mischance, as you know, ruined all our chances.  Trotzky became ill unexpectedly and at the decisive moment, when Lenin dies, he becomes incapable of any action during a period of several months.  Despite his possession of enormous advantages, the obstacle was our organization of the affair, i.e. its personal centralization.  It is obvious that such a person as Trotzky, prepared in advance for his mission, which he was to realise, cannot be created at once, by improvisation.  None among us, not even Zinoviev, had the requisite training and qualities for this undertaking;  on the other hand Trotzky, being afraid of being displaced, did not himself want to help anybody.  Thus, after the death of Lenin, when we had to be face to face with Stalin, who commenced a feverish activity, we foresaw then already our defeat in the Central Committee.  We had to improvise a decision:  and it was to ally ourselves with Stalin, to become Stalinists more than he himself, to exaggerate in everything and, therefore, to sabotage.  The rest you know already:  that was our uninterrupted subterranean struggle and our continuous failure to Stalin’s advantage, while he displays police talents of genius, having absolutely no equals in the past.  And even more:  Stalin, possessing national atavism, which had not been uprooted in him by his early Marxism, apparently for that reason underlines his pan-Russianism, and in this connexion resurrects a class which we had to destroy, that is the class of National-Communists, as opposed to the Internationalist-Communists, which we are.  He places the International at the service of the USSR and it already accepts his mastery.  If we want to find an historical parallel, then we must point to bonapartism, and if we want to find a person of Stalin’s type, then we shall not find an historical parallel for him.  But perhaps I shall be able to find it in its basic characteristics by combining two people:  Fouché and Napoleon.  Let us try to deprive the latter of his second half, his accessories, uniforms, military rank, crown and such like things, which, it seems, do not tempt Stalin, and then together they will give us a type identical with Stalin in the most important respects:  he is the killer of the revolution, he does not serve it, but makes use of its services;  he represents the most ancient Russian Imperialism, just as Napoleon identified himself with the Gauls:  he created an aristocracy, even if not a military one, since there are no victories, then a bureacratically-police one.

G.—That is enough.  Rakovsky.  You are not here to make Trotzkyist propaganda.  Will you at last get to something concrete?

Rakovsky—It is clear that I shall, but not before I had reached the point at which you will have formulated for yourself an at least superficial conception concerning “Them,” with whom you will have to reckon in practice and in concrete actuality.  Not sooner.  For me it is far more important than for you not to fail, which you must, naturally, understand.

G.—Well, try to shorten the story as far as possible.

Rakovsky—Our failures, which get worse every year, prevent the immediate carrying out of that which “They” have prepared in the after-war period for the further leap of the revolution forward.  The Versailles Treaty, quite inexplicable for the politicians and economists of all nations, insofar as nobody could guess its projection, was the most decisive precondition for the revolution.

G.—This is a very curious theory.  How do you explain it?

Rakovsky—The Versailles reparations and economic limitations were not determined by the advantages of individual nations.  Their arithmetical absurdity was so obvious that even the most outstanding economists of the victorious countries soon exposed this.  France alone demanded as reparations a great deal more than the cost of all her national possessions, more than one would have had to pay if the whole of France had been converted into a Sahara;  even worse was the decision to impose on Germany payment obligations which were many times greater that it could pay, even if it had sold itself fully and given over the whole of its national production.  In the end the true result was that in practice Germany was forced to carry out a phantastic dumping so that it could pay something on account of reparations.  And of what did the dumping consist?  An insufficiency of consumer goods, hunger in Germany and in corresponding measure unemployment in the importing countries.  And since they could not import there was also unemployment in Germany.  Hunger and unemployment on both sides;  all this were the first results of Versailles... Was this treaty revolutionary or not?  Even more was done:  one undertook an equal control in the international plane.  Do you know what that undertaking represents in the revolutionary plane?  It means to impose an anarchical absurdity to force every national economy to produce in sufficient volume all that it needs, while assuming that to attain that one does not have to take account of climate, natural riches and also the technical education of directors and workers.  The means for compensation for inborn inequalities of soil, climate, availability of minerals, oil, etc., etc., in various national economies, were always the circumstance that poor countries had to work more.  This means that they had to exploit more deeply the capacities of the working force in order to lessen the difference which arises from the poverty of the soil;  and to this are added a number of other inequalities which had to be compensated by similar measures;  let us take the example of industrial equipment.  I shall not expand the problem further, but the control of the working day carried through by the League of Nations on the basis of an abstract principle of the equality of the working day, was a reality in the context of an unchanged International Capitalist system of production and exchange and established economic inequality, since here we had to deal with an indifference to the aim of work, which is a sufficient production.  The immediate result of this was an insufficiency of production, compensated by imports from countries with a sufficient natural economy and an industrial self-sufficiency:  insofar as Europe had gold, that import was paid by gold.  Then came the apparent boom in America which exchanged its immense production for gold and gold certificates, of which there was plenty.  On the model of any anarchy of production there appeared at that period an unheard-of financial anarchy.  “They” took advantage of it on the pretext of helping it with the aid of another and still greater anarchy:  the inflation of the official money (cash) and the a hundred times greater inflation of their own money, credit money, i.e. false money.  Remember how systematically there came devaluation in many countries;  the destruction of the value of money in Germany, the American crisis and its phenomenal Consequences..., a record unemployment;  more than thirty million unemployed in Europe and USA alone.  Well, did not the Versailles Peace Treaty and its League of Nations serve as a revolutionary pre-condition?

G.—This could have happened even if not intended.  Could you not prove to me why the revolution and Communism retreat before logical deductions;  and more than that:  they oppose fascism which has conquered in Spain and Germany... What can you tell me?

Rakovsky—I shall tell you that only in the case of the non-recognition of “Them” and their aims you would be right ..., but you must not forget about their existence and aims, and also the fact that in the USSR power is in the hands of Stalin.

G.—I do not see the connexion here....

Rakovsky—Because you do not want to:  you have more than sufficient deductive talents and capabilities of reasoning.  I repeat again:  for us Stalin is not a Communist, but a bonapartist.

G.—So what?

Rakovsky—We do not wish that the great preconditions which we had created at Versailles for the triumph of the Communist revolution in the world, which, as you see, have become a gigantic reality, would serve the purpose of bringing victory to Stalin’s bonapartism... Is that sufficiently clear for you?  Everything would have been different if in this case Trotzky had been the dictator of the USSR;  that would have meant that “They” would have been the chiefs of International Communism.

G.—But surely fascism is totally anti-Communist, as in relation to the Trotzkyist and the Stalinist Communism ... and if the power which you ascribe to “Them” is so great, how is it that they were unable to avoid this?

Rakovsky—Because it were precisely “They” who gave Hitler the possibility of triumphing.

G.—You exceed all the boundaries of absurdity.

Rakovsky—The absurd and the miraculous become mixed as the result of a lack of culture.  Listen to me.  I have already admitted the defeat of the opposition.  “They” saw in the end that Stalin cannot be overthrown by a coup d’etat, and their historical experience suggested to them the decision of a repetition (repris) with Stalin of that which had been done with the Tsar.  There was here one difficulty, which seemed to us insuperable.  In the whole of Europe there was not a single aggressor-State.  Not one of them was geographically well placed and had an army sufficient for an attack on Russia.  If there was no such country, then “They” had to create it.  Only Germany had the corresponding population and positions suitable for an attack on the USSR, and it was capable of defeating Stalin;  you can understand that the Weimar republic had not been invented as an aggressor either politically or economically;  on the contrary, it was suited to an invasion.  On the horizon of a hungry Germany there sparkled the meteor of Hitler.  A pair of penetrating eyes fixed their attention on it.  The world was the witness to his lightning rise.  I shall not say that all of it was the work of our hands, no.  His rise, uninterruptedly increasing in extent, took place as the result of the Revolutionary-Communist economy of Versailles.  Versailles had had in mind not the creation of preconditions for the triumph of Hitler, but for the proletarization of Germany, for unemployment and hunger, as the result of which there should have triumphed the Communist revolution.  But insofar as, thanks to the existence of Stalin at the head of the USSR and the International, the latter did not succeed, and as a result of an unwillingness to give up Germany to bonapartism, these preconditions were somewhat abated in the Davis and Young Plans, in expectation that meanwhile the opposition would come to power in Russia ...; but that, too, did not happen, but the existence of revolutionary preconditions had to produce its results.  The economic predetermination of Germany would have forced the proletariat into revolutionary actions.  Through the fault of Stalin the Social-International revolution had to be held up and the German proletariat sought inclusion in the National-Socialist revolution.  This was dialectical, but given all the preconditions and according to common sense the National-Socialist revolution could never have triumphed there.  That was not yet all.  It was necessary that the Trotzkyists and Socialists should divide the masses with an already awakened and whole class consciousness—in accordance with instructions.  With this business we concerned ourselves.  But even more was needed:  In 1929, when the National- Socialist Party began to experience a crisis of growth and it had insufficient financial resources, “They” sent their ambassador there.  I even know his name:  it was one of the Warburgs.  In direct negotiations with Hitler they agreed as to the financing of the National-Socialist Party, and the latter received in a couple of years millions of Dollars, sent to it from Wall Street, and millions of Marks from German financiers through Schacht;  the upkeep of the S.A. and S.S. and also the financing of the elections which took place, which gave Hitler power, are done on the Dollars and Marks sent by “Them.”

G.—Those who, according to you, want to achieve full Communism, arm Hitler, who swears that he will uproot the first Communist nation.  This, if one is to believe you, is something very logical for the financiers.

Rakovsky—You again forget the Stalinist bonapartism.  Remember that against Napoleon, the strangler of the French revolution, who stole its strength, there stood the objective revolutionaries—Louis XVIII, Wellington, Metternich and right up to the Tsar-Autocrat... This is 22 carat, according to the strict Stalinist doctrine.  You must know by heart his theses about colonies with regard to imperialistic countries.  Yes, according to him the Kings of Afghanistan and Egypt are objectively Communists owing to their struggle against His Britannic Majesty;  why cannot Hitler be objectively Communist since he is fighting against the autocratic “Tsar Koba I”?  (Meaning Stalin—Transl.) After all there is Hitler with his growing military power, and he already extends the boundaries of the Third Reich, and in future will do more... to such an extent as to have enough strength and possibilities to attack and fully destroy Stalin... Do you not observe the general sympathy of the Versailles wolves, who limit themselves only to a weak growl?  Is this yet another chance, accident?  Hitler will invade the USSR and as in 1917, when defeat suffered by the Tsar then gave us the opportunity of overthrowing him, so the defeat of Stalin will help us to remove him... Again the hour of the world revolution will strike.  Since the democratic States, at present put to sleep, will help to bring about the general change at that moment, when Trotzky will take power into his hands, as during the Civil War.  Hitler will attack from the West, his generals will rise and liquidate him... Now tell me, was not Hitler objectively a Communist?  Yes or no?

G.—I do not believe in fairy tales or miracles...

Rakovsky—Well if you do not want to believe that “They” are able to achieve that which they had already achieved, then prepare to observe an invasion of the USSR and the liquidation of Stalin within a year.  You think this is a miracle or an accident, well then prepare to see and experience that... But are you really able to refuse to believe that of which I have spoken, though this is still only a hypothesis?  You will begin to act in this direction only at that moment when you will begin to see the proofs in the light of my talk.

G.—All right, let us talk in the form of a supposition.  What will you say?

Rakovsky—You yourself had drawn attention to the coincidence of opinions, which took place between us.  We are not at the moment interested in the attack on the USSR, since the fall of Stalin would presuppose the destruction of Communism, the existence of which interests us despite the circumstance that it is formal, as that gives us the certainty that we shall succeed in taking it over and then converting it into real Communism.  I think that I have given you the position at the moment quite accurately.

G.—Splendid, the solution....

Rakovsky—First of all we must make sure that there would be no potential possibility of an attack by Hitler.

G.—If, as you confirm, it were “They” who made him Führer, then they have power over him and he must obey them.

Rakovsky—Owing to the fact that I was in a hurry I did not express myself quite correctly and you did not understand me well.  If it is true that “They” financed Hitler, then that does not mean that they disclosed to him their existence and their aims.  The ambassador Warburg presented himself under a false name and Hitler did not even guess his race;  he also lied regarding whose representative he was.  He told him that he had been sent by the financial circles of Wall Street who were interested in financing the National-Socialist movement with the aim of creating a threat to France, whose governments pursue a financial policy which provokes a crisis in the USA.

G.—And Hitler believed it?

Rakovsky—We do not know.  That was not so important, whether he did or did not believe our explanations;  our aim was to provoke a war ... and Hitler was war.  Do you now understand?

G.—I understand.  Consequently I do not see any other way of stopping him as the creation of a coalition of the USSR with the democratic nations, which would be capable of frightening Hitler.  I think he will not be able to attack simultaneously all the countries of the world.  The most would be—each in turn.

Rakovsky—Does not a simpler solution come to your mind, I would say a counter-revolutionary one ?

G.—To avoid war against the USSR ?

Rakovsky—Shorten the phrase by half ... and repeat with me “avoid war” ... is that not an absolutely counter-revolutionary thing?  Every sincere Communist imitating his idol Lenin and the greatest revolutionary strategists must always wish for war.  Nothing is so effective in bringing nearer the victory of revolution as war.  This is a Marxist-Leninist dogma, which you must preach.  Now further:  Stalin’s National-Communism, this type of bonapartism, is capable of blinding the intellect of the most pure-blooded Communists, right up to the point at which it prevents their seeing that the transformation into which Stalin has fallen, i.e., that he subjects the revolution to the State, and not the State to the revolution, it would be correct...

G.—Your hate of Stalin blinds you and you contradict yourself.  Have we not agreed that an attack on the USSR would not be welcome?

Rakovsky—But why should war be necessarily against the Soviet Union?

G.—But on what other country could Hitler make war?  It is sufficiently clear that he would direct his attack on the USSR, of this he speaks in his speeches.  What further proofs do you need?

Rakovsky—If you, the people from the Kremlin, consider it to be quite definite and not debatable, then why did you provoke the Civil War in Spain.  Do not tell me that it was done for purely revolutionary reasons.  Stalin is incapable of carrying out in practice a single Marxist theory.  If there were revolutionary considerations here, then it would not be right to sacrifice in Spain so many excellent international revolutionary forces.  This is the country which is furthest from the USSR, and the most elementary strategical education would not have allowed the loss of these forces... How would Stalin be able in case of conflict to supply and render military help to a Spanish Soviet republic?  But this was correct.  There we have an important strategic point, a crossing of opposing influences of the Capitalist States ... it might have been possible to provoke a war between them.  I admit that theoretically this may have been right, but in practice—no.  You already see how the war between the democratic Capitalist and fascist States did not begin.  And now I shall tell you:  if Stalin thought that he was capable of himself creating an excuse sufficient in order to provoke a war, in which the Capitalist States would have had to fight among themselves, then why does he not at least admit, if only theoretically, that others, too, can achieve the same thing, which did not seem impossible to him?

G.—If one is to agree with your assumptions then one can admit this hypothesis.

Rakovsky—That means that there is yet a second point of agreement between us:  the first—that there must be no war against the USSR; the second—that it would be well to provoke it between the bourgeois States.

G.—Yes, I agree.  Is that your personal opinion, or “Theirs”?

Rakovsky—I express it as my opinion.  I have no power and no contact with “Them,” but I can confirm that in these two points it coincides with the view of the Kremlin.

G.—That is the most important thing and for that reason it is important to establish this beforehand.  By the way, I would also like to know on what you base yourself in your confidence that “They” approve this.

Rakovsky—If I had the time in order to explain their full scheme, then you would already know about the reasons for their approval.  At the present moment I shall condense them to three:

G.—Just which ?

Rakovsky—One is that which I had already mentioned.  Hitler, this uneducated and elementary man, has restored thanks to his natural intuition and even against the technical opinion of Schacht, an economic system of a very dangerous kind.  Being illiterate in all economic theories and being guided only by necessity he removed, as we had done it in the USSR, the private and international capital.  That means that he took over for himself the privilege of manufacturing money, and not only physical moneys, but also financial ones;  he took over the untouched machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of the State.  He exceeded us, as we, having abolished it in Russia, replaced it merely by this crude apparatus called State Capitalism;  this was a very expensive triumph in view of the necessities of pre-revolutionary demagogy... Here I give you two real facts for comparison.  I shall even say that Hitler had been lucky;  he had almost no gold and for that reason he was not tempted to create a gold reserve.  Insofar as he only possessed a full monetary guarantee of technical equipment and colossal working capacity of the Germans, his “gold reserve” was technical capacity and work ..., something so completely counter-revolutionary that, as you already see, he has by means of magic, as it were, radically eliminated unemployment among more than seven million technicians and workers.

G.—Thanks to increased re-armament.

Rakovsky—What does your re-armament give?  If Hitler reached this despite all the bourgeois economists who surround him, then he was quite capable, in the absence of the danger of war, of applying his system also to peaceful production... Are you capable of imagining what would have come of this system if it had infected a number of other States and brought about the creation of a period of autarky... For example the Commonwealth.  If you can, then imagine its counter-revolutionary functions... The danger is not yet inevitable, as we have had luck in that Hitler restored his system not according to some previous theory, but empirically, and he did not make any formulations of a scientific kind.[3]  This means that insofar as he did not think in the light of a deductive process based on intelligence, he has no scientific terms or a formulated doctrine;  yet there is a hidden danger as at any moment there can appear, as the consequence of deduction, a formula.  This is very serious.  Much more so that all the external and cruel factors in National-Socialism.  We do not attack it in our propaganda as it could happen that through theoretical polemics we would ourselves provoke a formulation and systematization of this so decisive economic doctrine.[4]  There is only one solution—war.

G.—And the second motive?

Rakovsky—If the Termidor triumphed in the Soviet revolution then this happened as the result of the existence of the former Russian nationalism.  Without such a nationalism bonapartism would have been impossible.  And if that happened in Russia, where nationalism was only embryonic in the person of the Tsar, then what obstacles must Marxism meet in the fully developed nationalism of Western Europe?  Marx was wrong with respect to the advantages for the success of the revolution.  Marxism won not in the most industrialized country, but in Russia, where the proletariat was small.  Apart from other reasons our victory here is explained by the fact that in Russia there was no real nationalism, and in other countries it was in its full apogee.  You see how it is reborn under this extraordinary power of fascism, and how infectious it is.  You can understand that apart from that it can benefit Stalin, the need for the destruction of nationalism is alone worth a war in Europe.

G.—In sum you have set out, Rakovsky, one economic and one political reason.  Which is the third?

Rakovsky—That is easy to guess.  We have yet another reason, a religious one.  Communism cannot be the victor if it will not have suppressed the still living Christianity.  History speaks very clearly about this:  the permanent revolution required seventeen centuries in order to achieve its first partial victory—by means of the creation of the first split in Christendom.  In reality Christianity is our only real enemy, since all the political and economic phenomena in the bourgeois States are only its consequences.  Christianity, controlling the individual, is capable of annulling the revolutionary projection of the neutral Soviet or atheistic State by choking it and, as we see it in Russia, things have reached the point of the creation of that spiritual nihilism which is dominant in the ruling masses, which have, nevertheless, remained Christian:  this obstacle has not yet been removed during twenty years of Marxism.  Let us admit in relation to Stalin that towards religion he was not bonapartistic.  We would not have done more than he and would have acted in the same way.  And if Stalin had dared, like Napoleon, to cross the Rubikon of Christianity, then his nationalism and counter-revolutionary power would have been increased a thousandfold.  In addition, if this had happened then so radical a difference would have made quite impossible any collaboration in anything between us and him, even if this were to be only temporary and objective ... like the one you can see becoming apparent to us.

G.—And so I personally consider that you have given a definition of three fundamental points, on the basis of which a plan can be made.  That is what I am in agreement about with you for the present.  But I confirm to you my mental reservations, i.e. my suspicion in relation to all that which you have said concerning people, organizations and facts.  Now continue to follow the general lines of your plan.

Rakovsky—Yes, now this moment has arrived.  But only a preliminary qualification:  I shall speak on my own responsibility.  I am responsible for the interpretation of those preceding points in the sense in which “They” understand them, but I admit that “They” may consider another plan to be more effective for the attainment of the three aims, and one quite unlike that which I shall now set out.  Bear that in mind.

G.—Very well, we shall bear it in mind.  Please speak.


1 Wilson’s Point 6 read:  “The evacuation of all Russian territory, and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest co-operation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy, and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing, and more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire.  The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.”—Transl.

2 It will be observed that twice Rakovsky states that Stalin had been Lenin’s chief;  this may be a misunderstanding. —Transl.

3 Rakovsky is wrong;  as he mentions in “Mein Kampf” Hitler had read the works of Gottfried Feder—Transl.

4 The problem of a scientific formulation of this question and the propounding of a corresponding programme has engaged the active attention of the publishers of this book and their associates for some years.  Their conclusions have been published.  In the translator’s book “The Struggle for World Power,” second edition 1963, p. 79 a full solution of the monetary problem is set out, and on p. 237 there is a full economic, political and social programme.  These conclusions can be obtained on application.