Über 15 Millionen Arbeitslose!

Pravda-TV vom 3. Oktober 2013

Die Bundesanstalt verdreht und lügt wie gedruckt.
Wie immer zum Monatsbeginn veröffentlicht die „Bundesanstalt für Arbeit” ihr Lügenmärchen von der Arbeitslosigkeit in Deutschland. Nicht nur, dass ein wesentlicher Teil der Arbeitslosen nicht erwähnt wird, es wird auch nicht mit exakten Zahlen, sondern mit „Schätzungen” und „Hochrechnungen” gearbeitet. Völlig „vergessen” werden jene Millionen von Deutschen, die aus Angst vor den entwürdigenden Behandlungen in den ARGEN und/oder aus Scham auf Leistungen verzichten, obwohl sie ihnen zustehen würden.
Die Bundesanstalt macht immer so weiter, einen großen Teil der Arbeitslosen nicht in die Statistik aufzunehmen, weil sie diese Anweisung von der Politik hat. Von wegen, Merkel als „sorgfältige Hausfrau”. Diese Kanzlerin ist verantwortlich für die monatlichen Lügengeschichten aus Nürnberg.
Wird der Sprecher der „Bundesanstalt” auf die fehlenden Zählungen hingewiesen, so antwortet er wohlgemut, jeder könne sich aus dem Zahlenwust der Anstalt heraussuchen, was er wolle, sie (die Bundesanstalt) zähle jedenfalls so.
Nun, gehen wir ans Eingemachte:
Da gibt es zunächst jene, die im ersten Jahr ihrer Arbeitslosigkeit sind und daher Anspruch auf Arbeitslosengeld I haben: Das sind etwa 850 000 Menschen. Etwa 4,4 Millionen erhalten Hartz IV und etwa 1,7 Millionen Sozialgeld. Das sind zusammen fast genau 7 Millionen Leistungsbezieher.
Wie die Anstalt aus dieser Zahl das Lügenmärchen 2,8 Millionen macht, das ist – nun, sagen wir: etwas befremdlich.
Jene 7 Millionen Leistungsbezieher sind aber noch weitem nicht alle Arbeitslosen.
Nähern wir uns weiter der Wahrheit an. Da gibt es nämlich noch jene, die Wohngeld beziehen, Kinderzuschlag, Grundsicherung im Alter und/oder Sozialhilfe. Die Zahlen gibt die Anstalt nicht bekannt, aber es muss auch hier von Millionen die Rede sein. Zählen wir einmal der Einfachheit halber 1 Million in dieser Kategorie, dann sind das also 8 Millionen Leistungsempfänger.
Aber auch das ist noch nicht die ganze Wahrheit. 3,8 Millionen sind laut Angaben der Anstalt „unterbeschäftigt” und da gibt es noch eine andere Zahl von solchen, die aus der Zählung draußen blieben: Größenordnungsmäßig 800 Tausend sind in „Maßnahmen” untergebracht, damit sie nicht die Arbeitslosenzahlen belasten.
Damit kommen wir also auf insgesamt 12,6 Millionen, die ganz oder wesentlich arbeitslos sind und Leistungen beziehen.
Da gibt es aber auch noch eine weitere Kategorie, die nur geschätzt werden kann: Das sind, wie oben schon erwähnt, jene, die aus Angst oder Scham keine Leistungen beantragen. Die werden laut Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB) auf etwa weitere 3,1 bis 4,9 Millionen Menschen geschätzt.
Damit haben wir eine Gesamtzahl von Arbeitslosen in Deutschland zwischen 15,7 und 17,5 Millonen Menschen.
Rechnen wir die Gesamtzahl der Menschen in Deutschland mit 80 Millionen, dann haben wir also zwischen 19,6 und 21,9 % Arbeitslosigkeit. Eigentlich sollte man aber nur die im erwerbsfähigen Alter rechnen, das sind nur etwa 60 Millionen, dann lautet die Prozentzahl von Arbeitslosen in Deutschland zwischen 26 und 29 %!!
Die Anstalt gibt auch selber zu, keinen klaren Überblick zu haben. Im Bericht wird andauernd von Untererfassung, Schätzung und Hochrechnung geredet. Aber selbst, wenn die Zahlen im Bericht alle exakt wären, stehen hier nebeneinander die Zahlen 26 bis 29 % Arbeitslose und „unter 10 %” Arbeitslose.
Vergessen Sie nicht, wie hier mit dem Schicksal von Menschen umgegangen wird, wenn Sie das nächste Mal hören, in Deutschland sei alles in Ordnung und die Arbeitslosigkeit sei niedrig.
Quellen: MR/karl-weiss-journalismus.de vom 02.10.2013
Weitere Artikel:
EU gesteht: Wir können Arbeitslosigkeit nicht stoppen
Statisten in Spanien – Wenn Arbeitslose Sklaven mimen
Deutschland stirbt – für den Endsieg des Kapitalismus
Armes Deutschland: Mehr als 20 Prozent billige Arbeitskräfte
Der langsame Tod der Demokratie in Europa
Sie leben! Der konsumierende Unhold (Video)
Demaskierte Arbeitsagentur: 8 Millionen Arbeitslose – verletzte Menschenrechte – Propaganda der Regierung
Wie Hessen seine Lehrer mit Arbeitslosigkeit zermürbt
Schleichende Steuererhöhung – Belastung trifft niedrige Einkommen
Deutsche Kommunen als Schulden-Sklaven: Keine neuen Schulen, Krankenhäuser, Straßen
Inge Hannemann: Offener Brief an den Vorstand der Bundesagentur für Arbeit
„Neusprech“ 2013 (Videos)
Gleichschaltungskanzlerin Angela Merkel – Nestlé Grundsteinlegung (Video)
Vergewaltigung der Menschenwürde per se – Kinder in den Jobcentern
Friedrich Schiller: „Die Räuber” von heute…
Hartz IV Kritik: Die Empörung über das System
Wie die Bundesregierung uns betrügt: So lügt man mit Statistik
Armutsbericht: Betroffene ausgeklammert – eine Mogelpackung
Jugendamt: Rätselhafte Kostenexplosion – Wieder eine Familie in den Fängen vom Amt – Größenwahn oder System?
Jugendarbeitslosigkeit: Der Rubikon ist überschritten – eine Gesellschaft bei der Selbstzerstörung
Fragwürdige Quote: Warum Jobcenter die Leiharbeit puschen
Die Deutschen – Gefangen in Ideologien und Religionen – eine Lösung!
Armutskonferenz: Die Worte „arbeitslos“ und „alleinerziehend“ sind zu verbieten
Die Stasi (SS) lebt – Stasi 3.0
Rotes Kreuz: Größte Armut in Europa seit Ende des 2. Weltkrieges
250.000 Jugendliche ignoriert: Regierung trickst bei Lehrstellen-Statistik
Arbeitslosigkeit: Die geschönte Statistik
BRD in der EU/Nazi-Kolonie: Von Geiz & Gier, zum Transhumanismus und Kahlschlag der Heimat (Video)
Justiz & Medien mit post-kafkaesken Zügen – Zum Selbstzweck funktionierendes, sinnloses System
Jeder fünfte Deutsche von Armut oder sozialer Ausgrenzung betroffen
Deutschland: Mehr als eine Million Kinder leben in Armut
Die Weltrepublik – Deutschland und die Neue Weltordnung (Videos)
Studie: Deutschland hat die meisten Niedriglöhner in Europa
Die geklonte Gesellschaft (Video)
Staatenlos & Neue Welt Ordnung oder Heimat & Weltfrieden (Kurzfilm)
Plan der Elite Teil 3 (Video)

Israelischer Eliteoffizier kommandierte IS Terroreinheit im Irak

Ein israelischer Oberst, der IS-Terroristen kommandierte, wurde jetzt im Irak gefangengenommen.
Zu dumm, jetzt ist es doch herausgekommen. Ich hatte ja die ganze Zeit so etwas vermutet, aber es nicht gewagt, eine solche Vermutung, als solche bezeichnet, auch in einem Artikel zu schreiben, von wegen „Verschwörungstheoretiker“ und so.
Zu den Fakten
Irakische Sicherheits- und Volkskräfte haben einen israelischen Oberst der sogenannten Golani-Brigade zusammen mit einer Anzahl IS Terroristen festgenommen, teilte ein Kommandant irakischer Milizverbände mit.
Der Offizier ist im Rang eines Obersten und hatte an Operationen der terroristischen IS teilgenommen.
Der Name des Obersten ist Yusi Oulen Shahak und trägt folgenden Sicherheits- und Militärcode: Re34356578765az231434.
Schon letztes Jahr (2014) hatten verschiedene gefangene IS Kämpfer ausgesagt, dass israelische Agenten vom Mossad und anderen Spionage – und „Intelligence“-Organisationen bei er ersten Welle das IS im Irak und vor allem gegen Mossul im Sommer 2014 teilgenommen hatten.
Aber bislang war es nie zu einer Gefangennahme eines hochrangigen israelischen Agenten gekommen.
Ich ging ehrlich gesagt die ganze Zeit davon aus, dass die USA (inklusive den Vasallenstaaten der „westlichen Wertegemeinschaft“), die Türkei unter dem neo-osmanischen Erdogan, die kulturell barbarischen Ölmonarchien und der mörderische rassistische Apartheidstaat Israel nach Kräften den „Islamischen Staat“ mittels der Taktik der „fliegenden Flaggen“ unterstützt. Dies funktioniert so: Unter dem Firmenschild “Freie Syrische Armee” o.ä. auftretende Einheiten werden mit Waffen, Geld und Nachschub vollgestopft und wechseln (“wie durch ein Wunder”) dann ihre Flagge und “laufen über”, zur Al Nusra, zum Islamischen Kalifat usw.
Aber dass es nun sogar aussieht, als ob sogar israelische Offiziere (und wer noch alles) die Halsabschneiderbanden des IS kommandieren, das verschlägt auch mir noch die Sprache, obwohl ich den Schwerstkriminellen, die hinter solchen „verdeckten Operationen“ stecken, schon wirklich allerhand zutraue.
Für mich bedeutet das nichts weniger als dass dieser „Islamische Staat“ wie auch die anderen Halsabschneiderbanden, die „syrische Rebellen“ genannt werden, ohne diese massive Unterstützung an Menschen, Waffen, Material und Nachschub wahrscheinlich gar nicht lebensfähig wäre.
Wenn Ihnen, liebe Leser, etwas an dieser Welt liegt, die gerade von skrupellosen Gangstern in Elitenpositionen in jeder Hinsicht verwüstet wird, dann verbreiten Sie diese Nachricht weiter, wie immer Sie es können. In den konzerngesteuerten Mainstream-Medien nämlich wird so eine Meldung unterdrückt werden und NICHT auftauchen (Unterdrückung ist nach meinen Informationen bereits geschehen).
Hier meine Quellen:
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940730000210
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/10/21/breaking-story-israeli-general-captured-in-iraq-confesses-to-israel-isis-coalition/
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=123402
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=711_1445523154
https://uprootedpalestinians.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/iraqi-forces-arrest-israeli-colonel-leading-daesh-mercenary-terrorists-in-iraq/
http://beforeitsnews.com/war-on-terror/2015/10/breaking-zionist-israeli-colonel-leading-isil-terrorists-captured-makes-shocking-confessions-2445478.html
http://theinternationalreporter.org/2015/10/22/guess-who-is-behind-the-islamic-state-israeli-idf-colonel-leading-isis-terrorists-arrested-in-iraq/
http://www.iraqnews.net/index.php/sid/237867455
http://www.jordannews.net/index.php/sid/237867455
http://www.sott.net/article/304604-Iraqis-capture-Israeli-colonel-leading-ISIS-terrorists
Zur Golani-Brigade des israelischen Armee siehe folgenden Wikipedia-Artikel (Vorsicht, Sie wissen, bei allem was Zeitgeschichte angeht, ist wikipedia im Zweifel ein NATO-Propagandaorgan)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golani-Brigade
Beim Lesen des Artikels fällt auf, dass Oberst der höchste Offiziersgrad in dieser Einheit ist. Der Festgenommene, Yusi Oulen Shahak , ist gleichfalls Oberst (Colonel).
ältere Meldungen zur Unterstützung des IS durch den rassistischen Apartheidstaat Israel:
http://thesaker.is/iraq-arrests-isils-us-israeli-military-advisors-in-mosul/
http://www.sott.net/article/290034-Israeli-attacks-on-Syria-How-Israel-backs-terrorists-against-Syria
http://www.sott.net/article/289953-SOTT-EXCLUSIVE-Match-made-in-Sheol-Israel-working-with-terrorists-in-Syria-says-UN-Mossad-training-ISIS-says-Putin-aide#

Workers’ Party of Tunisia: Presidential Elections in Tunisia: A New Victory over the Islamist Plan

On Sunday, December 21, the Tunisian people elected the President of the Republic, in a scene never before experienced in Tunisia. Since the proclamation of the Republic on July 25, 1957, and the adoption of the Constitution of June 1, 1959, Tunisia has never experienced free, democratic and transparent elections. While the neo-colonial regime continued to hold elections at regular intervals, the results were known in advance since the only candidate presented was always elected by an overwhelming majority. Tunisians continued to engage in this farce even after the amendment to the constitution in 1974 that made Habib Bourguiba president for life. After the coup of November 7, 1987, General Ben Ali introduced modifications, but he himself chose his competitors from among those politicians who expressed their allegiance to him. This did not prevent him from receiving 99% of the votes. That is why the last elections were experienced with great apprehension and hope by the Tunisians, especially since they were the first presidential elections after January 14, 2011 [the date when Ben Ali was overthrown – translator’s note].
Let us remember that in the first round of the presidential elections held on November 15, 27 men and women presented themselves as candidates: most of them were in one way or another candidates of some faction of the bourgeoisie, wanting either to maintain their power or regain it. Opposing them and in a certain way against them, Comrade Hamma Hammami presented himself as representative of the popular classes and as bearer of their hopes of realizing the objectives of the revolution. His finishing in third place meant that the second round opposed representatives of the two candidates, the one as reactionary as the other, that is, the candidate of “Nidaa Tounes” Beji Caid Essebsi, former minister under Bourguiba and Ben Ali, and the undeclared candidate of the Islamist party, the Provisional President Moncef Marzouki. Even before the beginning of the campaign, the bourgeois media tried to present them as fundamentally opposed to each other and as bearers of two antagonistic social plans: the one presented as the standard-bearer of modernity, democracy and the secular state, and the other as the defender of the identity, of the religious state. But we know that this is nothing but good claims to conceal the true bourgeois class character of the two plans they bore.
Indeed, the “Nidaa Tounes” and “Ennahdha” parties are just political and organizational expressions (and not the only ones) of the interests of the big comprador bourgeoisie; whatever the differences between them may be, their essence remains the same. It is enough to glance at their economic and social programs to realize this: neoliberalism, the reduction of state intervention in the economy and in investment, increased privatization of public enterprises and state banks, lifting restrictions on the prices of consumer goods and services, elimination of the compensation fund, etc. Their massive vote in agreement at the Assembly of People’s Representatives last December 10 in favor of the Finance Act 2015 is a clear expression. This was a law that only the deputies of the Popular Front rejected, since it provides for anti-popular measures seeking to place the burden of the crisis on the popular masses alone.
What we have said about the two candidates largely explains the slippage experienced by their respective campaigns. At no time was there any question of confrontation of political or other programs. These are for the most part the representatives of people who have already been known. One who for decades was in the service of the dictatorial regime in its two versions (that of Bourguiba and that of Ben Ali), in which he held key positions, which made him partly responsible for the many hardships experienced by the Tunisians, such as repression and deprivation of freedoms while he was the Minister of the Interior, and especially since he never expressed the least regret or the least self-criticism for what happened. The other one for the last three years has been compromised with Islamism and the reactionary plan of the Muslim Brotherhood in Tunisia and elsewhere. The change that this human rights activist has undergone and which has made him a protector of the army and an objective ally of currents advocating and practicing terrorism was the focus of the criticism and attacks on him. The blunders he committed during his tenure have earned him the rejection of the whole of society. The latest was his speech of hate and divisiveness towards those who do not share his opinion or his politics who, according to him, are all pawns in the pay of the former regime.
Let us remember that on the eve of the first round, the chances of these two candidates were very uneven since at the legislative elections held a month ago, the “Congress for the Republic,” the party of Moncef Marzouki, received only 67,000 votes, that is, less than 4% of the votes while “Nidaa Tounes” received 37%. But the Islamist party, which did not submit an official presidential candidate, gave its vote to the outgoing president, after suffering a semi-defeat in the parliamentary elections; this allowed him to exert pressure on the winning party and better negotiate with it. As a result, Marzouki was promoted to the second round with more than a million votes, only 4 points from his opponent.
But a large majority of citizens who voted for “Nidaa Tounes” in the legislative elections, just to bar the way to the “Ennahda” reacted the same way in the second round of the presidential elections: they voted for Essebsi to prevent Marzouki from returning to the Carthage Palace. Thousands of people who would not have voted for either one or the other made that choice to put an end once and for all to the institutions that resulted from the ballot of October 23, 2011, which gave full powers to the Islamist party and to those who agreed to play the role of its stooge. So this is a protest vote much more than a vote of agreement with a program.
The liberal parties in parliament, the “Liberal Patriotic Union” (16 seats) and “Afek Tounes” (8 seats) as well as all parties claiming the Destourian spectrum (the former ruling party) called on their followers to vote for Essebsi. As for the Popular Front, considering that neither the one nor the other candidate was a product of the revolution, nor able to defend its objectives, and given the chaotic management of national affairs by the government of the troika and its president, the latter being the real but undeclared candidate of the Islamist party, called on the people to block his path, leaving the choice to the voters whether or not to vote for his opponent.
The official results announced today confirm the victory of Beji Caid Essebsi with 55.68% against 44.32% for his opponent, the outgoing President Moncef Marzouki, with a 60% voter participation and a massive abstention, especially by the youths. The Popular Front and of all the progressive forces of the country, for whom a new era of struggle is opening, have a lot of work to do.
Tunis, December 22, 2014

Auch Mittelschicht in Mexiko von Armutsrisiko betroffen

Pressemeldung des Lateinamerika-Portals amerika21.de

26. Oktober 2015



Mexiko-Stadt, 26.10.2015. Laut einer aktuellen Analyse der Universität
Colegio de México sind rund 18 Millionen Mexikaner der Mittelklasse
trotz eines regelmäßigen Einkommens von Verarmung bedroht. Die Studie
"Entwicklung von Armut und sozialer Schichtung in Mexiko", die zwischen
2012 und 2014 durchgeführt wurde, will auch auf eine fehlerhafte
Wirtschaftspolitik aufmerksam machen, berichtet heute das
Lateinamerika-Portal amerika21.
Bei den 18 Millionen Menschen handelt es sich teilweise um
Mexikanerinnen und Mexikaner, die informellen Tätigkeiten nachgehen und
somit über keine sozialen Grundabsicherungen verfügen. Aber auch
ordentlich Beschäftigte seien betroffen, obwohl sie ein regelmäßiges
Gehalt beziehen, mit dem sie zumindest ihre Grundbedürfnisse abdecken
können. Dennoch sind sie sehr in der Entscheidung eingeschränkt, wofür
sie ihr Geld ausgeben. Wichtige Ausgaben wie zum Beispiel für Bildung
oder Verkehrsmittel sind kaum möglich.

Die vollständige Meldung des Lateinamerika-Portals amerika21 finden Sie
hier: https://amerika21.de/2015/10/135038/armut-mexiko
--
amerika21 | Presseverteiler | redaktion@amerika21.de
Nachrichten und Analysen aus Lateinamerika

https://amerika21.de/

Haus der Demokratie und Menschenrechte
Greifswalder Str. 4
10405 Berlin

Pressekontakt: +49 (0)171 19 62 796

Das Nachrichtenportal amerika21.de informiert seit 2007 tagesaktuell
über Lateinamerika und die Karibik. Von einem Team von Fachjournalisten
betreut, versucht das Nachrichtenangebot von amerika21 eine Lücke in
der Berichterstattung zu schließen. Authentische und überprüfte
Informationen aus den Ländern südlich der USA werden professionell
aufbereitet und im Kontext auf Deutsch präsentiert. Weitere
Informationen unter: https://amerika21.de/a21



_______________________________________________
Chiapas98 Mailingliste
JPBerlin - Mailbox und Politischer Provider
Chiapas98@listi.jpberlin.de
https://listi.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/chiapas98

[Chiapas98] Neu: Der Alerta-Freitagabend / Proteste gegen deutschen Neo-Kolonialismus / Nicaragua-Konferenz

Hallo!

Wie bereits angekündigt, wollen wir nun ab und zu freitags abends eine ¡Alerta!-Kneipe mit wechselnden Themen und Inhalten machen - manchmal wollen wir einen Film zeigen oder einen kleinen Input machen, vor allem aber wollen wir uns mit euch zusammen bei lateinamerikanischer Musik, kalten Getränken und Essen austauschen und eine gute Zeit verbringen. Unser erster Termin steht bald an: Am 13.11. zeigen wir nicht nur die beeindruckende Doku "Ayotzinapa: Chronik eines Staatsverbrechens" sondern auch 43 Gemälde der 43 von der mexikanischen Polizei verschleppten Studenten aus Ayotzinapa. Diese Bilder hat eine von uns in den letzten Monaten gemalt und wir freuen uns sehr, sie an diesem Abend erstmals zu zeigen. Dazu laden wir euch herzlich ein! Eine genaue Ankündigung findet ihr hier.

Aus Chiapas erreicht uns erneut Protest gegen die neo-koloniale Biopiraterie der deutschen Bundesregierung: Hier findet ihr den gut recherchierten Text in Spanisch und in Deutsch. Verschiedene indigene Kleinbäuer_innen- sowie Menschenrechtsorganisationen klagen darin die Politik der GIZ an, die versucht, die natürlichen Reichtümer von Chiapas zu einer Ware zu machen und sich anzueignen - so soll ein Modellprojekt entstehen, das anschließend weltweit den Raub für deutsche Konzerninteressen erleichtern soll. Wie bereits bei unserer Aktion gegen diese Politik der GIZ im letzten Jahr, erklären wir uns auch diesmal solidarisch mit dem mutigen Widerstand gegen den deutschen Neo-Kolonialismus und werden auch hier im Herzen der räuberischen Bestie gegen diese Politik kämpfen.

Zu guter Letzt möchten wir euch auf die Nicaragua-Konferenz "Nach dem Wachstum das Gute Leben?" am 21./22.11. in Wuppertal aufmerksam machen. Weitere Infos findet ihr auf der Website des Informationsbüro Nicaragua.

Solidarische Grüße,
¡Alerta!


***
Unsere kommenden Termine

13.11. - Ayotzinapa: 43 Menschen und ein Staatsverbrechen (Doku + Ausstellung)
29.11. - Annäherung an das Thema Geld als Denkform (Workshop) (weitere Infos folgen)
7.12. - Doku "La Buena Vida/Das Gute Leben" (weitere Infos folgen)

-- 
¡Alerta! - Lateinamerika Gruppe Düsseldorf
alerta@posteo.de
www.alertaduesseldorf.blogsport.de
www.facebook.com/alertaduesseldorf

-----Integrierter Anhang folgt-----

_______________________________________________
Chiapas98 Mailingliste
JPBerlin - Mailbox und Politischer Provider
Chiapas98@listi.jpberlin.de
https://listi.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/chiapas98

Workers’ Communist Party of France (PCOF) on the Charlie Hebdo Massacre

From the newspaper La Forge
Central Organ of the Workers’ Communist Party of France
The attack against Charlie Hebdo that left many dead and injured is a barbaric act.
We strongly condemn it and our thoughts go to the victims, their families, and the employees of the magazine and we promise them our solidarity.
It is an action with the purpose to create fear and is an attack on the right to free information and expression. As a paper we join efforts to defend its democratic rights, though there has for some time existed an unhealthy environment for the defense and apology of racism, intolerance and a normalization of reactionary ideas. We declare that it must stop the exploitation of religion, whatever it is, to divide and undermine the values of fraternity and tolerance.
We will participate in the rally in Paris at the Republic Square tonight at 17 o’clock, and we call upon our comrades and friends to participate in initiatives that will take place in other cities.
Paris, January 7, 2014
pcof@pcof.net
enavant@club-internet.fr

DIDF: Die Proteste gegen den Staatsterror in der Türkei gehen weiter

Quelle: Labournet Germany

Nach dem Bombenanschlag auf die Friedensdemonstration vergangenen Samstag, die von Gewerkschaften und Berufsverbänden organisiert wurde und bei der 105 Menschen ihr Leben verloren haben, ist die Türkei nun auf den Straßen. Die Gewerkschaften haben für Montag und Dienstag zu einem Generalstreik aufgerufen. In allen 4 Ecken der Türkei haben die Arbeiter ihre Arbeit niedergelegt, die Schüler und Studenten boykottieren die Schule und die Universität. Wir dokumentieren die Stellungnahme von DIDF zum Stand der Dinge vom 13. Oktober 2015
In Beyazit/Istanbul wurden, wie in vielen anderen Städten, Arbeiter des Krankenhauses, die streikten, von der Polizei angegriffen. Das Bild des zweiten Streiktages sieht im ganzen Land ähnlich aus. Die Polizeigewalt nimmt immer mehr zu. Auch in Ankara wurden die Demonstranten wieder von der Polizei mit Tränengas angegriffen, so wie direkt nach dem Bombenanschlag am Samstag. Die brutalen Angriffe gehen weiter.
Nuray Sancar, stellvertretende Vorsitzende der Partei der Arbeit (EMEP) und Sprecherin vom Friedensblock, analysiert die Lage wie folgt: „Die zunehmende Polizeigewalt in der Türkei sieht man mit jeder Demonstration. Der Staat möchte die Bevölkerung, die für Frieden, Demokratie und bessere Lebensbedingungen auf die Straße geht, so einschüchtern. Der Grund, warum die Polizeigewalt am zweiten Tag des Streiks im Gegensatz zum ersten Tag mehr geworden ist, liegt darin, dass die Demonstrationen heute zu Massenprotesten geworden sind. Da gestern viele Menschen noch bei den Beerdigungen waren, waren die Proteste schwächer als heute. Der Staat ist sich dessen bewusst und möchte die Proteste unterbinden, indem sie Angst einflößen.“
„Wir haben mehrere Selbstmordattentäter in der Türkei“
Der Ministerpräsident der Türkei, Ahmet Davutoglu, gab am Montag in seiner Rede bekannt, dass die Liste der Selbstmordattentäter dem Staat bekannt seien, doch solange es keine Aktion gäbe, könne der Staat nichts machen. Es seien mehrere Selbstmordattentäter in der Türkei, laut Davutoglu.
Die Vorsitzende der Partei der Arbeit, Selma Gürkan, verurteilt diese Aussage: „Es ist eine Unverschämtheit nach so einer Tragödie so eine Äußerung zu machen. Obwohl der Staat darüber informiert ist, wer die weiteren Selbstmordattentäter sind, tut er nichts dagegen. Das zeigt nichts anderes, als dass der Staat hinter diesem Bombenanschlag steht. Sie sind verantwortlich für diesen Anschlag.
Die fortschrittlichen Kräfte in der Türkei brauchen Unterstützung. Deshalb rufen wir, als Föderation der demokratischen Arbeitervereine (DIDF), alle demokratischen Kräfte und alle Gewerkschaften dazu auf, den Kampf um Frieden und Demokratie in der Türkei zu unterstützen. Wir fordern die Bundesregierung auf, die Unterstützung der AKP-Regierung sofort zu unterbinden.

Was für eine Partei brauchen wir?

 

Ein belebendes Seminar am 17.10.15

Quelle: Arbeit-Zukunft vom 22. Oktober 2015

Das Seminar „Was für eine Partei brauchen wir?” am Samstag, dem 17.10.15, in Magdeburg war erstaunlich belebend. Genoss/innen aus verschiedenen Teilen Deutschlands waren teilweise von weit her angereist, um sich mit dieser Frage zu beschäftigen. Sie kamen aus unterschiedlichen Bereichen wie Betrieb und Gewerkschaft, Jugend, Antifa und mit unterschiedlichen Erfahrungen zusammen.Ein Genosse der Organisation für den Aufbau einer kommunistischen Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands beschäftigte sich in einem längeren Einführungsreferat gründlich mit der Schrift von Lenin „Brief an einen Genossen über unsere organisatorischen Aufgaben” und deren Bedeutung in der aktuellen Situation. Dabei ging er auf die Zersplitterung und ideologisch-politische Zerfahrenheit der gegenwärtigen revolutionären Bewegung sowie den Einfluss verschiedener revisionistischer Strömungen ein.
Er beobachte seit längerem, dass viele Revolutionäre eine Perspektive in anderen Ländern wie Kuba, Nordkorea oder gar China suchen, statt sich hier mit den Schwierigkeiten im Klassenkampf zu befassen und nach Wegen zu deren Überwindung zu suchen. Internationale Solidarität sei vor allem dadurch wirksam, dass man die herrschende Klasse in einem der großen und starken imperialistischen Land angehe. Das könne man nicht durch Träume ersetzen, dass es woanders angeblich gut laufe, was ja auch nicht der Realität entspreche.
Zudem scheuten viele revolutionäre Kräfte vor einer ehrlichen, materialistischen Bilanz und Fehleranalyse bei der UdSSR, der DDR usw. zurück. Es nütze nichts, von früher zu träumen und alles nostalgisch zu verklären, statt realistische Antworten zu geben, was wir aus diesen Erfahrungen gelernt haben.
In Deutschland hätten zahllose Menschen eigene Erfahrungen oder Erfahrungen aus ihrer unmittelbaren Verwandtschaft bzw. dem Freundeskreis mit dem ehemaligen Sozialismus in der DDR und dessen Degeneration. Wenn solche Menschen nach einem Ausweg aus dem kapitalistischen System suchten, dann wollten sie auch eine Antwort auf ihre Fragen und Bedenken zum Sozialismus.
Der Genosse wies eindringlich darauf hin, wie weit die konkrete Lage der Revolutionäre in unserem Land von den Anforderungen Lenins an eine kommunistische Partei entfernt sei. So fehle weitgehend eine ernstzunehmende Verankerung in der Arbeiterklasse und dem Volk.
Als Voraussetzungen für eine stabile, starke revolutionäre Partei nannte er:
1. „Das Problem der fehlenden Verankerung in der Arbeiterklasse und der Massenbewegung muss ernsthaft angegangen werden. Raus aus dem Sektierertum der Zirkel!
2. Alle offenen Fragen, alle politischen Differenzen müssen wir offen und ehrlich angehen. Die Auseinandersetzung muss um die Inhalte, um eine klare marxistisch-leninistische Linie geführt werden. Sie kann, wenn es sein muss, auch sehr scharf sein. Aber sie muss als Ziel die Einheit und die Stärkung der revolutionären Kräfte haben. Unser Feind ist die Bourgeoisie, nicht die Genoss/innen!
3. Eine Politik erarbeiten und durchführen, die die Arbeiterklasse befähigt ihre eigenen Interessen wahrzunehmen und dafür zu kämpfen und zugleich gegenüber allen anderen Klassen und Schichten dieser Gesellschaft selbstbewusst aufzutreten und sich an deren Spitze zu setzen
4. Ein Programm erarbeiten, dass diese Politik ausformuliert und mit dem Ziel der revolutionären Schaffung einer sozialistischen Gesellschaft in unserem Land verbindet.”
Er rief auf: Wer eine starke kommunistische Partei wolle, der müsse sie auch aufbauen und meinte:
„Das ist wie mit einem Haus. Allein der Wunsch, ein tolles Haus zu haben, erschafft kein Haus.
Der Wunsch wird erst dann zur Kraft, wenn man sich daran macht, Pläne zu zeichnen, die Grube für das Fundament zu graben, das Fundament zu gießen, die Mauern zu setzen, Wasser und Strom zu verlegen, Fenster und Türen einzubauen, alles zu verputzen, Böden zu legen usw. usf.
Und natürlich ist offensichtlich, dass wir mit den wenigen Kräften, die wir haben, diese Aufgaben nicht erfüllen können.
Also bleibt alles beim Alten?
Wir bleiben schwach, zersplittert, es geht nicht voran… und das in ewiger Schleife?”
Wie man zuletzt bei der großen Demonstration gegen TTIP, CETA usw. in Berlin gesehen habe, suchten viele Menschen nach einer Alternative zu diesem System und sähen keine Zukunft im Kapitalismus. Hier tue sich ein weites Betätigungsfeld auf. Mit seiner ständig steigenden Aggressivität schaffe der Kapitalismus zudem täglich neue Zweifel, ob er das richtige System ist. Es gebe also Möglichkeiten, die wir aber nicht nutzen könnten, wenn wir schwach, zersplittert seien und nicht aktiv am Kampf der Arbeiterklasse und des Volkes teilnehmen würden.
Nach einer Pause gab es zahlreiche Beiträge in einer ausgesprochen lebhaften und vom ernsten Willen, voran zu kommen, geprägten Diskussion. Genossen berichteten über ihre Erfahrungen mit Streiks und Arbeitskämpfen. Klar wurde dabei, dass es bereits viele gute Ansätze gibt, die aber nicht ausreichend koordiniert und zentralisiert sind. Der Referent meinte, das sei etwa so, wie wenn bei einem Hausbau an verschiedenen Stellen eifrig gemauert werde, aber nicht nach einem einheitlichen Plan. Nur wenn man die Arbeit koordiniere, könne man langfristig erfolgreich sein. Kritisch beleuchtet wurde die schädliche Rolle vieler Gewerkschaftsführer und wie man damit umgehen könne, deren Einfluss schwächen könne.
In einer Schlussrunde meinten viele Teilnehmer, dass sie neue Erkenntnisse und Anregungen mitnehmen würden. Im Mittelpunkt stand dabei der Wille, die Arbeit besser zu zentralisieren und dafür die Zeitung „Arbeit Zukunft” als Propagandist, Agitator und Organisator zu nutzen. Wir sind sicher, dass viele den Schwung und die Begeisterung, die dieses Seminar gekennzeichnet haben, mit nach hause nehmen und dort in ihre Arbeit einfließen lassen.

Stiftete der Großmufti Haj Amin al-Husseini Hitler zum Massenmord an den Juden an?

Israels Regierungschef und Kriegsverbrecher Benjamin Netanyahu, behauptete letztens, der Großmufti von Jerusalem, Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, habe Hitler zum Massenmord an den Juden angestiftet.
Es gab tatsächlich ein Zusammentreffen mit dem islamischen Geistlichen und Rechtsgelehrten Mohammed Amin al-Husseini mit Adolf Hitler. Dass hier aber der massenhafte Mord an den Juden beschlossen wurde, verweisen selbst die eingefleischtesten Freunde der Zionisten in Reich der Fantasie.
Zunächst einmal: Die Nazis hatten zum Teil illustre Freunde – und England hatte durch seine Kolonialpolitik viele Feinde. So meinte die IRA, die Irisch Republikanische Armee, sie könne mit Hilfe Hitlers ihren Kampf um Unabhängigkeit Irlands voran treiben.
Aber auch hohe Pewrsönlichkeiten Englands sympathiesiierten mit den Nazis. So der der Exkönih, Eduard VIII., jetzt Herzog von Windsor.
Es war also nicht nur Mohammed Amin al-Husseini. England war Kolonialmacht in Palästina und herrschte nach dem Prinzip „teile und herrsche.
Der Zionismus, der davon ausging, Palästina gehöre den Juden, hatte zunächst unter den Juden Europas kaum Anhänger. Aber mit dem Aufkommen des Faschismus in Deutschland mit seinen Judenverfolgungen, gewann der Zionismus Anhänger. Obwohl die verfolgten Juden vor allem in die USA und England. Kanada usw. wollten, diese Länder aber kaum Juden einreisen ließen, ging es vermehrt nach Palästina. Auch deshalb, weil die zionistischen Organisationen in Europa nun vermehrt Zulauf bekamen. Und eins ist auch wichtig: Die Zionisten verfügten über gute Kontakte zu den Machthabern in Nazi-Deutschland.
In Palästina verschärfte sich der Druck auf die Araber, denn die Zionisten brauchten Land um ihre Siedlungen zu errichten. Auch gründeten sie geheime Terrorgruppen, die das mit Gewalt nahmen, was den Arabern gehörte.
Die britische Kolonialmacht sah diesem Treiben tatenlos zu, sie hinderte jedenfalls nicht die zionistischen Terrorgruppen an der illegalen Enteignung arabischen Besitzes. Das blieb natürlichen den Palästinensern nicht verborgen und es verwundert nicht, dass sie sich nach Verbündeten umsahen. Und es lag auf der Hand: Der wichtigste Feind der Kolonialmacht England ist das Deutsche Reich.
Das ist der Hintergrund der Reise des Großmuftis nach Berlin und dessen Gespräch mit Hitler. Aber anzunehmen, Hitler habe sich etwas von einem islamischen Geistlichen einreden lassen, ist schlichtweg absurd. Mohammed Amin al-Husseini war für Hitler nicht mehr wert, wie andere „rassisch Minderwertige“ die er verachtete. Vom Massenmord an den Juden schwafelte er bereits in „Mein Kampf“ und das wurde lange vor dem Treffen mit dem Großmufti geschrieben.
Mohammed Amin al-Husseini ist sicher keine Zierde der Palästinenser, aber eine Art Über-Hitler war er nicht.
Was sich da Netanyahu geleistet hat, ist eine Entlastung des schlimmsten Massenmörder aller Zeiten und zeigt anschaulich Netanyahus geistige Verfassung.
G.H.

Lebensversicherung vor Hartz IV schützen

Vor Hartz IV schützen: Verwertungsausschluss bei Lebensversicherungen
23.10.2015

Bisher waren die Vorgaben sehr eng. Wer eine Lebensversicherung hatte, musste diese auflösen, bevor er berechtigt war, Hartz IV Leistungen zu beziehen. Aber: Um das Guthaben nicht für den Lebensunterhalt zu verwerten, kann auch nachträglich ein Verwertungsausschluss mit dem Versicherer vereinbart werden. Eine Kürzung oder gar Verweigerung darf das Jobcenter dann nicht mehr vornehmen. Die Lebensversicherung ist dann als Altersvorsorge geschützt (Sozialgericht Mainz, Az.: S 4 AS 466/11).

Im konkreten Fall lehnte das Jobcenter einen Hartz IV Antrag ab. Der 53Jährige Antragssteller sollte zunächst die Lebensversicherung im Werte von 20.000 Euro für den Lebensunterhalt verwerten. Es handelte sich um eine Kapital-Lebensversicherung, die der Betroffene 1992 zur Altersvorsorge abgeschlossen hatte.

Im Beratungsgespräch mit der Versicherung bot diese dem Versicherungsnehmer an, nachträglich einen sogenannten Verwertungsausschluss zu vereinbaren. Somit verzichtete der Kläger auf die Möglichkeit einer vorzeitigen Auszahlung. So kann die Lebensversicherung auch nicht verpfändet, gekündigt oder beliehen werden. So könne auch erreicht werden, dass die Lebensversicherung nicht mehr als verwertbares Vermögen gilt, dass vor einem Hartz IV Bezug aufgebraucht werden muss.

Nun stellte der Kläger erneut einen ALG II-Antrag. Dieser wurde nunmehr genehmigt, allerdings machte das Jobcenter Kürzungen aufgrund von Pflichtverletzungen geltend. Der Antragsteller habe bewusst sein Vermögen gemindert, so die Behörde. Daraufhin klagte der Mann vor dem Sozialgericht.

Das Gericht stützte die Position des Klägers. Zwar habe der Antragssteller bewusst sein anrechenbares Vermögen reduziert, um Sozialleistungen zu erhalten, allerdings läge keine klassische Pflichtverletzung vor. Denn vor dem Zugriff der Behörde ist nicht nur die Riester-Rente geschützt, sondern auch andere Maßnahmen, die zur Altersvorsorge dienen. Das Bundessozialgericht hatte sogar in einem Urteil im Jahre 2008 darauf verwiesen, dass Jobcenter Hartz IV Beziehende auf die Möglichkeit des Verwertungsausschlusses hinweisen müssen, damit die Altersvorsorge geschützt bleibt. Somit ist das Jobcenter dazu verpflichtet, die vollen Leistungen dem Antragsteller zu zahlen. (sb)

Nach der Zeitarbeit wieder auf Hartz IV

Nur selten können Leiharbeiter auf eine reguläre Beschäftigung hoffen

22.10.2015

Eine noch nicht veröffentlichte Untersuchung zeigt deutlich: Das Argument, die Zeitarbeit könnte ein Instrument zur Erlangung eine regulären Beschäftigungsverhältnisses werden, stimmt nicht. Es ist laut einer der „Saarbrücker Zeitung“ vorliegenden DGB Studie eher die Ausnahme, dass nach der Leiharbeit auch eine feste Arbeitsstelle resultiert.
38 Prozent der Zeitarbeiter müssen nach der Leiharbeit sofort wieder Hartz IV beantragen, weil die Beschäftigungsdauer zu kurz war, um ein Arbeitslosengeld 1-Anspruch zu erwirken. Im letzten Jahr waren 860.000 Menschen in der Leiharbeit beschäftigt. Laut der DGB-Untersuchung verdienten die vollzeitbeschäftigten Zeitarbeiter im Schnitt 1700 Euro brutto je Monat. 40 Prozent der eingesetzten Zeitarbeiter, die eine Hilfstätigkeit ausführen, weisen eine abgeschlossene Berufsausbildung vor. Vielerorts wurde reguläre Beschäftigung abgebaut und durch Leiharbeit ersetzt. (sb)

Bienengifte endgültig verbieten

Die Chemieindustrie führt einen Giftkrieg gegen die Natur. Die Stoffgruppe der Neonikotinoide sind die gefährlichsten Pestizide, die der Mensch je geschaffen hat. Mit den Nervengiften werden in der Landwirtschaft neben sogenannten Schädlingen auch unzählige nützliche Insekten wie Bienen vernichtet. Bitte fordern Sie deren Verbot.
Die Chemiekonzerne BASF, Bayer, Dow und Syngenta erzeugen für die Landwirtschaft hochgefährliche Nervengifte. Die Stoffgruppe der Neonikotinoide vernichtet alle Insekten einschließlich Honigbienen und Hummeln. Auch Monsanto und Dupond sollen Samenkörner verkaufen, die damit behandelt sind.
Die Pestizide töten nicht nur auf den Äckern. An Staubpartikeln anhaftende winzige Giftmengen reichen aus, um mit dem Wind die tödliche Wirkung der Nervengifte in der Landschaft zu verteilen. So geschehen im April 2008 im Rheintal. Die Aussaat von Maiskörnern, die mit Neonikotinoiden gebeizt waren, führte zu einem massiven Bienensterben.
Aufgrund des Bienensterbens in Europa hat die EU Kommission schließlich 2013 den Einsatz der Neonikotinoide Clothianidin, Thiamethoxam und Imidacloprid sowie der Substanz Fipronil stark eingeschränkt – mit einer Frist von zwei Jahren. Die Chemiekonzerne BASF, Bayer und Syngenta haben dagegen vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof drei Klagen angestrengt.
Der Konzern Dow Chemicals hat das neue hochgiftige Insektizid Sulfoxaflor entwickelt. Es ist wie die Neonikotinoide ein Nervengift. Trotzdem genehmigte die EU-Kommission im Juli 2015 den Einsatz von Sulfoxaflor.
In den USA feiern Bienenhalter und Umweltschützer dagegen einen großen juristischen Erfolg. Im September 2015 hat ein Berufungsgericht in Kalifornien ihnen Recht gegeben und den Einsatz von Sulfoxaflor verboten. Die US-Umweltbehörde EPA hätte nach Ansicht der Richter die Substanz nicht zulassen dürfen, weil sie auch für Bienen hochgefährlich sei und die vorgelegten Studien nicht den Schutz der Bienenvölker belegen konnten.
Bitte fordern Sie Politik und Justiz in Europa auf, die Neonikotinoide und andere Nervengifte wie Fipronil und Sulfoxaflor in der EU endgültig zu verbieten.
https://www.regenwald.org/aktion/1022/bienengifte-endgueltig-verbieten?mtu=113849483&t=1315

מאות חותמים על עצומה – "להעניק מיד פיצויים למשפחת קרבן הלינץ' בבאר שבע!"

מאות חותמים על עצומה – "להעניק מיד פיצויים למשפחת קרבן הלינץ' בבאר שבע!"

הודעה לעיתונות 24.10.2015

"מאות אנשים כבר חתמו על העצומה שלנו תוך שעות מהרגע שיצאנו איתה, והחתימות ממשיכות לזרום" אומרים היוזמים של מסע ציבורי בדרישה כי ממשלת ישראל תעניק מעמד של חלל טרור ל הבטום זרהום קרבן הלינץ' בבאר שבע, ותעניק למשפחתו פיצויים בהתאם לכך.

"מאז שמענו על המעשה הנורא שנעשה בבאר שבע בידי אזרחים של מדינת ישראל אנו מלאי בושה וחרדה" אומרים יוזמי העצומה. "אפילו אילו באמת היה מדובר במי שביצע פיגוע, ההתעללות האכזרית עד מוות באדם חסר ישע שאינו מהווה שום סכנה ושום איום היתה מהווה מעשה פשע נתעב. כאשר התברר שמדובר באדם חף מפשע לחלוטין, מדינת ישראל היתה צריכה לקבל מיד אחריות ולעשות את הדבר המתבקש המינימלי, להכיר בקרבן הזה כנפגע טרור ולהעניק פיצויים למשפחתו. מסתבר שגם לזאת אין מדינתנו מסוגלת, בטיעון פורמליסטי ש'החוק אינו מאפשר'. ההתחמקות הזאת מהווה בעצם את המשכו של מעשה הלינץ',והפעם בידי בירוקרטים חסרי לב בשירות המדינה."

העצומה ממוענת אל נשיא המדינה ראובן ריבלין, ראש הממשלה בנימין נתניהו, שר הרווחה חיים כץ ומנכ"ל הביטוח הלאומי פרופ' שלמה מור יוסף, עם העתק אל נציבות האו"ם לפליטים. בעצומה נאמר : "הבטום זרהום, אזרח אריתריאה שנמלט מפני משטר מדכא בארץ מולדתו וקיווה לשווא למצוא מקלט בטוח במדינת ישראל, נפל קורבן למעשה לינץ' נורא בבאר שבע. מדינת ישראל נושאת באחריות למותו. אזרחים ישראלים הרגו אותו באכזריות, אזרחים ישראלים שהפכו להמון משתולל, צמא דם וחסר רחמים. פוליטיקאים מן הממשלה וה"אופוזיציה",אשר השמיעו קריאות מפורשות להרוג גם את מי שאינם מהווים איום, שותפים באחריות למותו. המעט מזעיר שיכולה מדינת ישראל לעשות הוא להכיר בו כקרבן טרור ולהעניק למשפחתו את הסיוע המתבקש. אם אי אפשר לעשות זאת במסגרת החוק הקיים, צריך לשנות את החוק המחפיר והמבייש הזה – ומיד!נאמר: פיצויים למשפחתו של הבטום זרהום".

לפרטים:

ורדית 052-5347650

עופר 0544-740825 (מוטב לסמס תחילה)

Georges Abdallah, tes camarades sont là !

Samedi 24 octobre a eu lieu une manifestation nationale pour la libération de Georges Abdallah devant la prison dans laquelle il est enfermé à Lannemezan.

Plus de 400 personnes ont répondu à l'appel sous des slogans : "32 ans de prison, 32 de résistance", "Palestine vivra, Palestine vaincra, libérez Georges" "Georges Abdallah, tes camarades sont là !".

Le collectif anti-impérialiste Coup Pour Coup 31, co-organisateur de la manifestation, avait organisé un bus au départ de Toulouse pour se rendre à la manifestation.

Dans un même temps, l'Union de la Jeunesse Progressiste de Gaza organisait un rassemblement pour rebaptiser la rue Charles De Gaulle de Gaza Ville en rue Georges Abdallah. Des rassemblements, manifestations et activités pour la libération de Georges Abdallah ont eu aussi lieu à Lille, Bruxelles et Liège (Belgique), Beyrouth (Liban), Berlin (Allemagne,) Milan - Naples et Rome (Italie), New-York City (USA), Tunis (Tunisie), Alger (Algérie).

Lors de la manifestation à Lannemezan, une militante du Collectif pour la Libération de Georges Ibrahim Abdallah - Paris a lu une déclaration de Georges Abdallah, disponible ICI

Notre collectif anti-impérialiste a aussi pris la parole devant les portes de la prison :

Bonjour,je prends la parole au nom du collectif anti-impérialiste Coup pour coup à Toulouse.

Notre collectif s'est créé en Mars 2009 et le soutien à Georges Abdallah a toujours occupé une place centrale dans nos luttes. Il est important pour nous de soutenir ce résistant qui ne s'est jamais renié, malgré l'acharnement de l'état français à le maintenir en prison.

En tant que collectif anti impérialiste,

Soutenir Georges Abdallah, c'est aussi soutenir la lutte du peuple palestinien. Si la Palestine est parfois mis en avant médiatiquement comme ces dernières semaines, c'est bien depuis 1948 que le peuple palestinien lutte contre le colonialisme et l'apartheid. En tant que militantes et militants anti-impérialistes, nous soutenons la résistance palestienne et en particuliers sa frange progressiste, le FPLP. Samedi dernier, avec l'Union de la jeunesse progressiste palestinienne, nous avons renommé les places Charles De Gaulle en places Georges Ibrahim Abdallah à Toulouse et Gaza. Ainsi, nous réaffirmons que la lutte pour la libération de Georges fait partie intégrante de la lutte pour la libération de la palestine.

La solidarité est une arme, c'est pourquoi nous avions mis en place une caisse de solidarité pour l'hopital Al-Awda à l'été 2014 durant les bombardements sur Gaza. Dans la même démarche, nous allons lancer une campagne de soutien au Youth Centers du camp de refugiés palestiniens d'Ein el-Hiweh au Liban.

Soutenir Georges Abdallah, c'est aussi soutenir les prisonniers politiques, partout dans le monde.

En Palestine, plus de 6200 prisonniers politiques palestiniens sont détenus dans les prisons d'Israël.

Khalida Jarrar, dirigeante du FPLP enfermée depuis Avril 2014, est accusée d'avoir résister à l'occupant israelien.

Ahmed Saadat, secrétaire général du FPLP, enfermé en 2002 par l'Autorité palestinienne, puis kidnappé par l'état sioniste en 2006 et aujourd'hui emprisonné à Nafha.

Aux Etats-unis, Mumia Abu Jamal, militant des Black Panthers croupit en prison depuis 1981 où malgré un état de santé très préoccupant, on lui refuse l'accès aux soins.

Albert Woodfox, militant des Black Panthers est en isolement depuis 43 ans à la prison d'Angola. Alors qu'un juge fédéral avait ordonné sa libération en juin 2015, la cour d'appel a décidée de le garder jusqu'à son nouveau procès.

A la prison de Lannemezan, nous avons une pensée particulière pour les 6 militants Abertzalé qui sont enfermés pour des actions de résistance à l'occupant franco-espagnol : Didier Agerre, Frederic Haramburu, Inaki Esparza Luri, Ibon Fernadez Iradi, Jose Ramon Lete Aberdi, Joseba Segurola Kerejeta.

Soutenir Georges Abdallah, c'est combattre l'impérialisme ici comme ailleurs en développant la solidarité et les résistances.

Vive la lutte des peuples contre le colonialisme et l'impérialisme !

Palestine vaincra, libérons Georges Abdallah !

[Chiapas98] 2.11. Kiel: Film- & Diskussionsveranstaltung

Das Subrosa zeigt:

Der Aufstand der Würde

Am 1. Januar 1994 besetzten Tausende Indigene unter der Losung „Ya Basta!“ (Es reicht!) sieben Städte im südmexikanischen Bundesstaat Chiapas. Zwei Wochen lang kämpften die Zapatistas – die sich nach dem Revolutionär Emiliano Zapata benannten – bewaffnet gegen die Regierung, die für sie nur Missachtung oder Gewalt übrig hatte.
Seitdem setzen sie sich mit friedlichen Mitteln gegen Ausbeutung, Rassismus, Unterdrückung der Frauen und Naturzerstörung ein.

Die Zapatistas besetzten Ländereien von Großgrundbesitzern und bauen dort eigene Strukturen auf. Lokale Machthaber und die Regierung reagieren darauf bis heute mit Repression und Sabotage.
Die Zapatistas riefen bereits 1996 zur Bildung einer „Internationalen der Hoffnung“ auf, um gemeinsam mit anderen Bewegungen für eine solidarische Gesellschaft zu kämpfen. Ziel der Zapatistas ist eine basisdemokratische Gesellschaftsordnung.

Das Filmteam besuchte mehrere zapatistische Gemeinden und sprach vor allem mit den Menschen der Basis. Die Dokumentation bietet eine Einführung in das Thema, anschauliche Einblicke in selbstverwaltete Gesundheits-, Bildungs- Landwirtschafts- und Kollektivprojekte, das Politikverständnis und die internationale Bedeutung der Bewegung.

Als Gast begrüßen wir den Filmemacher Luz Kerkeling

Mo., 2.11.2015 // Beginn 19:00Uhr // Einlass 18:00Uhr

SUBROSA
Elisabethstr. 25
24143 Kiel

http://subrosa.gaarden.net/uebers-sub-rosa

-----Integrierter Anhang folgt-----

_______________________________________________
Chiapas98 Mailingliste
JPBerlin - Mailbox und Politischer Provider
Chiapas98@listi.jpberlin.de
https://listi.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/chiapas98

Bill Bland: The “Doctor’s Case” and the Death of Stalin

Part 1: The “Doctor’s Case”

“Stalin . . . issued orders to arrest a group of eminent medical specialists. . . .
When we examined this ‘case’ after Stalin’s death, we found it to be fabricated from beginning to end.”
(N. S. Khrushchev: Secret Speech to 20th Congress, CPSU, in: Russian Institute, Columbia University (Ed.): ‘The Anti-Stalin Campaign and International Communism: A Selection of Documents’; New York; 1956; p. 64).

The Initial Preparations for the Revisionist Coup (1943-46)
The seizure of power by the Soviet revisionists required certain preliminary measures — the first of these being the weakening of the securitv organs of the socialist state and their later transfer into the hands of the revisionist conspirators.
In April 1943 the organ which had been responsible for state security, the People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs (NKVD), which had been headed by the Marxist-Leninist Lavrenti Beria*, was weakened by being split into three parts:
1) the People’s Commisariat of Internal Affairs (NKVD), still headed by Beria, but no longer concerned with state security:

“The NKVD, under the leadership of Beria, was thereby relieved of the heavy problems of State security and became more and more an ‘economic’ organisation.”
(B. Levytsky: ‘The Uses of Terror: The Soviet Secret Service: 1917-1970’; London; 1971; p. 160).

2) the People’s Commissariat of State Security (NKGB), headed by the Marxist-Leninist Vsevolod Merkulov*;
3) the Counter-Espionage Department of the People’s Commissariat for Defence (SMERSH), headed by the Marxist-Leninist Viktor Abakumov*.
In 1946, after the conclusion of the Second World War,
1) SMERSH was abolished;
2) the People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs (NKVD) was renamed the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) and its Marxist-Leninist head Merkulov, who:

” . . . was one of Beria’s closest and most trusted collaborators”
(B. Levytsky: op. cit.; p. 141).

was replaced by the concealed revisionist Sergey Kruglov*; and
3) the People’s Commissariat of State Security (NKGB) was renamed the Ministry of State Security (MGB); for the next six years, however, it continued to be headed by the Marxist-Leninist Abakumov.
The First Stage of the “Doctors’ Case” (1948-51)
In 1948 the plans of the conspirators were interrupted by ‘the case of the Kremlin doctors’. In this year,

” . . . Lvdia Timashuk a rank-and-file doctor at the Kremlin Hospital . . . . discovered intentional distortions in medical conclusions made by major medical experts who served as consultants in the hospital. She exposed their criminal designs and thus opened the eyes of security bodies to the existence of the infamous conspiracy.”
(Y. Rapoport: ‘The Doctors’ Plot: Stalin’s Last Crime’: London; 1991; p. 77).

Dr. Timashuk wrote to

” . . . Stalin a letter in which she declared that doctors were applying supposedly improper methods of medical treatment.”
(N. S. Khrushchev: Secret Speech; op. cit.; p. 63).

As to the date,

“. . . Timashuk’s first report was made while Zhdanov was still alive.”
(P. Deriabin: ‘Watchdogs of Terror: Russian Bodyguards from the Tsars to the Commissars’; n.p. (USA); 1984; p. 311).

and Zhdanov * died in August 1948.
Although Khrushchev later alleged, in his secret speech to the 20th Congress of the CPSU in February 1956, that:

“. . . this ignominious case was set up by Stalin”,
(N. S. Khrushchev: Secret Speech; op. cit.; p. 65).

Ian Grey assures us that, at the outset,

“Stalin had strong doubts about Timashuk’s allegations.”
(I.Grey: ‘Stalin: Man of History’; London; 1979; p. 461).

and Stalin’s daughter Svetlana Alliluyeva* confirms:

“My father’s housekeeper told me not long ago that my father was extremely distressed at the turn events took. . . . She was waiting on table, as usual, when my father remarked that he did not believe the doctors were ‘dishonest’ and that the only evidence against them, after all, were the ‘reports’ of Dr. Timashuk.”
(S. Allilyeva: Twenty Letters to a Friend”; London; 1967; p. 215).

Nevertheless, Stalin passed these allegations to the state security organs, forces, then in the charge of the Marxist-Leninist Minister of State Security Abakumov. As a result,

“. . . Abakumov started an investigation that he directed personally.”
(P. Deriabin: op. cit.; p. 311).

and the investigation of Timashuk’s allegations soon convinced Stalin of their correctness:

“One day Stalin called us to the Kremlin and read us a letter from a woman doctor named Timashuk. She claimed that Zhdanov died because the doctors on the case purportedly administered improper treatment to him, treatment intended to lead to his death.”
(N. S. Khrushchev: ‘Khrushchev Remembers’; London; 1971; p. 283).

The first arrests resulting from this investigation began as early as December 1950, with the arrest of the diagnostician Yakov Etinger, who had headed a clinic at the First Gradskaya Hospital in Moscow. Etinger’s name later (1953) appeared among the accused in the ‘doctors’ case’:

“Yakov Etinger had been arrested in 1950.”
(Y. Rapoport: op. cit.; p. 24).
“The terrorist group includes . . . Professor Y. G. Etinger, a therapeutist.”
(‘Pravda’, 13 January 1953, p. 4, in: ‘Current Digest of the Soviet Press’, Volume 4, No. 51 (31 January 1953); p. 3).

The Dismissal and Arrest of Abakumov (1951)
By 1951, therefore, the revisionist conspirators had good reason to feel extremely uneasy about their future. Rumours circulated:

“. . that several members of Stalin’s entourage were threatened by the coming purge.”
(G. Bortoli: ‘The Death of Stalin’; London; 1973; p. 151).

Clearly, urgent action was essential to safeguard both the conspiracy and the conspirators.
In late 1951, therefore, the revisionist conspirators brought about the dismissal of the Marxist-Leninist Abakumov as Minister of State Security and his replacement by the concealed revisionist Semyon Ignatiev*:

“Beria’s adversaries in the Party (the opponents of Marxism-Leninism — Ed.) . . . achieved a notable victory in late 1951 with the replacement of V. S. Abakumov, an associate of Beria, by S. P. Ignatiev, a Party official, as head of the MVD.”
(S. Wolin & R. Slusser: ‘The Soviet Secret Police’; London; 1957; p. 20).

Boris Levytsky records that:

“Abakumov, Beria’s intimate friend (= a Marxist-Leninist — Ed.) was removed from his post and replaced by S. D. Ignatiev.”
(B. Levytsky: op. cit.; p. 204).

and sees this move as the:

“. . . first step towards a complete re-staffing of the secret police, towards the removal of Beria and his friends (of the Marxist-Leninists — Ed.). . . . For the assumption that Ignatiev was a man of straw there is. . . plenty of evidence. . . . Ignatiev’s appointment was favoured by the circumstance that he had never had anything to do with Beria and had no experience of the secret police.”
(B. Levytsky: op. cit.; p. 204, 295).

Shortly afterwards, Abakumov and several dozen of his assistants were arrested on charges of ‘lack of vigilance in connection with the ‘Leningrad Affair’ of 1949-50 (already analysed):

“In . . . 1951 . . . Abakumov was arrested. . . . He was taken to the Lubyanka and put in solitary confinement. Seven of his deputies and several dozen state security officers were arrested along with him. . .The charges brought against Abakumov at that time were that he had not recognised the enemy of the people during his handling of the ‘Leningrad Affair’. . . .In September 1951 none other than Khrushchev . . . echoed Stalin’s charge that Abakumov and his officers had failed to recognise the enemy of the people in the northern city’s Party apparatus.”
(P. Deriabin: op. cit.; p. 316-17).

The trumped-up character of the charges against Abakumov and his assistants is obvious from the fact that in December 1954 Abakumov was executed by the same revisionist conspirators on charges which included those of having ‘fabricated the “Leningrad Affair”‘:

“Abakumov falsified the so-called ‘Leningrad Case’, in which a number of Party and Soviet officials were arrested without grounds, having been falsely accused of most serious state crimes.”
(‘Pravda’, 24 December 1954, in: R. Conquest: ‘Power and Policy in the USSR’; London; 1961; (hereafter listed as ‘R. Conquest (1961’); p. 449).

The Georgian Feint (1951-52)
But, as we shall see, the removal and arrest of Abakumov did not put a stop to the danger to the conspirators resulting from investigation into the ‘doctors’ case . They therefore sought to save themselves by making a feint attack on certain Marxist-Leninists.
In military terminology, a ‘feint’ is

“. . a movement made with the object of deceiving the enemy as to a general’s real plans.” (‘Shorter Oxford English Dictionary’; Oxford; 1972; p. 737).

The revisionist conspirators selected Transcaucasia for their feint attack not only because it was a long way from the real objective of their attack, Moscow, but also because it was the birthplace of both Stalin and Beria and was regarded as a Marxist-Leninist stronghold. Charles Fairbanks, junior* speaks of Beria’s:

“. . . territorial fiefdom in the Transcaucasus.”
(C. H. Fairbanks, jr.: ‘National Cadres as a Force in the Soviet System: The Evidence of Beria’s Career: 1949-53’, in: J. R. Azrael (Ed.): ‘Soviet Nationality Policies and Practices’; New York; 1978; p. 155).

and Levytsky notes that at

“. . . the 14th Congress of the Georgian Communist Party in January 1949 . . . two separate greeting messages were sent: one to Stalin and one to Beria.”
(B. Levytsky: op. cit.; p. 208).

The attack on the Georgian Marxist-Leninists could only be seen by Marxist-Leninists elsewhere as a groundless provocative attack on them by concealed enemies. The aim of the feint was, when the time was ripe — that is, when Stalin and his personal secretariat had been rendered powerless to intervene –
1) to admit that the Ministry of State Security had been in the hands of concealed enemies and had committed grave miscarriages of justice (e.g., in Georgia) of which they demanded the correction;
2) to exculpate and release the guilty doctor-conspirators together with the innocent Marxist-Leninists under the general cloak of ‘correcting miscarriages of justice’.
The feint began in January 1951 when, as Robert Conquest* points out, Vilian Zodelava was removed as leader of the Georgian Young Communist League. (R. Conquest (1961); p. 140).
On 24 May 1951:

” . . the ‘Voice of America’ announced it would start broadcasting Saturday in the Georgian language.”
(‘New York Times’, 25 May 1951; p. 21).

In November 1951 the wholesale removal of leading Marxist-Leninists in Georgia began, the offenders being charged with ’embezzlement, car thefts and similar crimes’. The news was leaked to Western diplomats in February 1952:

“A major wave of embezzlements, automobile thefts and similar crimes in Soviet Georgia has resulted in a wholesale purge of top Communist Party and government officials in that area, diplomatic sources report. . . .The removals began last November. The two most important officials purged were Mikhail Baramiya and Rostom Shaduri, secretaries of the Central Committee of the Georgian Communist Party.”
(‘New York Times’, 6 February 1952; p. 12).

David Lang* confirms this:

“Prominent Georgian Communists were accused of embezzling state funds, stealing automobiles and plundering state property.”
(D. M. Lang: ‘A Modern History of Georgia’; London; 1962; p. 261).

as does John Ducoli*:

“The purported reasons for the initial purge were embezzlements of state funds, automobile thefts, the plundering of state property, etc.”
(J. Ducoli: ‘The Georgian Purges (1951-53)’, in: ‘Caucasian Review’, Volume 6 (1958); p. 55).

Within a few days, in November 1951, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia was announcing that the accusations against some former Georgian leaders had been widened to include ‘the protection of criminal officials’:

“‘Recently it has become known that the Second Secretary of the CC of the CP (b) of Georgia, M. I. Baramiya, the Minister of Justice, A. N. Rapava, and the Prosecutor of the Republic, B. Ya. Shoniya, have been extending protection to certain officials who have committed crimes and have been shielding them in every possible way’. . . .All those named were dismissed from their posts.”
(R. Conquest (1961): op. cit.; p. 139).

Later, after the ousting of Beria from the leadership in July 1953, the dismissed officials were described as ‘supporters of Beria’. As the then First Secretary of the Georgian Central Committee, Akaki Mgeladze, reported to the Georgian Party Congress in September 1952:

“‘In 1951 several hundred of Beria’s supporters in Georgia were purged.”‘
(C. H. Fairbanks, junior: op. cit.; p. 161).

All leading Marxist-Leninists in Georgia were removed and replaced by conscious revisionists.
Then, in April 1952, a Plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia dismissed Kandida Charkviani as First Secretary, Rostom Shaduri and Mikhail Baramiya as Second Secretaries, Valerian Bakradze as Deputy Premier, Avksenty Rapava as Minister of Justice, and a number of other prominent Georgian leaders.
The Plenum elected a new First Secretary — the concealed revisionist Akak Mgeladze:

“Kandida Charkviani . . . has been relieved, and a new leader, Akaki Mgeladze, former secretary of the important Abkhaz regional party committee, has been installed in his place.”
(‘Pravda’, 6 June 1952, in: ‘New York Times’, 8 June 1952; p. 27).

Mgeladze carried forward on a large scale the process of removing Marxist-Leninists from responsible positions in the Georgian Party:

“Mgeladze set to work to purge the Party and the governmental apparatus from top to bottom. In six months he replaced half the members of the Central Committee of the Georgian Communist Party who had been returned in the election of 1949, and brought about a complete upheaval in the administrative hierarchy of the Republic. . . . Several high officials removed by Mgeladze, notably Valerian Bakradze, Deputy Chairman of the Georgian Council of Ministers (Deputy Premier — Ed.) were personal nominees of Beria.”
(D. M. Lang: op. cit.; p. 261).
“After a mere six months of leadership, Mgeladze purged approximately 55% of the 111 members and candidate members of the Central Committee which had been elected in 1949.”
(J. Ducoli: op. cit.; p. 55).

Beria came from Moscow to attend April 1952 Plenum:

“Beria was present at the plenum in April that formally confirmed the succession. Charkviani’s followers were replaced by men from Abkhazeti, where Mgeladze had been Party chief.”
(R. G. Suny: ‘The Making of the Georgian Nation’; London; 1989; p. 288).
“In April 1952, Beria, now Vice-President of the Soviet Council of Ministers (USSR Deputy Premier — Ed.) came from Moscow to attend a meeting of the Central Committee of the Georgian Communist Party.”
(D. M. Lang: op. cit.; p. 261).

The presence of Beria enabled the concealed revisionists to ‘let it become known’, that is, to spread the completely false story, that the changes in leading personnel which they had brought about in Georgia had been brought about ‘on Stalin’s instructions’:

“At that time (spring 1952 — Ed.) it became known that Mr. Beria himself had gone to Georgia to clean up a situation compounded of widespread graft and other types of corruption. Later it became known that Premier Stalin himself had had to intervene to order the purge in the Georgian Communist Party.”
(‘New York Times’, 3 January 1953; p. 3).

In fact, the Georgian leaders who were removed were Marxist-Leninists who were supported by Beria and Stalin, and had been elected on their recommendation:

“Several high officials removed by Mgeladze, notably Valerian Bakradze, Deputy Chairman of the Georgian Council of Ministers (Deputy Premier — Ed.) were personal nominees of Beria.”
(D. M. Lang: op. cit.; p. 261).
“Mr. Beria had to preside at the removal of the men he had installed at the head of the Georgian Party and to permit these charges of corruption to be announced as true.”
(‘New York Times’, 17 April 1953; p. 10).

However, the story that the leadership changes had been brought about at the wishes of Beria and Stalin was useful in quashing opposition to the changes. Mgeladze told the Georgian Party Congress in September 1952:

“These plenary sessions (of November 1951 and April 1952 — Ed.) adopted resolutions based on the decision of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party and upon Comrade Stalin’s personal instructions.”
(A. Mgeladze: Report to Congress of Georgian Communist Party, September 1952, in: R. Conquest (1961): op. cit.; p. 143).

The reasons given as to why Beria and Stalin should have wanted these changes were naturally somewhat nebulous. Mgeladze told the Georgian Young Communist League in May 1952:

“‘Comrade Stalin found deficiencies in the leadership of the Communist Party and Young Communist League of Georgia, which threatened to have serious consequences, and showed ways to correct mistakes.”‘
(A. Mgeladze: Report to Georgian Young Communist League, May 1952, in: R. Conquest (1961): op. cit.; p. 141-42).

This vague allegation was later made more concrete. Later in 1952, someone discovered some critical remarks of Stalin about the danger of nationalism in Georgia.
The dismissed Marxist-Leninists were now accused of criminal nationalism and were said to have been arrested, linked with those critical remarks made by Stalin about the dangers of nationalism:

“In the Georgian purges of 1951-52, his (Beria’s — Ed.) appointees were charged with lenience towards Georgian nationalism.”
(C. H. Fairbanks, Junior: op. cit., p. 154).

Mgeladze told the Georgian Party Congress on September 1952:

“‘The former leadership forgot about the fact that international reactionaries are trying to find in our Republic nationalist elements with hostile attitude in order with their help to carry on diversionist espionage work.”‘
(‘New York Times’, 23 September 1952; p. 3).

A number of the dismissed Marxist-Leninist leaders were charged with criminal manifestations of Georgian nationalism

“Mgeladze and his Minister of State Security, Rukhadze, charged some proteges of Beria with nationalism. They were M. I. Baramiya . . . .Rapava Shoniya. They were arrested and imprisoned.”
(J. Ducoli: op. cit.; p. 56).
“All those named (Baramiya, Rapava and Shoniya — Ed.) were arrested later.”
(R. Conquest (1961): op. cit.; p. 139).
“Charkviani, secretary of the Georgian Central Committee from 1939 to 1952, Rapava, then Minister of Internal Affairs for the Georgian Republic, and others were removed from their posts and arrested, after being accused of nationalism at the Georgian Party conference of April 1952. The blow was struck by Rukhadze, then Minister of State Security in Georgia.”
(Boris Nicolaevsky: ‘Power and the Soviet Elite’; New York; 1965; p. 182).

The Marxist-Leninists’ Counter-blow in Georgia
Meanwhile, the Marxist-Leninists, realising that the security of the socialist state had suffered a severe setback in Georgia, had the affair investigated through Stalin’s ‘special secretariat’, which as we have seen, functioned as a special security force under the control of the Marxist-Leninists. The special secretrariat uncovered sufficient evidence to establish that the Georgian Minister of State Security, Nikolay Rukhadze, had behaved improperly in the case of the Georgian Marxist-Leninists. As a result, in July 1952 the revisionists were compelled to dismiss Rukhadze, although they were able to resist his arrest and any reversal of his actions in ‘the Georgian feint’ until the following April:

“In July 1952, Rukhadze who, as Minister of State Security, was responsible for the Baramiya purge, was removed. . . . Rukhadze’s removal may have been a partial victory for Beria.”
(R. Conquest (1961): op. cit.; p. 142).

The Indictment in the “Doctors’ Case” (1953)
Despite the removal and arrest of Abakumov, the intervention of Stalin’s personal secretariat ensured that investigation into the ‘doctors’ case’ continued. Isaac Deutscher’ confirms that:

“. . . Ignatiev, the Minister of State Security, was a reluctant executant of orders.”
(I.Deutscher: ‘Stalin: A Political Biography’; Harmondsworth; 1968.; p. 605).

Ignatiev, therefore, remained aloof from the investigation into the ‘doctors’ case’, leaving the conduct of this to his Deputy, the Marxist-Leninist Ryumin:

“Ryumin personally supervised the investigation (into the ‘Doctors’ Case’ ‘Ed.).”‘
(Y. Rapoport: op. cit.; p. 10-0).

Ryumin had formerly headed the State Security Section of Stalin’s personal secretariat:

“Ryumin, before being appointed to the post of Deputy Miinister of State Security . . . headed the state security section in Stalin’s personal secretariat.”
(B.Nicolaevsky: op. cit.; p. 155).

As a result of the findings in this investigation,

“. . . in the summer of 1952 many . . . doctors who had, worked in the Kremlin Hospital for many years and treated many statesmen were summarily fired. Among them; were Miron Vovsi and Vladirmir Vinogradov. The former head of the Kremlin Hospital, Aleksey Busalov, Mikhail Yegorov . . . and Sophia Karpai were arrested.”
(Y. Rapoport: op. cit.; p. 72).

On 13 January 1953 ‘Pravda’ carried the report of the arrest of

” . . a terrorist group of doctors who had made it their aim to cut short the lives of active public figures of the Soviet Union through sabotage medical treatment. . . .
The participants in this terrorist group, taking advantage of their position as doctors and abusing the trust of patients, by deliberate evil intent . . . made incorrect diagnoses . . . and then doomed them by wrong treatment.”
(‘Pravda’, 13 January 1953; p. 4, in: ‘Current Digest of the Soviet Press’, Volume 4, No. 31 (31 January 1953); p. 3).

Nine doctors were named as ‘among the participants in this terrorist group, namely:

“Professor M. S. Vovsi, therapeutist;
Professor V.I. Vinogradov, therapeutist;
Professor M.B. Kogan, therapeutist;
Professor B.B. Kogan, therapeutist;
Professor P. I. Yegorov, therapeutist;
Professor A.I.Feldman, otolaryngologist;
Professor Ya.G.Etinger, therapeutist;
Professor Grinshtein, neuropathologist;
G.I. Maiorov, therapeutist.”
(‘Pravda’, 13 January 1953, in: ibid.; p. 3).

Of the accused persons, Vladimir Vinogradov* was

“. . . Stalin’s personal physician”,
(Y. Rapoport: op. cit.; p. 216).

Mikhail and Boris Kogan were brothers, while Miron Vovsi was a relative of the Jewish actor ‘Solomon Mikhoels’, whose real surname was Vovsi.
The doctors were charged with having murdered in this way Andrey Zhadnov and Alelsandr Scherbakov*, and with attempting to murder Marshals Aleksandr Vasilevsky*, Leonid Covorov*, and Ivan Konev, together with General Sergey Shtemenko* and Admiral Cordey Iavchenko*.
It was alleged that

“. . most of the participants in the terrorist group (M. S. Vovsi, B. B. Kogan, A. I. Feldman, A. M. Grinshtein, Ya. H. Yetinger and others) were connected with -the international Jewish bourgeois nationalist organisation ‘JOINT’, established by American intelligence for the purpose of providing material aid to Jews in other countries. In acxtual fact this organisation, under direction of American intelligebce, conducts extensive espionage, terrorist and other subversive work in many countries, including the Soviet Union. . . . The arrested Vovsi told investigators that he had received orders ‘to wipe out the leading cadres of the USSR’ — received them from the USA through the ‘JOINT’ organisation, via a Moscow doctor, Shimeliovich, and the well known Jewish bourgeois nationalist Mikhoels.
Other participants in the terrorist group (V. N. Vinogradov, M. B, Kogan, P. I. Yegorov) proved to be old agents of British intelligece.”
(‘Pravda’, 13 January 1953, p. 4, in: ‘Current Digest of the Soviet Press’, Volume 4, No. 51 (3 January 1953); p. 3).

The full name of ‘JOINT’ was the ‘American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee’, founded in the United States in November 1914 by the fusion of three committees, ostensibly as an international charity for the assistance of Jews throughout the world.
The announcement concluded:

“The investigation will soon be concluded.”
(‘Pravda’, 13 January 1953, in: ibid.; p. 3).

An editorial in ”Pravda’ on the same day reminded people that in the 1930s a group of doctors involved in a concealed revisionist conspiracy had admitted at their public trial to murdering a number of leading Soviet Marxist-Leninists by administering deliberately incorrect medical treatment to them:

“The agencies of state security did not discover the doctors’ wrecking, terrorist organisation in time. Yet these agencies should have been particularly vigilant, since history already records instances of foul murderers and traitors to the Motherland conducting their machinations in the guise of doctors, such as the ‘doctors’ Levin and Pletnev, who killed t he great Russian writer A. M. Gorky and the outstanding Soviet statesmen V. V. Kuibyshev and V. R. Menzhinsky by deliberate wrong treatment on orders from enemies of the Soviet Union.”
(‘Pravda’, 13 January 1953; p. 1, in: ibid.; p. 4).

The original statement had stated that:

“the criminal doctors confessed.”
(‘Pravda’, 13 January 1953, in: ibid.; p. 3).

and, in his secret speech to the 20th Congress of the CPSU in February 1956, Khrushchev declared:

“Shortly after the doctors were arrested we members of the Political Bureau received protocols with the doctors’ confessions of guilt.”
(N. S. Khrushchev:1956; “Secret Speech to 20th Congress”; of the CPSU; p. 64).

And after their release by the revisionist conspirators following Stalin’s death in March 1953, the doctors admitted that their confessions had been genuine:

“When we were all released, Vovsi and Vinogradov themselves told me that they had admitted all the crimes imparted to them. . . .
The most tragic aspect of these confessions was that the person admitted not only crimes he himself had supposedly committed, but also the existence of a criminal organisation and collective criminal actions. . . . The accused was led to cooperate with the investigation in exposing the crimes of others. This happened to Vovsi and Vinogradov, and perhaps to other people as well.
Sophia Karpai, formerly a doctor at the Kremlin Hospital, told me in the summer of 1953 about her confrontation with Vovsi, Vinogradov and Vasilenko in prison. To her face they asserted that she had executed their criminal orders to administer harmful treatments to her patients. . . .So the people who had broken down became witnesses for the prosecution.”
(Y. Rapoport: op. cit.; p. 137).

Furthermore, the released doctors testified that their confessions had not been brought about as a result of the application of:

“. . torture, of which rumours were rife in the memorable purge years of 1937-1939 . . . Vinogradov told me that he had resolved from the beginning not to wait till they started torturing him, but to admit all the charges, which included one of espionage for France and Great Britain.”
(Y. Rapoport: op. cit.; p. 138).

The determination of the Soviet Marxist-Leninists to proceed with the ‘doctors’ case’ made it an urgent matter of life and death for the revisionist conspirators to halt the proceedings in the case by destroying Stalin’s personal secretariat as a necessary preliminary to destroying Stalin himself.
The Destruction of the Defence System around Stalin
We have noted the role of Stalin’s personal secretariat — also known as the ‘Special Sector’ of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the Party — in bringing about the treason trials of the 1930s. But this body also played an important role in defending from terrorist attack the Marxist-Leninist nucleus, headed by Stalin, at the heart of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
The special sector had been headed since 1928 by the Marxist-Leninist Aleksandr Poskrebyshev*:

“As head of the ‘Special Sector’ of the Central Committee for many years, he (Poskrebyshev — Ed.) was Stalin’s closest confidant up till 1952.”
(R. Conquest: ‘The Great Terror’; Harmondsworth; 1971; (hereafter listed as ‘R. Conquest (1971)’); p. 37).

while Lieutenant-General Nikolay Vlasik*

“. . . for more than twenty-five years had been Stalin’s chief of personal security; he knew much and was trusted by the boss.”
(D. Volkogonov: ‘Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy’; London; 1991; p. 333).

Dmitri Volkogonov* asserts that Pokrebyshev

“. . . . . to the end of his days remained his master’s devoted servant. . . He was a man with the memory of a computer. You could get an exact reply to any question. He was a walking encyclopaedia. . . .Stalin . . . trusted . . . Vlasik and Poskrebyshev.”
(D. Volkogonov: op. cit.; p. 203-04, 318).

and Levtysky confirms that:

“. . . those who knew the conditions at the summit of the Party after 1945 describe Poskrebyshev as an organising genius with a phenomenal memory.”
(B. Levytsky: op. cit.; p. 177).

Conquest asserts that Poskrebyshev was:

” . . . the man most closely and directly associated with Stalin (later described in Khrushchev’s secret speech as Stalin’s ‘shieldbearer’).”
(R. Conquest (1961): p. 156).

Volkogonov says of Vlasik:

“For more than twenty-five years, Vlasik had been Stalin’s chief of personal security; he knew much was trusted by the boss.”
(D. Volkogonov: op. cit.; p. 318, 333).

and Robert McNeal* says that

“. . . Vlasik and Poskrebyshev effectively guarded the approaches to Stalin’s office, one as controller of security, the other of appointments.”
(R. H. McNeal: ‘Stalin: Man and Ruler’; Basingstoke; 1988; p. 301).

It was clear, therefore, that a successful terrorist attack on Stalin required the prior elimination of the faithful Poskrebyshev and Vlasik.
Walter Laqueur* states:

“During the last year of Stalin’s life, Poskrebyshev fell from grace.”
(W. Laqueur: ‘Stalin: The Glasnost Revelations’; London; 1990; p. 176).

and Nikita Khrushchev tells how this ‘fall from grace’ was brought about. He describes how, during the winter of 1952-53, he came under suspicion of leaking secret documents, and how he succeeded in deflecting the blame from himself in such a way that it fell upon Poskrebyshev:

“Stalin . . . complained that secret documents were leaking out through our secretariats. . . . Stalin was coming straight for me: ‘It’s you. Khrushchev! The leak is through your secretrariat!’ . . .
I . . . succeeded in deflecting the blow from myself, but Stalin didn’t let the matter rest. . . . After I’d convinced Stalin that the leak wasn’t through my secretariat, he came to the conclusion that the leak must have been through Poskrebyshev. . . . Poskrebyshev had worked for Stalin for many years. . . .
Stalin removed Poskrebyshev from his post and promoted someone else.”
(N. S. Khrushchev (1971): p. 272, 273, 274, 275).

Niels Rosenfeldt confirms that

” . . . Poskrebyshev was removed from his old post at the latest during the winter of 1952-53. . .Stalin ‘s bodyguard, Vlasik, disappeared around that time (the winter of 1952-53 — Ed.).”
(F. E. Rosenfeldt: ‘Knowledge and Power: The Role of Stalin’s Chancellery in the Soviet System of Government’; Copenhagen; 1978; p. 196).

as does Adam Ulam*:

“Poskrebyshev and Vlasik . . . found themselves in disgrace.”
(B. Ulam: ‘Stalin: The Man and His Era’; London; 1989; p. 617).

Volkogonov states that

“. . Poskrebyshev and Vlasik were compromised . . . . shortly before Stalin’s death and were therefore distanced from him.”
(D. Volkogonov: op. cit.; p. 513).

and McNeal confirms that

“. . . both these men (Poskrebyshev and Vlasik — Ed.) were thrown out in 1952.”
(R. H. McNeal: ov. cit.: v. 301).

Deriabin agrees that the charges of disloyalty levelled at Poskrebyshev and Vlasik were completely false:

“The claim about that pair of long time faithful servants was a bald and most complete lie. But . . . Stalin fired them both.”
(P. Deriabin: op. cit.; p. 320).

The revisionist conspirators placed Poskrebyshev under house arrest:

“Poskrebyshev was placed under house arrest in his dacha outside Moscow, with . . . guards posted about it.”
(P. Deriabin: op. cit.; p. 321).
“Poskrebyshev . . . disappeared. He was simply not mentioned again, apart from a brief sneer in Khrushchev’s secret speech.”
(R. Conquest (1961): p. 208).

while Vlasik was expelled from the Party and sent to Sverdlovsk ts deputy commandant of a labour camp:

“Vlasik . . . was not only fired, he was also expelled from the Party and sent to Sverdlovsk. . . . . as deputy commandant of a . . . labour camp.”
(P. Deriabin: op. cit.; p. 321).

Vlasik came to Moscow and:

” . . . went to the Kremlin in an attempt to see Stalin. . . He was picked up near the Kremlin gates and put into the Lubyanka. Two weeks later he died there of an ‘illness.”‘
(P. Deriabin: op. cit.; p. 321).

Volkogonov confirms that Vlasik

” . . . was arrested on 16 December 1952″,
(D. Volkogonov”: op. cit.; p. 570).

and records that, during Vlasik’s interrogation, pressure was exerted on him:

“. . . to make him incriminate Poskrebyshev. He refused.”
(D. Volkogonov: op. cit.; p. 570).

Ulam confirms that

“. . . Vlasik, chief of his (Stalin’s — Ed.) personal security since the Civil War, had been imprisoned. His confidential secretary, Poskrebyshev, was chased away.”
(B. Ulam: op. cit.; p. 737).

and Stalin’s daughter, Svetlana Alliluyeva*, tells the same story:

“Shortly before my father died even some of his intimates were disgraced: the perenniel Vlasik was sent to prison in the winter of 1952 and my father’s personal secretary Poskrebyshev, who had been with him for twenty years, was removed.”
(S. Alliluyeva: ‘Twenty Letters to a Friend’; London; 1967; p. 216).

However, the attack on the defence system around Stalin was not confined to the elimination of Poskrebyshev and Vlasik. During 1952 the concealed revisionists set up:

“. . . . a commission to investigate. . . the entire state security apparatus.”
(P. Deriabin: op. cit.; p. 317).

This commission:

” . . . proceeded . . . to cut Stalin’s bodyguards to the bone. . . .
About seven thousand men were dropped from the original Okhrana force of some seventeen thousand. . , .When the slashing was finished, Stalin’s personal bodyguards, Okhrana No. 1, had been cut to half strength.”
(P. Deriabin: op. cit.; p. 317, 318, 319).

This left Stalin

” . . . guarded by . . . only a small group of officers. . . . a group that had little security experience, especially as bodyguards, and one that was headed by a mere major.”
(P. Deriabin: op. cit.; p. 319).

Rosenfeldt adds that about this time the special guard service, whose task was to ensure Stalin’s personal safety, after ‘a thorough purging and a big reduction in personnel’, together with the Kremlin Command and the Kremlin Medical Administration, were all made subordinate to the revisionist controlled Ministry of State Security:

“The special guard service, whose job it was to ensure Stalin’s personal safety, was made subordinate to the Ministry of State Security (MGB) in 1952 after a thorough purging and a big reduction in personnel. At the same time and in the same way the Kremlin Command and the Kremlin Medical Administration were put under MGB control.”
(N. E. Rosenfeldt: op. cit .; p. 196).

Then, on 17 February 1953, two weeks before Stalin himself died, the sudden death was reported of the Major-General Petr Kosynkin, Deputy Commandant of the Kremlin Guards, in charge of the operational arrangements for guarding Stalin:

“On 15 February 1953, shortly before Stalin’s death, the commander of the Kremlin guard, Major-General Pyotr Kosynkin, who was responsible for Stalin’s personal safety, died.”
(B. Levytsky: op. cit.; p. 212).
“The Deputy Commandant of the Kremlin, Major-General Kosynkin, in charge of the operational arrangements for guarding Stalin, died of a heart attack two weeks before Stalin. Or so the announcement said.”
(P. Deriabin & F. Gibney: ‘The Secret World’; New York; 1959; p. 169).
“The Vice-Chief of the Kremlin Command, Major-General Petr Kosynkin, passed away prematurely’ on 15th February 1953.”
(N. E. Rosenfeldt: op. cit.; p. 196).
“On February 17 1953 . . . Major General Petr Kosynkin, the deputy Commander of the Kremlin Guard, suddenly died of a heart attack. That sudden seizure was rather unusual, to say the least. A fanatical admirer of Stalin, Kosynkin had been in the prime of life and health. . . . The extremely careful physical examinations regularly undergone by all such appointees as Kosynkin automatically presuppose that the guard leader was in top condition and certainly not suffering from any heart trouble. . .
On February 17, 1953 there came a report, generally unnoticed at the time, that the Deputy Kremlin Commandant, General Kosynkin, the only remaining guard that Stalin could trust, had suddenly died of a ‘heart attack.”‘
(P. Deriabin: op. cit.; p. 239, 325).

Finally, on 21 February 1953

“. . . . a most significant change was made in the Army High Command. General Sergey Shtemenko was replaced by Marshal Vasily Sokolovsky as Chief of Staff of the Soviet armed forces. . . . And concurrently with Shtemenko’s replacement, the Okhrana bodyguards were removed from the general staff.”
(P. Deriabin: op. cit,.; p. 325).
“The Chief of the Armed Forces General Staff, Sergey Shtemenko, was removed from his post about the same time (mid-February 1953 — Ed).”
(N. E. Rosenfeldt: op. cit.; p. 196).

Deriabin sums up this ‘process of stripping Stalin of all his personal security’ as ‘a studied and very ably handled business’:

“That completed the process of stripping Stalin of all personal security, except for the comparative window-dressing of the minor Okhrana officers in his office and household. This had been a studied and very ably handled business: the framing of Abakumov, the dismissal of Vlasik, the discrediting of Poskrebyshev, the emasculation of the Okhrana and its enforced subservience to the (revisionist-controlled — Ed.) MGB, Kosynkin’s ‘heart attack’, the replacement of Shtemenko and the removal of the general staff from the last vestiges of Okhrana control. And certainly not to be forgotten at this juncture was the MGB control of the Kremlin medical office.”
(P. Deriabin: op. cit.; p. 325-26).

and one which placed the conspirators finally in the drivers’s seat:

“With state security and the armed forces under their command, the connivers were finally in the driver’s seat.”
(P. Deriabin: op. cit.; p. 326).

Part 2: The Death of Stalin (1953)

On 3 March 1953 a joint statement of the Central Committee of the CPSU and of the USSR Council of Ministers announced

“…a great misfortune which has befallen our Party and our people.”
(Communique, 3 March 1953, in: ‘Pravda’ and ‘Izvestia’, 4 March 1953; p. 1, in: ‘Current Digest of the Soviet Press’, Volume 5, No. 6 (21 March 1953); p. 4).

It reported that:

“. . . during the night of March 1-2 Comrade Stalin, while in his Moscow apartment, had a haemorrhage of the brain, which affected vital parts of his brain. Comrade Stalin lost consciousness.
Paralysis of the right arm and leg developed. Loss of speech occurred. Serious disturbances developed in the functioning of the heart and breathing.
The best medical personnel have been called in to treat Comrade Stalin. . . .
‘Treatment of Comrade Stalin is under the constant supervision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet government.”
(Government Statement, 3 March 1953, in: ‘Pravda ‘ and ‘Izvestia’, 4 March 1953; p. 1, in: ibid.; p. 4).

In the early hours of the following morning, 4 March, a medical bulletin was issued which stated:

“At 2 a.m. 4 March, J. V. Stalin’s conditions remains serious. Considerable disturbances of breathing is observed; frequency of breathing is 36 per minute and the rhythm of breathing is irregular, with periodic prolonged pauses.
It is observed that pulse beats are up to 120 a minute and there is complete arrhythmia. Maximum blood pressure is 220, minimum 120.
Temperature is 38.2 (Centigrade — Ed.). In connection with the disturbed breathing and blood circulation, inadequacy of organs is observed. The degree of disturbance of the function of the brain has increased somewhat.
At the present time a series of therapeutic measures are being applied to restore the vitally important functions of the organism.”
(Medical Bulletin, 4 March 1953, in: ibid.; p. 4).

A second bulletin was issued on the morning of 5 March:

“During the past twenty-four hours the state of health of Josef Vissarionovich Stalin remained grave. Arteriosclerosis, which developed during the night of March 1-2 on the basis of hypotonia and cerebral haemorrhage in his left brain hemisphere, has resulted, apart from the right-side paralysis of limbs and loss of consciousness, in impaired stem section of the brain, accompanied by disturbances of the vital functions of breathing and blood circulation.
During the night of March 3-4, disturbed breathing and blood circulation continued. The greatest changes were observed An the breathing functions.
Instances of periods of so-called Cheyne-Stokes breathing became more frequent. In connection with this, the condition of the blood circulation deteriorated and the degree of lack of oxygen increased.
Systematic introduction of oxygen and of medicines which regulate breathing and the action of the heart vessels gradually somewhat improved the condition and on the morning of March 4 the degree of lack of breathing was somewhat reduced.
Further, during the day of March 4, grave breathing disturbances recommenced. The rate of breathing was 36 per minute. Blood pressure continued to remain high (210 maximum, 110 minimum), with pulse 108-116 per minute, irregular, fluttering and arrhythmic.
The heart is not unduly enlarged. During the past twenty-four hours, fundamental changes in the condition of the lungs and organs of the peritoneal cavity were established. Albumen and red blood corpuscles were found in the normal ratio.
When blood was tested, increase in the number of white corpuscles to the extent of up to 17,000 was observed. Temperature during the morning and afternoon rose to 38.6.
Medical measures taken during March 4 consisted of introducing oxygen, camphor compounds, caffeine and glucose. For the second time, leeches were used to draw blood.
In connection with the raised temperature and high leucocytosis, penicillin therapy, which has been carried out for prophylactic purposes since the beginning of the illness, was intensified.
Towards the end of March 4 the state of health of Josef V. Stalin continues grave.
The patient is in a state of deep unconsciousnness.
Nervous regulation of breathing, as well as cardiac action, continues to be greatly impaired.”
(Medical Bulletin, 2 a.m., 5 March 1953. in: ‘Pravda’ and ‘Izvestia’, 5 March 1953; p. 1, in: ibid.; p. 4).

A third medical bulletin was issued in the morning of 5 March 1953 and published in the press on 6 March. It reported the worsening of Stalin’s condition:

“During the night and the first half of March 5, J. V. Stalin’s condition became worse. Acute disturbances in the cardio-vascular system have been added to the impairment of vital functions of the brain. For three hours this morning there was serious respiratory deficiency, which yielded with difficulty to the proper therapeutics.
At eight this morning there developed signs of an acute cardiovascular deficiency, a collapse. The blood pressure dropped, the pulse quickened. There was an increase in pallor. Emergency treatment eliminated these developments.
An electrocardiogram taken at 11 a.m. revealed acute disturbances in the blood circulation in the coronary arteries of the heart with lesions in the back wall of the heart. (The electrocardiogram taken March 2 had not established such changes). At 11.30 a.m. there was a second serious collapse, which was eliminated with difficulty by the proper medical treatment. Later in the day, the cardiovascular disturbances subsided to some extent. but the patient’s general condition remained extremely grave.
At 4 p.m. the blood pressure ranged from a maximum of 160 to a minimum of 100. The pulse was 120 per minute and arrhythmic. The rate of respiration: 36 per minute. Temperature: 37.6. The leucocyte count: 21,000. Treatment at present is aimed primarily at combatting the disturbances in respiration and blood circulation, specifically coronary circulation.”
(Medical Bulletin, 4 p.m., 5 March 1953. in: ‘Pravda’ and ‘Izvestia’, 6 March; p. 1; in: ibid.; p. 5).

Finally, on 6 March came the medical report carrying the announcement of Stalin’s death:

“On the afternoon of March 5 the condition of the patent deteriorated especially rapidly; respiration became shallow and much faster, the pulse reached 140-150 beats per minute and pulse pressure dropped.
At 2150 hours , with cardiac failure and growing insufficiency of breathing, J. V. Stalin died.”
(Medical Bulletin, 6 March 1953, in ‘Pravda’ and ‘Izvestia’, 6 March 1953. p. 1, in: ibid.; p. 5).

The medical report was published together with a joint tribute from the Central Committee, the government and the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet:

“The heart of Lenin’s comrade-in-arms and the inspired continuer of Lenin’s cause, the wise leader and teacher of the Communist Party and the Soviet people — Josef Vissarionovich STALIN — has stopped beating.
STALIN’s name is boundlessly dear to our Party, to the Soviet people, to the working people of the world. . . . Continuing Lenin’s immortal cause, Comrade STALIN led the Soviet people to the world-historic triumph of socialism in our land. Comrade STALIN led our country to victory over fascism in the second world war, which wrought a radical change in the entire international situation. Comrade STALIN armed the Party and the entire people with a great and clear programme of building communism in the USSR.
The death of Comrade STALIN, who devoted all his life to the great cause of communism, constitutes a great loss to the Party and to the working people of the Soviet land and of the whole world.”
(Joint Statement of CC of CPSU, USSR Council of Ministers and the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet, in: ‘Pravda’ and ‘Izvestia’, 6 March 1953; p. 1, in: ibid.; p. 5).

On 7 March 1953 the report of the autopsy on Stalin’s body was published. It was stated that it

” . . . entirely confirmed the diagnosis established by the professors of medicine who treated J. V. Stalin.”
(Pathological and Anatomical Examination of the Body of Josef Stalin, in: ‘Pravda’, 7 March 1953. in: G. Bortoli: ‘The Death of Stalin’; London; 1975; p. 209).

and

“. . . established the irreversible character of J. V. Stalin’s illness since the appearance of the cerebral haemorrhage.”
(Pathological and Anatomical Examination of the Body of Josef Stalin, in: ibid.; p. 209).

The full report stated:

“As the result of a pathological and anatomical examination, an important centre of haemorrhage was discovered in the region of the subcortical centres of the left hemisphere of the brain. This haemorrhage destroyed important areas of the brain and provoked irreversible disturbances of the respiration and circulation. Besides the cerebral haemorrhage, observation was made of a considerable hypertonic disturbance of the left ventricle of the heart, important haemorrhages of the cardiac muscle, and in the mucous of the stomach and intestine, and arteriosclerotic modifications of particularly important vessels in the brain’s arteries. This process was the result of high blood pressure. The results of the pathological and anatomical examination have entirely confirmed the diagnosis establised by the professors of medicine who treated J. V. Stalin.
The facts of the pathologico-anatomical examination have established the irreversible character of J. V. Stalin’s illness since the appearance of the cerebral haemorrhage. That is why the energetic measures of the treatment could not produce positive results, nor prevent the fatal outcome.”
(Ibid.; p. 209).

There are a number of circumstances connected with the death of Stalin which make it, in forensic terms, “a suspicious death”:
Firstly, Stalin appeared to be in excellent health immediately prior to the beginning of March:

“And what of Stalin himself? In the pink of,condition. In the best of spirits. That was the word of three foreigners who saw him in February – Bravo, the Argentine Amassador; Menon, the Indian, and Dr. Kitchlu, an Indian active in the peace movement.”
(H. Salisbury: ‘Stalin’s Russia and After’; London; 1952; p. 157).

Secondly, on the night of 1-2 March there was a long delay in obtaining medical help for Stalin:

“Khrushchev does not mention specific times, but his narrative makes it incredible that the doctors arrived much before 5 a.m. on 2 March. This is many hours, perhaps twelve, after the seizure. . . .
It is not true that he was under medical care soon after the seizure.”
(R. H. McNeal: op. cit ; p. 304).
“There is a mystery about what had happened to Stalin, His guards had become alarmed when he had not asked for his evening snack at 11 p.m. . . . The security men picked him up and put him on a sofa, but doctors were not summoned until the morning.
Stalin lay helpess and untreated for the better part of a day, making recuperative treatment much harder. . . .
Why did the Party leaders prolong the delay? Some historians see evidence of premeditated murder. Abdurakhman Avtorhanov sees the cause in Stalin’s visible preparation of a purge to rival those of the thirties.”
(J. Lewis & P. Whitehead: ‘Stalin: A Time for Judgement’; London; 1990; p. 179).
“Only on the next morning . . . did the first physicians arrive.”
(W. Laqueuer: op. cit.; p. 151).
“Physicians were finally brought in to the comatose leader after a twelve- or fourteen hour interval.”
(D. Volkogonov: op. cit.; p. 513).

Thirdly, there was a deliberate lie in the announcement of his death, which was stated to have taken place “in his Moscow apartment,” whereas it actually occurred in his dacha at Kuntsevo, Adam Ulam asserts that a:

” . . . conspiratorial air coloured the circumstances of Stalin’s death. The belated communique announcing his stroke was emphatic that it had occurred in his quarters in the Kremlin. Yet it was to his country villa . . . that his daughter Svetlana was summoned on March 2 to be by his deathbed. . . . He was stricken away from Moscow. . . .
The official communique’ lied about the place where Stalin had suffered the fatal stroke and died. . . .
There was an obvious reason behind the falsehood; his successors feared that a true statement about where he was at the time of the seizure would lead to rumours . . . that the stroke had occurred while he was being kidnapped or incarcerated by the oligarchs. Crowds might surge on the Kremlin, demanding an accounting of what had been done to their father and protector.”
(A. B. Ulam: op. cit.; p. 4, 700, 739).

Fourthly, as we have seen, the revisionist conspirators had an ample and urgent motive — that of self-preservation — for eliminating Stalin:

“For many leading Soviet statesmen and officials, Stalin’s demise . . . came in the nick of time. Whether or not it was due to natural causes is another matter.”
(D. M. Lang: op. cit,; p. 262).
“What a strange quirk of fate, I thought, that Stalin should lie dying just a few weeks after the Kremlin’s own doctors had been accused of plotting precisely such a death. A very strange and curious quirk of fate.
But was it just a quirk? . . . Was it possible that these powerful and able Soviet leaders, together with their colleagues in the Army, had stood idly by and taken no steps to halt the creeping terror that was certain to destroy almost all of them. . . .While murder cannot be proved, there was no question that motive for murder existed. . . . For . . . if Stalin were dying a natural death. it was the luckiest thing that had ever happened to the men who stood closest to him.”
(H. Salisbury: op. cit.; p. 160-61).

Fifthly, it is necessary to take into account the circumstantial evidence of the series of measures undertaken by the conspirators in the months prior to Stalin’s death to destroy the system of defences that had surrounded him.
It is not surprising, therefore, within weeks of Stalin’s death, rumours should circulate that he had been murdered:

“There were rumours, above all in Georgia, that Stalin had been poisoned.”
(W. Laqueur: op. cit.; p, 151).

Robert Conquest speaks of the:

” . . . possibilities that he was killed.”
(R. Conquest (1961): p. 172).

As Stalin’s former bodyguard Vlasik was leaving Moscow after his dismissal, Stalin’s son Vasily* is reported to have cried out:

“‘They are going to kill him! They are going to kill him!’. By ‘they’ he meant . . . other members of the Political Bureau, and by ‘him’ he meant his father.”
(P. Deriabin: op. cit.; p. 321).
“Stalin’s son Vasily kept coming in and shouting ‘They’ve killed my father, the bastards!”‘
(D. Volkogonov: op. cit.; p. 774).

Although Vasily was an alcoholic, when he continued to make these accusations publicly, he was arrested in April 1953 in order, as his sister Svetlana puts it, “to isolate him”:

“After my father’s death, he (Vasily — Ed.) . . . was arrested. This happened because he had threatened the government, he talked that ‘my father was killed by his rivals’ and all things like that, and always many people around him — so they decided to isolate him. He stayed in jail till 1961 . . . and soon he died.”
(S. Alliluyeva: ‘Only One Year’; London: 1969 (hereafter listed as ‘S. Alliluyeva (1969); p. 202).
“He (Vasily Ed.) was convinced that our father had been ‘poisoned’ or ‘killed’.
Throughout the period before the funeral . . . he accused the government, the doctors and everybody in sight of using the wrong treatment on my father.. . .
He was arrested on April 18th, 1953. . . .A military collegium sentenced him to eight years in jail. He died on March 19th, 1962.”
(S. Alliluyeva (1967): p. 222-23, 224, 228).

Georges Bortoli* comments:

“Vasily Stalin had said aloud what the others were thinking to themselves. In less than a month, all sorts of rumours would begin to circulate in Moscow, and people would begin speaking of a crime. . . . .Some people said that several members of Stalin’s entourage were threatened by the coming purge. Had they taken steps to forestall it?”
(G. Bortoli: op. cit.; p. 151).

Robert Conquest and other commentators have drawn attention also to the sudden illness and death of the Czechoslovak leader, the Marxist-Leninist Klement Gottwald*, shortly after visiting Moscow to attend Stalin’s funeral, and have suggested that this death too had been induced. Gottwald was succeeded as President of Czechoslovakia by the concealed revisionist Antonin Zapotocky*:

“Many commentators have noted that immediately after Stalin’s death, Gottwald . . . also fell ill while attending Stalin’s funeral in Moscow, and died a few days later; and they have cast doubt on the naturalness of Gottwald’s illness.”
(R. Conquest (1961): p. 174).

The Albanian leader, the Marxist-Leninist Enver Hoxha* makes the same point:

“Immediately after the death of Stalin, Gottwald died. This was a sudden, surprising death! It had never crossed the mind of those who knew Gottwald that this strong, agile, healthy man would die of a flu or a chill allegedly caught on the day of Stalin’s funeral.”
(E. Hoxha: ‘The Khrushchevites’; Tirana; 1984 (hereafter listed as ‘E. Hoxha (1984)’); p. 153-54).

Hoxha also draws attention to the suspicious death of the Polish leader, the Marxist-Leninist Boleslaw Beirut* on 12 March 1957

” . . . in Moscow where he was attending the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party.”
(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 10; p. 14,767).

and was succeeded by the concealed revisionist Edward Ochab:

“Later came the equally unexpected death of Comrade Beirut. Edward Ochab replaced Beirut in the point of First Secretary of the Party. Thus Khrushchev’s old desire was realised.”
(E. Hoxha (1984): p. 153-65).

It was Ochab who arranged for the release of the imprisoned revisionist Wladyslaw Gomulka in April and his promotion to the post of First Secretary in October.
Hoxha, in fact, explicitly accuses the revisionist conspirators of the murder of Stalin:

“This cosmopolitan huckster (Anastas Mikoyan — Ed.) . . . as history showed, plotted with Nikita Khrushchev against Stalin, whom they had decided to murder. He admitted this with his own mouth in February 1960.”
(E. Hoxha (1984): p. 63-64).
“All this villainy emerged soon after the death, or to be more precise after the murder, of Stalin. I say after the murder of Stalin, because Mikoyan himself told me . . . that they, together with Khrushchev and their associates, had decided . . . to make an attempt on Stalin’s life.”
(E. Hoxha: ‘With Stalin: Memoirs’; Tirana; 1979; p. 31).

The Aborted Coup (1953)
As we have noted, in the years immediately prior to Stalin’s death, the security forces were under the control of concealed revisionists, not of Marxist-Leninists:

“Prior to Stalin’s death the Ministries of State Security and of Interior were not under Beria’s control.”
(R. Conquest, (1961): p. 200).

Clearly, it was a matter of great concern to the revisionist conspirators that, in any readjustment of responsibilities following Stalin’s death, control of the security forces should not pass again under Marxist-Leninist control.
Khrushchev records a discussion with fellow-revisionist Nikolay Bulganin* by Stalin’s death-bed on the danger to their plans if the Marxist-Leninist Lavrenty Beria were to become again Minister in control of the. security services:

“‘Stalin’s not going to pull through. . . . You know what posts Beria will take for himself?’
‘Which one?’
‘He will try and make himself Minister of State Security. No matter what happens, we can’t let him do this. If he becomes Minister of State Security it will be the beginning of the end for us’.
Bulganin said he agreed with me”,
(N. S. Khrushchev (1971): p. 319).

As we have seen, Stalin died 9. 50 p.m. on 5 March. The revisionists immediately used their control of the security forces to prepare for a coup. The American journalist Harrison Salisbury was an eye-witness of how, shortly before 6 a.m. the next morning:

” . . . smooth and quiet convoys of trucks were slipping into the city. Sitting cross-legged on wooden benches in the green-painted trucks were detachments of blue-and-red-capped MVD troops — twenty-two to a truck — the special troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. . . . The fleeting thought entered my mind that, perhaps, a coup d’etat might be in the making.
By nine o’clock . . . the Internal Affairs troops were everywhere in the centre of the city. . . . In upper Gorky Street columns of tanks made their appearance. . . . All the troops and all the trucks and all the tanks belonged to the special detachments of the MVD. Not a single detachment of regular Army forces was to be seen.
Later I discovered that the MVD had, in fact, isolated almost the whole city of Moscow. . .
By ten or eleven o’clock of the morning of March 6, 1953 no one could enter or leave the heart of Moscow except by leave of the MVD. .
MVD forces had taken over the city. . . .
Could any other troops enter the city? Not unless they had the permission of the MVD or were prepared to fight their way through, street by street, barricade by barricade.”
(H. Salisbury: op. cit.; p. 163-64, 166, 171, 173).

Robert Conquest paints a very similar picture:

“The streets of Moscow were solid with MVD troops when Stalin’s death was announced.” (R. Conquest (1961): p. 200).

as does Peter Deriabin:

“Even before Stalin’s body was cold, . . . MGB troops . . . not only set up controls and halted traffic, including pedestrians, on every principal capital thoroughfare, but had also ringed the Kremlin.”
(P. Deriabin: op. cit.; p. 328).

But the Marxist-Leninists succeeded, for the moment, in foiling the planned coup by mobilising sufficient support to call for the following day, 7 March, a joint emergency meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, the Council of Ministers and the USSR Supreme Soviet. In these circumstances the revisionist conspirators lost their nerve and judged it expedient to postpone their planned coup and refrain from opposing the election of Beria as the Minister in charge of state security, an appointment which obviously had majority support among the leadership:

“Beria immediately proposed Malenkov for Chairman of the Council of Ministers (Premier — Ed.). On the spot, Malenkov proposed that Beria be appointed first deputy. He also proposed the merger of the Ministries of State Security and Internal Affairs into a single Ministry of Internal Affairs, with Beria as Minister. . . . I was silent. . . . Bulganin was silent too. I could see what the attitude of the others was. If Bulganin and I objected . . ., we would have been accused of starting a fight in the Party before the corpse was cold.”
(N. S. Khrushchev (1961): p. 324).

The Exculpation of the Doctors (1953)
After the death of Stalin, the most urgent and immediate task which faced the revisionist conspirators was to exculpate the doctors — not, of course, because they were innocent but, on the contrary, because they were guilty and because further investigation into the case could well lead to the exposure of the highly-placed ring-leaders of the conspiracy.
As we have said, in order to confuse the Marxist-Leninists and the Soviet public as to the real motives behind a move to exculpate the doctors, this move was taken as part of a blanket action to “correct miscarriages of justice.” In other words, the “doctors’ case” was linked to the 1951-52 Georgian feint, which they themselves had engineered, and this latter genuine miscarriage of justice was now temporarily corrected at the same time as the doctors were exculpated. As further camouflage, the revisionist conspirators temporarily supported moves demanded by, and strengthening the position of, the Marxist-Leninists — notably, the dismissal of the Russian chauvinist Leonid Melnikov* as First Secretary of the Ukrainian Communist Party.
The decision to exculpate the doctors was taken in March 1953, only days after Stalin’s death, since the name of one of the accused doctors (Boris Preobrazhensky) reappeared in the issue of the journal ‘Vestnik Oto-Rino-Laringology’ which was published on 31 March. (R. Conquest (1961): p. 206).
On 3 April 1953, the Soviet press carried a sensational communique issued in the name of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs which announced the exculpation and release from custody of the arrested doctors:

“The USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs has carried out a thorough investigation of all preliminary investigation data and other material in the case of the group of doctors accused of sabotage, espionage and terrorist acts against active leaders of the Soviet state.
The verification has established that the accused in this case . . .
were arrested by the former Ministry of State Security incorrectly and
without any lawful basis. . . .
The . . . accused in this case have been completely exonerated of the accusations against them….. . and have been freed from imprisonment.”
(Communique of USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, in: ‘Pravda’ and ‘Izvestia’, 3 April 1953; p. 4, in: ‘Current Digest of the Soviet Press’, Volume 5 , No. 10 (18 April 1953); p. 3).

The communique went on to explain away the confessions of the accused doctors by implying that they had been procured by means of torture:

“The testimony of the arrested, allegedly confirming the accusations against them, was obtained by the officials of the investigatory department of the former Ministry of State Security through the use of impermissible means of investigation which are strictly forbidden under Soviet law. . . .
The persons accused of incorrect conduct of the investigation have been arrested and held criminally responsible.”
(Communique of USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, in: ibid.; p. 3).

On the same day, the press reported that

” . . . the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet has resolved to annul the decree of January 20, 1953, awarding Dr. Lydia Timashuk the Order of Lenin. The award has been declared invalid in connection with fresh evidence that has since come to light.”
(Decision of Presidium of USSR Supreme Soviet, in: Y. Rapoport: op. cit.; p. 188).

Dr. Timashuk was not, however, prosecuted for attempting to pervert the course of justice, and

” . . . shortly after the April events, she resumed work at the Kremlin Hospital. . . . She reappeared in her office, apparently unperturbed.”
(Y. Rapoport: op. cit.; p. 191-92).

The Reversal of the Georgian Feint (1953)
As we have seen, in the government reorganisation of 7 March which followed the death of Stalin, the Marxist-Leninists temporarily regained control of the state security forces:

“On the morrow of the death (of Stalin — Ed.) . . ., Beria reclaimed control of the organs of state security, which had gradually been wrested from his hand during Stalin’s last years.”
(A. B. Ulam: op. cit.; p. 540).

As part of the strategy of attempting to deceive the Marxist-Leninists and the Soviet public as to the real aims of the revisionist conspirators, the Marxist-Leninists were permitted to bring about the removal of the revisionists from the leading positions they had acquired in Georgia in the feint of 1951-52, that is, temporarily to reverse the feint.

“In April 1953, Beria carried out a counter-purge in Georgia.”
(H. Fairbanks, junior: op. cit.; p. 163).

On 14 April 1953 the Georgian Central Committee dismissed Akaki Mgeladze as First Secretary, and Mgeladze admitted that the charges of ‘nationalist deviation’ which he had levelled against the former Marxist-Leninist leaders had been fabricated:

“Beria now moved with speed. . . . A plenary session of the Georgian Communist Party was held on 14 April 1953, which dismissed the Party Secretariat headed by A. L. Mgeladze and established a new one under an official named Mirtskhulava. Beria’s old protege Valerian Bakradze, whom Mgeladze had dismissed from government office, now became Prime Minister of the Georgian Republic. Several prominent supporters of Beria whom Mgeladze and his faction had imprisoned, were released and given portfolios in the Bakradze administration. The ousted First Secretary, Mgeladze, made an abject confession, declaring that charges of nationalist deviation which he had levelled against high-ranking Georgian Bolsheviks were based on false evidence. . . . N. Rukhadze, Georgian Minister of State Security, who had aided and abetted Mgeladze, was imprisoned.”
(D. M. Lang: op. cit.; p. 263).

On 15 April:

” . . . the Chief Minister of the Georgian Soviet Republic (M. Valerian Bakradze) announced . . . that the Georgian Minister of State Security (M. Rukhadze) and two former secretaries-general of the Georgian Communist Party (MM. Mgeladze and Charkviani) had been dismissed from their posts, arrested and would be ‘severely punished’ for fabricating ‘trumped up’ charges against former leading members of the Georgian Government and Communist Party. . . . At the same time he announced that three former Ministers who had been dismissed at Rukhadze’s instigation would be immediately restored to their former posts; that the Ministries of Internal Security and State Security would be welded into a single Ministry; and that this Ministry would be headed by M. Vladimir Dekanozov. . . .
M. Bakradze, who was addressing a meeting of the Georgian Supreme Soviet, said that . . . a number of innocent persons had fallen victim to baseless charges of ‘bourgeois nationalism.”‘
(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 9; p. 13,029).

On 16 April “Zarya Vostoka” reported a speech by Bakradze in which he said:

“‘It has now been fully established by the organs concerned that . . . the enemy of the people and Party, former Minister of State Security N. M. Rukhadze, had cooked up an entirely false and provocative affair concerning a non-existent nationalism whose victims were eminent workers of our republic. . . . Rukhadze and his accomplices have been arrested and will be severely punished.”‘
(‘Zarya Vostoka’, 16 April 1953, in: R. Conquest (1961): p. 145).

On 21 April Vilian Zodelava, released from prison, was made First Deputy Prime Minister and elected to the Bureau of the Central Committee of the Georgian Party:

“Mr. Zodelava was one of three leading Georgian Party members who had been jailed on false charges declared to have been concocted by Mr. Rukhadze. . .
Released from jail, he has been made First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers (First Deputy Premier –Ed.) and has been elected to the Bureau of the Georgian Communist Party’s Central Committee.”
(‘New York Times’, 22 April 1953; p. 14).

On this date, “Zarya Vostoka” reported that:

“…a plenary session of the Central Committee in Georgia was announced . . . as having established that ‘the former secretary of the Central Committee, Mgeladze, took an active part in the arrest of completely innocent workers in the creation of a provocational case concerning non-existent nationalism fabricated by the enemy of the Party and the people, Rukhadze. . . . Mgeladze admitted that he was one of the instigators of ‘a stupid and provocational story’ about the existence in Georgia of a nationalist group.”
(‘Zarya Vostoka’, 21 April 1953, cited in: R. Conquest (1961); p. 145).

By 13 May the plot of revisionist conspirators to link the coup carried out by Nikolay Rukhadze in Georgia in 1951-52 with the false charges against Mikhail Ryumin in connection with the ‘doctors’ case’ had been consolidated, On that day, the newspaper “Zarya Vostoka”

” . . . declared that the Georgian case had been fabricated by Rukhadze and Ryumin. The latter, a former chief of the Investigatory Division of the former Ministry of State Security, was charged in an announcement of the new Ministry of Internal Affairs. . . .
The Georgian case . . . was in the statement of ‘Zarya Vostoka’ an Vanalogous case’ (to that of the doctors – Ed.) and was falsely fabricated by Ruhhadze.”
(‘New York Times’, 14 May 1953; p. 14).

The Dismissal of Leonid Melnikov (1953)
As the third facet of their plot to deceive the Marxist-Leninists and the Soviet public as to their real aims, the concealed revisionists supported the dismissal (announced on 13 June 1953) of the revisionist First Secretary of the Ukrainian Communist Party, Leonid Melnikov, who had been the target of severe criticism by the Marxist-Leninists and the Ukrainian people for his notorious Russification policies in the Ukraine:

“In June 1953, after Stalin’s death, the Russification policy in the Western Ukrainian provinces underwent a reversal. On June 13, the Kremlin disclosed that Leonid G. Melnikov, at the time First Secretary of the Ukrainian Party, had been ousted from that position for ‘having permitted distortions in the Leninist-Stalinist national policy’. The charges against Melnikov were . . . an indictment of Khrushchev who, in the course of his twelve-year rule in the Ukraine, had vigorously put this policy into practice. Melnikov had worked under Khrushchev in 1939-40 and from 1944 to 1949 and carried out the . . . Russification policy as efficiently as his boss.”
(L. Pistrak: ‘The Grand Tactician: Khrushchev’s Rise to Power’; London; 1961; p. 185).
“L. G. Melnikov was relieved of his post as First Secretary of the (Ukrainian — Ed.) Central Committee as responsible for the Russification policy in the Ukraine.”
(B. Levytsky: op. cit.; p. 216-17).

The Military Coup in Moscow (1953)
But by the end of June 1953, it had become clear that the efforts to convince the Marxist-Leninists that the exculpation of the doctors had been justified had only been temporarily successful. Headed by Beria, the security forces, under Marxist-Leninist control since the readjustment of portfolios after Stalin’s death, were continuing to inestigate the “doctors’ case.”
Clearly, if the revisionist conspirators were to feel safe, Beria and his Marxist-Leninist colleagues in the security forces had to be eliminated as a matter of urgency.
On 10 July 1953, a few days after Beria had been arrested, a leading article in ‘Pravda’ revealed the real reason for that arrest — a reason not disclosed in the report of his “trial” — namely, that he had “deliberately impeded” and “tried to distort” instructions of the Central Committee and the Soviet government designed to clear up “certain illegal and abritary actions” — an obvious reference to the “doctors’ case”:

“Having been charged with carrying out ‘the Instructions of the Party Central Committee and the Soviet Government with a view . . . to clearing up certain illegal and arbitrary actions, Beria deliberately impeded the implementation of these instructions and, in a number of cases, tried to distort them.”
(‘Pravda’, 10 July 1953, in: B. Nicolaevsky: op. cit.; p. 147).

Over several days at the end of June 1953, the revisionist conspirators approached other leading members of the Politburo with the baseless story that Beria was an agent of foreign imperialist powers and was plotting a coup against the Party leadership. Khrushchev has described how he based his allegation on unsubstantiated charges made at a Plenum of the Central Committee in February 1937 by the revisionist Grigory Kaminsky* that Beria had been an agent of the counter-revolutionary Mussavat Party —

“a nationalist party of the bourgeoisie and landlords in Azerbaijan, formed in 1912. . . . supported by the Turkish and later by the British interventionists.”
(Note to: J. V. Stalin: ‘Works’, Volume 5; Moscow; 1953; p.417).
“In 1937, at a Central Committee Plenum, former People’s Commissar of Health Protection, Kaminsky, said that Beria worked for the Mussavat intelligence service.”
(N. S. Khrushchev (1971): p. 65).

Khruschev admits:

“I could easily believe that he (Beria – Ed.) had been an agent of the Mussavatists, as Kaminsky had said, but Kaminsky’s charges had never been verified. . . . We had only our intuition to go on.”
(N. S. Khrushchev (1971): p. 333).

But he alleges that he enrolled Georgy Malenkov* and Vyacheslav Molotov* into a plot to “detain Beria for investigation”:

“I took Malenkov aside and said: . . . ‘Surely you must see that Beria’s position has an anti-Party character. We must not accept what he is doing. . . ‘Malenkov finally agreed. I was surprised and delighted. . . .Comrade Malenkov and I then agreed that I should talk to Comrade Molotov. . . . I told Molotov what sort of person Beria was and what kind of danger threatened the Party if we didn’t thwart his scheming against the Party leadership. I had earlier told him how Beria had already set his plan in motion for aggravating nationalist tensions in the Republics. . . .I said: . . . ‘You think, maybe, that we should detain him for investigation? I said ‘detain’ rather than ‘arrest’ because there were still no criminal charges against Beria. . . . Molotov and I agreed and parted.”
(N. S. Khrushchev (1971): p. 330, 331, 332, 333).

He later describes how he succeeded in winning over Lazar Kaganovich*:

“I said that Malenkov, Bulganin, Saburov and I were of one mind and that without him we had a majority. Kaganovich declared right away: I’m with you too.”‘
(N. S. Khrushchev (1971): p. 334).

But because the security forces were under the control of the Marxist-Leninists, these could not be relied upon to carry out the task of eliminating Beria and his colleagues. The conspirators therefore decided that the coup had to be carried out by the army:

“The Presidium bodyguard was obedient to him (Beria –Ed.). Therefore we decided to enlist the help of the military.”
(N. S. Khrushchev (1971): p. 335-36).
“The army took part in Beria’s arrest.”
(J. Ducoli: op. cit.; p. 58).

Khrushchev describes how the conspirators entrusted the execution of the military coup to a group of revisionist officers which included Kirill Moskalenko* and Georgy Zhukov*:

“First, we entrusted the detention of Beria to Comrade Moskalenko, the air defence commander, and five generals. This was my idea. Then, on the eve of the session, Malenkov widened our circle to include Marshal Zhukov and some others. That meant eleven marshals and generals in all. In those days all military personnel were required to check their weapons when coming into the Kremlin, so Comrade Bulganin was instructed to see that the generals were allowed to bring their guns with them. We arranged for Moskalenko’s group to wait for a summons in a separate room while the session was taking place. When Malenkov gave a signal, they were to come into the room where we were meeting and take Beria into custody.”
(N. S. Khrushchev (1971): p. 335-36).

The coup was fixed to take place during a joint meeting of the Presidium of the Party Central Committee and of the Presidium of the Council of Ministers on 24 June 1953. At this meeting Khrushchev reminded those present — including the gullible Marxist-Leninists – of the charges made by Kaminsky in 1937:

“I recalled the Central Committee Plenum of February 1937 at which Comrade Grisha Kaminsky had accused Beria of having worked for the Mussavatist counter-intelligence service, and therefore for the English intelligence service, when he was Secretary of the Baku Party organisation.”
(N. S. Khrushchev (1971): p. 339).

Finally, Khrushchev himself moved that Beria should be dismissed from all his posts:

“After the final speech, the session was left hanging. There was a long pause. I saw we were in trouble, so I asked Comrade Malenkov for the floor in order to propose a motion. As we had arranged in advance, I proposed that the Central Committee Presidium should release Beria from his duties. . . . Malenkov was still in a state of panic. As I recall, he didn’t even put my motion to a vote. He pressed a secret button which gave the signal to the generals who were waiting in the next room. Zhukov was the first to appear. Then Moskalenko and the others came in. Malenkov said in a faint voice to Comrade Zhukov: ‘As Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, I request that you take Beria into custody pending investigation of charges made against him’.
‘Hands up!’, Zhukov commanded Beria.
Moskalenko and the others unbuckled their holsters in case Beria tried anything. . . . We checked later and found that he had no gun. . . .
Beria was immediately put under armed guard in the Council of Ministers building next to Malenkov’s office confinement.”
(N. S. Khrushchev (1971): p. 337-38).

Strobe Talbott*, the editor of Khrushchev’s memoirs, points out that:

“Khrushchev’s implicit claim to have been the leading spirit in the plot against Beria is no doubt broadly true.”
(S. Talbott: Note to: N. S. Khrushchev (1071): p. 321).

The dismissal of Beria from his state posts was confirmed by the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet on 26 June. Beria was replaced as Minister of Internal Affairs, by the concealed revisionist Sergey Kruglov, who had held the post prior to the government reorganisation following Stalin’s death. (‘Pravda’, 17 December 1953, in: R. Conquest (1961): p. 440).
Before the dismissal was made public, the revisionist conspirators took every precaution to prevent any opposition from those astute enough to see what it portended:

“On the night of June 26 1953, Red Army tanks of the Kantemirovskaya Division rolled into Moscow and took up much the same positions as . . . in March. And the tanks were supported by infantry from the Byelorussian military district.”
(P. Deriabin: op. cit.; p. 332).

On 10 July 1953, it was officially announced

“…that Mr. Lavrenty Beria, First Vice-Chairman and Minister of Internal Affairs, had been expelled from the Communist Party and removed from his Ministerial posts as an ‘enemy of the people.”‘
(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 9; p. 13,029).

Three years later, in his secret speech of February 1956, Khrushchev was to tell the 20th Congress of the CPSU that:

” . . . Stalin originated the concept ‘enemy of the people’. . . . This term made possible the usage of the most cruel repression, violating all norms of revolutionary legality.”
(N. S. Khruschchev (1956): p. 12).

In the first few weeks of July several other prominent Marxist-Leninists connected with the state security service, were arrested, or as Lang expresses it:

“Beria fell, dragging down with him many high officials . . . whose familiarity with secrets of state made their survival dangerous to the victors.”
(A.M. Lang: op. cit.; p. 264).

Those arrested with Beria included Vladimir Dekanozov*, Vsevolod Merkulov, Bogdan Kobulov, Sergey Goglidze, Pavel Meshik and Lev Vlodzirmirsky all of whom were Marxist-Leninists having close connection with the state security forces.
To sum up, the revisionist conspirators were able to

“. . . to unite the leaders in a conspiracy in which, with the help of the army, . . . they succeeded in getting rid of him (Beria — Ed.) once and for all.”
(R. Carre’re d’Encausse: ‘Stalin: Order through Terror’; Harlow; 1981; p. 193).

The Military Coup in Georgia (1953-54)
On 14 July 1953, shortly after Beria’s “arrest” on 26 June, the revisionist conspirators moved to carry out a military coup in Georgia in order to reverse the changes made in April 1953 and restore the situation which existed there prior to this date – the situation of revisionist domination brought about by the feint of 1951-52. The leaders of the coup, which was carried out at a joint meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia and of the Tiflis City Committee, were two military officers — General Aleksei Antonov* and Major-General Pavel Efimov:

“A. I. Antonov, General of the Army, Commander of the Transcaucasus Military District and, reputedly, a friend of Zhukov’s . . . . acted soon after the news of Beria’s arrest was announced from Moscow. He attended a joint plenary session of the Georgian Central and Tiflis Party Committees with a fellow-officer, Major-General P. I. Efimov. The latter . . . was then elected to the Central Committee Bureau. Other army officers then took over important posts in the government and Party apparatus.”
(J. Ducoli: op. cit.; p. 58).

In the new political situation, Valerian Bakradze and some other Georgian leaders attempted to save their position by jumping on the revisionist bandwagon. “Zarya Vostoka” of 15 July 1953 reports a speech by Bakradze at the meeting already referred to, in which

“. . . he now, of course, condemns Beria.”
(R. Conquest (1961): p. 146).

As the “New York Times” commented:

“When Mr. Beria was purged last July, it appeared that Messrs. Bakradze and Mirtakhulava had attempted to jump from the Beria . . . . wagon.
Both of them assailed Mr. Beria at meetings held in the Georgian capital and also at the meeting of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union in Moscow last August.”
(‘New York Times’, 23 September 1953; p. 16).

On 15 July, Tiflis Radio referred to Mgeladze, Rapava, Rukhadze and Shoniya as

” . . . accomplices of Beria.”
(R. Conquest (1961): p. 146).
“M. Bakradze . . . coupled Beria’s name with those of Rukhadze, Mgeladze and Charkviani as ‘traitors to the Party.”‘
(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 9; p. 13,030).

At the Georgian Central Committee meeting on 14 July, the Marxist-Leninist Vladimir Dekanozov was dismissed as Georgian Minister of Internal Affairs and expelled from the Party:

“First the police, or former police, adherents of Beria were removed at high speed.”
(R. Conquest (1961): p. 146).
“On July 15 . . ., after the announcement of Beria’s arrest, a broadcast from Tiflis announced that M. Dekanozov had been dismissed from the Georgian Government and the Communist Party for collaboration with ‘the traitor Beria.”
(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 9; p. 13,029-30).
“The main action taken (at the CC meeting — Ed.) was the expulsion of Dekanozov . . . from the Party.”
(R. Conquest (1961): p.146)

Dekanozov was:

“arrested immediately after.”
(R.Conquest 1961;. p. 151)

Reporting these events, the “New York Times” forecast that:

“. . . thousands of Georgian Communists face the prospect of being purged as Beria followers.”
(‘New York Times’, 16 July 1953; p. 8).

Aleksei Inauri, another revisionist army officer, was appointed Georgian Minister of Internal Affairs in succession to Dekanozov:

“A. I. Inauri has been named Minister of Internal Affairs for Georgia to succeed Vladimir Dekanozov. . . .Mr. Inauri is a newcomer to high office in Georgia.”
(‘New York Times’, 3 August 1953; p. 6).

The attempt of Bakradze and others to save their positions by transferring their allegiance to the revisionists failed. On 20 September 1953 a Plenum of the Central Committee of the Georgian Communist Party, presided over by Secretary of the USSR Central Committee Nikolay Shatalin from Moscow, removed Bakradze as Georgian Premier and Mirtskhulava as First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Georgian Communist Party:

“Premier Valerian M. Bakradze, who had headed the government since last April, was dismissed in disgrace and G. D. Dzhavakhishvili . . . was named in his place.”
(‘New York Times’, 23 September 1953; p. 1).

and a new First Secretary was elected in the shape of another army officer -Vasily Mzhavanadze*:

“The post of First Secretary of the Georgian Communist Party was filled in September 1953 by the election of a new man — Mr. Vasily P. Mzhavanadze, a former Lieutenant-General in the Red Army.”
(D. M. Lang: op. cit.; p. 264).

Ducoli points out the importance of the military in the new Georgian leadership:

“Three representatives of the army were found in the Bureau (of the Central Committee of the Georgian Communist Party — Ed.): First Secretary Mzhavanadze, MVD head Inauri, and Commander of the Transcaucausian Military District Antonov.”
(J. Ducoli: op. cit,; p. 59).

On 25 September 1953 (five days after the dismissal of Bakradze):

“. . . it was announced that three more Georgian Ministers had been dismissed – M. Baramiya (Minister of Agriculture and Procurement), M. Chaureli (Minister of Culture), and M. Tsukulidze (Minister of Education). . . . (M. Baramiya had been dismissed in April 1952 from the post of Second Secretary of the Georgian Communist Party, having been accused of ‘bourgeois nationalism’ and ‘ideological deviation’, but had been reinstated in the Government a year later with Beria’s support).”
(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 9: p. 13,468).

In the following month (October 1953) a new Georgian Prime Minister was elected — the revisionist engineer and geologist Givi Djavakhishvili*:

“On 29 October 1953, a forty-one-year-old engineer and geologist, Mr. Givi D. Djavakhishvili, was elected Prime Minister of the Georgian Republic.”
(D. M. Lang: op. cit.; p. 264).

and on 17 January 1954 a broadcast from Tiflis

“. . announced that M. Vilian Zodelava had been dismissed from the post of First Deputy Premier of the Georgian Soviet Republic.”
(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 9; p. 13,468).

Conquest notes that:

” . . . none of the Beria nominees (of the Marxist-Leninists — Ed.) has reappeared in office.”
(R. Conquest (1961): p. 147).

The ‘Mingrelian Affair’ (1953)
In Soviet revisionist mythology, the Georgian events of April 1953 have become known as the “Mingrelian Affair.” Mingrelia is that part of Georgia which borders upon the Black Sea, and the name has been apparently coined because the leading individuals involved in it came from Mingrelia:

“It seems plain that the ‘Mingrelian’ conspiracy refers not to this rather small area, but to a group of Mingrelians powerful in Georgia as a whole. . . . Baramiya, Rapava, Shoniya and Zodelava . . . were all Mingrelians, as was Beria himself.”
(R. Conquest (1961): p. 140).

In describing the “Mingrelian Affair” of April 1953 to the 20th Congress of the CPSU in February 1956 as an instance of miscarriage of justice, Nikita Khrushchev confuses it, no doubt deliberately, with the feint attack of 1953, which was engineered by Khrushchev and his fellow revisionist conspirators and was exposed and corrected by the Marxist-Leninists in April 1953. He states that the (1951-52) affair related to false charges of ‘nationalism’ levelled against Georgian Party leaders, but repeats the false allegation made at the time that these charges were initiated by Stalin:

“Instructive . . . is the case of the Mingrelian nationalist organisations which supposedly existed in Georgia. As is known, resolutions by the Central Committee Communist Party of the Soviet Union were made concerning this case in November 1951 and in March 1952.
Stalin had personally dictated them. They made serious accusations against many loyal Communists. On the basis of falsified documents it was proven that there existed in Georgia a supposedly nationalistic organisation, whose objective was the liquidation of the Soviet power in that Republic with the help of imperialist powers.
In this connection a number of responsible Party and Soviet workers were arrested in Georgia. As was later proven, this was a slander directed against the Georgian Party Organisation.
We know that there have been at times manifestations of local bourgeois nationalism in Georgia, as in several other republics. . . .
As it developed, there was no nationalistic organisation in Georgia.
Thousands of innocent people fell victim of wilfulness and lawlessness.
All of this happened under the ‘genial’ leadership of Stalin, ‘the great son of the Georgian nation’, as Georgians liked to refer to Stalin.”
(N. S. Khrushchev (1961): p. 60, 61-62).

The “Trial” of Beria (1953)
The “trial” of Lavrenti Beria and six of his fellow-Marxist-Leninists who had been associated with the security forces took place in the USSR Supreme Court on 18-23 December 1953. Those tried with Beria were:
Vladimir Dekanozov, recently Georgian Minister of Internal Affairs;
Sergey Goglidze, former Georgian People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs, and recently an official of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs;
Bogdan Kobulov, former Georgian Deputy Commissar of Internal Affairs;
Vsevolod Merkulov, former USSR Minister of State Security, recently USSR Minister of State Control;
Pavel Meshik, formerly an official of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, recently Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs; and
Lev Vlodzimirsky, former Head of the Section of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs for Investigating Specially Important Cases.
The Presiding Judge at the “trial” was Marshal Ivan Konev, on whose appointment the “New York Times” commented:

“Marshal Ivan Konev’s role as chairman of the tribunal . . . appears to be the clearest indication to date of the greatly enhanced political power now apparently wielded by the highest Soviet military leaders.”
(‘New York Times’, 24 December 1953; p. 1).

and noted a year later:

“Three of the four top judges who tried and sentenced Beria were army men.”
(‘New York Times’, 25 December 1954; p. 3).

Furthermore, a new State Prosecutor was specially appointed by the revisionist conspirators — the Ukrainian revisionist jurist Roman Rudenko*:

“We had no confidence in . . . the State Prosecutor . . .so we sacked him and replaced him with Comrade Rudenko.”
(N. S. Khrushchev (1971): p 339).

It was alleged that Beria:

“. . . in 1919 . . . committed treason by accepting the position of Secret Agent in the Intelligence Service of the counter-revolutionary Mussavat Government in Azerbaijan, which operated under the control of British Intelligence organs.”
(Report of Trial of L. P. Beria, in: ‘Pravda’, 24 December 1953, in: R. Conquest (1961): p. 445).

All the defendants were charged that they

” . . . using their official positions in the organs of the NKVD/MGB/MVD, committed a number of the most serious crimes for the purpose of exterminating honourable cadres.”
(Report of Trial of L. P. Beria, in: ibid,; p. 446).

And with

“. . betraying the Motherland and operating in the interests of foreign capital . . . in order to seize power . . . . restore capitalism and the domination of the bourgeoisie”,
(Report of Trial of L. P. Beria, in: ibid.; p. 444-45).

and with waging

“a criminal struggle of intrigue against . . . Sergo Ordzhonikidze.”
(Report of Trial of L. P. Beria, in: ibid.; p. 442).

The Ordzhonikidze case was discussed in an earlier section.
All the defendants were found guilty and sentenced to death by shooting, the sentence being carried out on 23 December 1953.
It was stated that all the accused had

“. . . pleaded guilty”,
(Report of Trial of Beria, in: ibid.; p. 446).

but we have only the conspirators word for this, since

“the trial was closed to the public.”
(‘New York Times’, 24 December 1953; p. 1).

Nicolaevsky, indeed, insists that

“. . . Beria was tried behind closed doors without any confessions.”‘
(Nicolaevsky: op. cit.; p. 120).

and the Albanian leader, the Marxist-Leninist Enver Hoxha, affirms that a Soviet military adviser to Albania informed the Albanians that he had been a witness at Beria’s “trial” and that Beria, far from “confessing” had defended himself very strongly in court and refuted all the charges:

“When a general, who I believe was called Sergatskov, came to Tirana as Soviet military adviser, he also told us something about the trial of Beria. He told us that he had been called as a witness to declare in court that Beria had allegedly behaved arrogantly towards him. On this occasion Sergatskov told our comrades in confidence: ‘Beria defended himself very strongly in court, accepted none of the asccusations and refuted them all.”
(E.Hoxha (1984): p, 31).

Many Western commentators accept that the charges against Beria and his co-defendants were a mere pretext for their judicial murder. Even Stalin’s daughter Svetlana, who disliked Beria and was inclined to believe any story detrimental to him, testifies that:

“Beria’s ‘trial’ was staged . . . without any evidence.”
(S. Alliluyeva (1969): p. 375).

On the allegations that Beria was a “foreign agent,” Nicolaevsky points out that:

” – – not the slightest shred of evidence has even been offered.”
(B. Nicolaevsky: op. cit.; P. 145).

While Lang ridicules the charges that Beria and his Leninists were guilty of “attempting to restore capitalism”:

“These persons and others put to to death with them were accused of conspiring with Beria to liquidate the Soviet workers’ and peasants regime with the aim of restoring capitalism and the power of the bourgeoisie. These charges can hardly be taken seriously.”
(D.M.Lang: op.cit.,; p.264).

The Re-emergence of Melnikov (1953-57)
After the “arrest” of Beria in July 1953, the concealed revisionists felt it safe to “rehabilitate” their colleague Leonid Melnikov:

“Melnikov subsequently re-emerged and rose again. A few weeks after Beria’s fall, Melnikov was appointed Soviet Ambassador to Romania; in April 1955 . . . he was recalled to Moscow and appointed Minister of Construction of Coal Industry Enterprises, and in June 1957 was identified as Chairman of the State Planning Commission and First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers (First Deputy Premier — Ed.) of the Kazakh SSR. Thus Khrushchev moved a notorious Russifier of the Ukraine to a Muslim Republic to replace a prominent local leader.”
(L. Pistrak: op. cit.; p. 185).

The Trial of Abakumov (1954)
On 14-17 December 1954, the Marxist-Leninist former Minister of State Security, Viktor Abakumov, was tried in Leningrad before the Military Collegium of the USSR Supreme Court, presided over by Lieutenant-Colonel E. L. Zeidin. Along with Abakumov, as co-defendants, appeared:
A.G. Leonov, former director of the MGB Investigating Division for Especially Important Cases;
V. I. Komarov and M. T. Likhachev, former Deputy Chairmen of the Investigating Division for Especially Important Cases;
I. A. Chernov and I. M. Broverman, former members of the USSR Ministry of State Security.
The defendants were charged with:

” . . . committing the same crimes as Beria.”
(‘Pravda’ and ‘Izvestia’, 24 December 1954, p. 2, in: ‘Current Digest of the Soviet Press’, Volume 6, No. 49 (19 January 1955); p. 12).

while Abakumov was in particular charged with having:

“. . . fabricated the so-called ‘Leningrad case’, in which many Party and Soviet officials were arrested without grounds and falsely accused of very grave state crimes.”
(‘Pravda’ and ‘Izvestia’, in: ibid.; p. 12).

All the accused were found guilty. Chernov was sentenced to 15 years in a labour camp, Broverman to 25 years in a labour camp, while Abakumov, Leonov, Komarov and Likachev were sentenced to death by shooting.
The “Trial” of Ryumin (1954)
As has been said, the Minister of State Security officially responsible for the investigation of the ‘Doctors’ Case’ was Semyon Ignatiev, while Mikhail Ryumin was merely his deputy.
But Ignatiev was a member of the revisionist conspiracy, and so took part in the investigation only reluctantly, while Ryumin was a Marxist-Leninist. In consequence, their fate at the hands of the conspirators was very different.
Ryumin was arrested on 5 April 1953, two days after the doctors had been exculpated. (‘Pravda’, 6 April 1953; p. 1).
As Georges Bortoli comments:

“It was convenient to make him rather than the former Minister Ignatiev shoulder the heaviest responsibility for the affair. Ignatiev was loyal to Khrushchev and Khrushchev defended him tooth and nail.”
(G. Bortoli: op. cit.; p. 186-87).

Nevertheless, it was not until July 1954 — fifteen months after his arrest — that Ryumin came to trial:

“The fact that Ryumin was not tried until fifteen months after his arrest shows that he must have had his defenders. They must have been very influential defenders at that. . . .
A real struggle over the Ryumin case was fought at the June (1954 Ed.) Plenum , and it was there that his execution was decided upon.”
(B. Nicolaevsky: op. cit.; p. 154-55, 156).

Ryumin’s trial lasted six days – from 2 to 7 July 1953:

“On July 2-7 1954, the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR examined at a court session the case of M. D. Ryumin.”
(‘Pravda’, 23 July 1954, in: R. Conquest (1961): op. cit.; p. 447).

and the report of the proceedings made it clear that he was charged with “fabricating” the “Doctors’ Case”:

“Ryumin, during the period of his work in the post of Senior Investigator and than as Head of the Section for Investigating Specially Important Cases of the former Ministry of State Security, . . . engaged . . . on the path of forging investigative materials, on the basis of which Provocative cases were engineered and unjustified arrests were carried out of a number of Soviet citizens, including prominent medical workers.”
(‘Pravda’, 23 July 1954. in: ibid.; p. 447).

Somewhat oddly, however, this was defined as

“. . . a crime envisaged by Article 58-7 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR.”
(‘Pravda’, 23 July 1954, in: ibid.; p. 447).

But Article 58, Para. 7, of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR relates to economic sabotage!

“Article 58, Para. 7, is . . . irrelevant to Ryumin’s activity in connection with the arrest of the doctors. . . . It cannot possibly be applied to Ryumin’s role in the doctors’ plot.”
(B. Nicolaevsky: op. cit.; p. 149).

Nicolaevsky points out in explanation that falsification of evidence is punishable under the Criminal Code by only up to five years deprivation of liberty, while “economic sabotage” carries the death penalty. (B. Nicolaevsky: op. cit.; p. 149).
The court:

” . . . sentenced Ryumin to the supreme penalty — death by shooting. The sentence has been carried out.”
(‘Pravda’, 23 July 1954, in: R. Conquest (1961): p. 448).

Adam Ulam sums up this course of events as follows:

“After a secret trial in July 1954, Ryumin was shot.”
(A. B. Ulam: op. cit.; p. 736).

The fate of Ignatiev, the Minister, was very different. He was merely criticised for

” . . . political blindness and negligence.”
(‘Pravda’, 6 April 1953, in: Y. Rapoport: op. cit. .; p. 189-90).

and, as Conquest expresses it,

“. . . was only demoted”,
(R. Conquest (1961): p. 208).

On 7 April (two days after Ryumin’s arrest) it was announced that Ignatiev had been

“. . . . . released from the duties of a Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU.”
(‘Pravda’ and ‘Izvestia’, 7 April 1953; p. 12, in: ‘Current Digest of the Soviet Press’, Volume 5, No. 11 (25 April 1953); p. 4).

This treatment was because, as a participant in the revisionist conspiracy,

“Ignatiev . . . came under Khushchev’s protection.”
(R. Conquest (1961): p. 181).

Thus, Ignatiev’s ‘disgrace’ was very temporary. A few months later, in February 1954, Ignatiev

” . . . was appointed First Party Secretary in the Bashkir ASSR.”
(S. Wolin & R. M. Slusser: op. cit.; p. 56).
“Khrushchev . . . took Ignatiev under his wing and gave him an important post in the Party apparatus, albeit in the provinces.”
(B. Nicolaevsky: op. cit.; p. 128).
“Ignatiev was appointed First Secretary of the Bashkir Autonomous Republic. Thus, under the Khrushchev regime, another Muslim republic came under the rule of a Great-Russian whose career had not exactly mirrored sympathy for other nationalities and races.”
(L. Pistrak: op. cit.; p. 187).

The “Rehabilitation” of Anna Louise Strong (1955)
On 14 February 1949

” . . . ‘the notorious intelligence agent, the American journalist Anna Louisa Strong . . . was arrested. . . .Mrs. Strong is accused of espionage and subversive activity directed against the Soviet Union. It is reported that she would be deported in a few days.”
(‘New York Times’, 15 February 1949; p. 1).

When, in 1955, the Soviet revisionists decided to seek a rapprochement with the United States, Beria and Abakumov were used as scapegoats for Strong’s 1949 deportation, the evidence for which they were said to have “fabricated”:
On 4 March 1955

“. . . Anna Louise Strong . . . was formally absolved of the charges that she had spied on the Soviet Union. . .Lavrenti P. Beria . . . and Viktor S. Abakumov . . . were blamed for the false arrest of Miss Strong.”
(‘New York Times’, 5 March 1955; p. 1).

The ‘Rehabilitation’ of Tito (1955)
Similarly, when the Soviet revisionists decided to annul the denunciation of Yugoslav revisionism made in 1948-49 by the Marxist-Leninist Communist Information Bureau, Khrushchev visited Belgrade for this purpose in May 1955:

“He not only apologised for past ‘aggravations’, he attributed them to the ‘fabrication’ of Lavrenty Beria and Viktor Abakumov.”
(‘New York Times’, 27 May 1955; p. 1).

The Rapava-Rukhadze Trial (1955)
In September 1955 the Military Collegium of the USSR Supreme Court, sitting in Tiflis and presided over by Lieutenant-General Chertkev, tried Avksenty Rapava (formerly Georgian People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs), Nikolay Rukhadze (formerly Minister of State Security), and six other defendants formerly connected with the Georgian security forces. They were charged with

” . . . high treason, terroristic acts and participation in counter-revolutionary organisations.”
(Radio Tiflis, 22 November 1955, in: R. Conquest (1961): p. 450).

Rukhadze, of course, had become a victim of the manoeuvres to reverse the Georgian feint of 1951-52 associated with the exculpation of the terrorist doctors, and was sacrificed to those manoevres.
Accused of being “accomplices of Beria,” among the crimes with which the defendants were charged was that of taking an active part

“. . . in the struggle of intrigue which Beria had over a number of years been carrying on against Sergo Ordzhonikidze, the prominent statesman.”
(Radio Tiflis, 22 November 1955, in: R. Conquest (1961): p. 450).

and of committing

“. . . terroristic acts of violence against Mamia Orakhelashvili, former Secretary of the Transcaucasian Party Regional Committee, and his wife, Mariam Orakhelashvili, former People’s Commissar of Education of the Georgian SSR.”
(Radio Tiflis, 22 November 1955, in: R. Conquest (1961): p. 450).

Conquest notes:

“The Rapava-Rukhadze trial in September 1955 again mentioned Ordzhonikidze, and also rehabilitated a number of Georgians headed by Orakhelashvili, who had been shot in the Yenukidze-Karakhan case of December 16, 1937.”
(R. Conquest (1961): p. 274).

The cases of Ordzhonikidze, the Orakhelashvilis, Yenukidze and Karakhan have been discussed in an earlier section.
One of the accused was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment, one to twenty-five years’ imprisonment, and the rest — including Rapava and Rukhadze — to death by shooting.
The Trial of Bagirov (1956)
In July 1953, after the ‘arrest’ of Beria, Mir Bagirov*, the Marxist-Leninist Secretary of the Central Committee of the Commnunist Party of Azerbaijan, was removed from his post and, shortly afterwards, arrested.
On 12-26 April 1956 Bagirov and five alleged “accomplices” were tried by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court, sitting in Baku and presided over by Lieutenant-General A. A. Cheptsov for:

“high treason, the commission of acts of terrorism, and participation in a counter-revolutionary organisation.”
(‘Bakinsky Rabochy’, 27 May 1956, p. 2, in: ‘Current Digest of the Soviet Press’, Volume 8, No. 21 (4 July 1956), p. 12).

Among other charges, it was alleged that

“. . . Bagirov and the other defendants were active in the intrigues that Beria and his accomplices conducted against Sergo Ordzhonikidze.”
(‘Bakinsky Rabochy’, 27 May 1956; p. 2, in: ibid.; p. 12).

The Ordzhonikidze case has been discussed in an earlier section.
The accused were all found guilty. Two of the defendants were sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment, while three (including Bagirov) were sentenced to death by shooting.
The Bagirov “trial” was the last in the series of judicial murders of Marxist-Leninist leaders of the security forces.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

*ABAKUMOV, Viktor S., Soviet Marxist-Leninist security official and politician (1894-1954); head of counter-espionage organisation SMERSH (1942-45); Minister of State Security (1946-52); executed by revisionists (1954).
*ALLILUYEVA, Svetlana S., Stalin’s daughter. (1926- )
*ANTONOV, Aleksey I., Soviet revisionist military officer (1895-l962); Commander, Transcaucasia Military District (1949-54); 1st. Deputy Chief of Staff, and Chief of Staff, Warsaw Pact (1955-62).
*BAGIROV, Mir D, A., Soviet Marxist-Leninist politician (1896-1956); 1st Secretary, Azerbaijan (1933-53); executed by revisionists (1956).
*BERIA, Lavrenty P., Soviet Marxist-Leninist politician (1899-1953); USSR Commissar of Internal Affairs (1938-45); USSR Premier (1941-45); Deputy Chairman, USSR Defence Committee (1941-44); marshal (1945); USSR Minister of Internal Affairs and lst Deputy Premier (April-July 1953); executed by revisionists (1953).
*BIERUT, Boleslaw, Polish Marxist-Leninist politician (1892-1956); President (1947-52); General Secretary, Polish Workers’ Party (1948-54); Premier (1952-54); 1st Secretary, Polish United Workers’ Party (1954-56).
*BORTOLI, Georges, Moroccan-born French journalist and TV producer (1923-).
*BULGANIN, Nikolay A., Soviet revisionist politician (1895-1975); USSR Deputy Premier (1938-41); Minister of Armed Forces (1947); USSR Deputy Premier and Minister of Defence (1953-55); USSR Premier (1955-58).
*CONQUEST, Robert, British-born poet and political analyst specialising in the USSR (1917- ); senior research fellow, Hoover Institute (1977- ).
*DEKANOZOV, Vladimir G., Soviet Marxist-Leninist diplomat and politician (1898-1953); USSR Deputy Commissar of Internal Affairs (1939-41); Ambassador to Germany (1940-41); Georgian Minister of Internal Affairs (1953); executed by revisionists (l953).
*DERIABIN, Peter S., Russian-born American writer (1921- ); former officer in Soviet security forces; defected (1954).
*DEUTSCHER, Isaac, Polish-born British journalist and political analyst (190767).
*DZHAVAKHISHVILI, Givi D., Soviet revisionist geologist and politician (1912); Deputy Premier, Georgia (1953); Premier, Georgia (1953).
*DUCOLI, John, American teacher specialising in Transcaucasia (1922-
*FAIRBANKS, Charles H., junior, American political analyst (1944- ); associate professor of political science, Yale University (1979-81); member, Policy Planning Committee, US Dept. of State (1981- 82); research professor, Johns Hopkins University (1982-85); foreign policy adviser, Reagan Committee for Presidency (1980), Bush Committee for Presidency (1988).
*GOMULKA, Wladyslaw, Polish revisionist politician (1905-82); General Secretary, Polish Workers’ Party (1943-48); imprisoned for nationalism (1943-56); 1st Secretary, Polish United Workers’ Party (1966-70).
*GOTTWALD. Klement, Czechoslovak Marxist-Leninist politician (1896-1953); Premier (1946-48); President (1948-53).
*GOVOROV, Leonid A., Soviet revisionist military officer (1897-1955); Marshal (1944); Commander of National Air Defence Forces and USSR Deputy Minister of Armed Forces (1948-54); Commander-in-Chief of Air Defence Forces and USSR Deputy Minister of Defence (1954-55).
*GREY, Ian, New Zealand-born lawyer and historian (1918
*HOXHA, Enver, Albanian Marxist-Leninist leader (1908-85); General/First Secretary, CC, Communist Party of Albania/Party of Labour of Albania (1941-85);Premier and Foreign Minister (1944-54).
*IGNATIEV, Semyon D., Soviet revisionist politician (1908- ); USSR Minister of State Security (1951-53); Secretary, CC (March-April 1953); First Secretary, Bashkiria (1954- ).
*KAGANOVICH, Lazar M., Soviet Marxist-Leninist politician (1893-1991); member, State Defence Committee (1941-45); USSR Minister of Building Materials Industry (l946-47); Ist Secretary, Ukraine (1947-53); USSR Deputy Premier (1953-55); USSR Minister of Building Materials Industry (1956-57).
*KAMINSKY, Grigory N., Soviet revisionist politician (1805-1938).
*KONEV, Ivan S, Soviet revisionist military officer -(1897-1973); marshal (1944); C-in-C, Ground Forces, and USSR Deputy Minister of Armed Forces (1946-50); Chief Inspector of Army (1950-51); Commander, Carpathian Military District and Commander-in-Chief, Ground Forces (1951-55); C-in-C, Warsaw Pact Forces and USSR Ist Deputy Minister of Defence (1956-60); Inspector-General at USSR Ministry of Defence (1960-73).
*KRUGLOV, Sergey, Soviet revisionist security official and politician (190777); USSR Minister of Internal Affairs (1946-March 1953, July 1953-56).
*LANG, David M., British historian (1924- ); Professor of Caucasian Studies, University of London (1964-84).
*LAQUEUR, Walter, German-born American journalist, historian and political analyst (1930- ); Director, Institute of Contemporary History (1964- )
Professor of Government, Georgetown University (1977- ); Chairman, International Research Council, Centre for Strategic and International Studies (1973- ).
*LEVCHENKO, Gordey, Soviet revisionist naval officer (1897-1981); admiral (1944); deputy Commissar of Navy and Commander of Baltic Fleet (1944-60); retired (1960).
*LEVTYSKY, Boris, Austrian-born political analyst (1915- ).
*MALENKOV, Georgi M., Soviet Marxist-Leninist politician (1902-88); Member, State Defence Committee (1941-45); USSR Premier (1953-55); 1st Secretary, CPSU (1953); USSR Minister of Power Stations (1955-57).
*McNEAL, Robert H., American historian (1930- ); Associate Professor of History, University of Toronto (1964-69); Professor of History, University of Massachusetts (1969-).
*MELNIKOV, Leonid G., Soviet revisionist politician (1906- ); 1st Secretary, Ukraine (1949-53);
*MIKHOELS, Solomon (real name: VOVSI), Soviet revisionist actor and director (1890-1948); director of Moscow State Jewish Theatre (1929-48); Chairman, Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (1942-48); accused posthumously of espionage and terrorism (1953).
*MOLOTOV, Vyacheslav M., Soviet Marxist-Leninist politician (1890-1986); USSR Premier (1930-41); USSR Commissar of Foreign Affairs (1939-46); USSR Minister of Foreign Affairs (1946-49, 1953-56); Member, State Defence Committee (1941-45); USSR Minister of State Control (1956-57); Ambassador to Mongolia (1957-60).
*MOSKALENKO, Kirill A., Soviet revisionist military officer (1900-85); commander, Moscow Anti-Aircraft Defence (1945-53); commander, Moscow Military District (1953-60); Marshal (1955); commander-in-chief, USSR Strategic Missile Forces and Deputy Minister’of Defence (1960-62); chief inspector, USSR Ministry of Defence (1962-66); USSR Deputy Minister of Defence (1966-83).
*MZHAVANADZE, Vasily P., Soviet revisionist military officer and politician (1902- ); Lieutenant-General (1944); Ist Secretary, Georgia (1953-72).
*NICOLAEVSKY, Boris I., Russian , born American political analyst (1887-1966).
*ORAKHELASHVILI, Ivan (Mamiya), Soviet revisionist politician (1881-1937).
*ORAKHELASHVILI, Maria P., Soviet revisionist politician (1887-1937).
*POSKREBYSHEV. Aleksandr N.. Soviet Marxist-Leninist politician (1891-1965):
Head, Special Secretariat. Central Committee. CPSU (1928-52).
*RUDENKO. Roman A.. Soviet revisionist jurist (1907-81): Chief Soviet
Prosecutor*. Nurember2 (1945-46): USSR Procurator-General (1953-81).
*SALISBURY. Harrison E., American Journalist (1908- ‘New York Times’
Moscow correspondent (1949-54).
*SCHERBAKOV. Aleksandr S.. Soviet Marxist-Leninist politician and military.
officer (1901-45): Secretary. CC (1938-44): Chief of Main Political Directorate. head of Soviet Information Bureau. Deputv Commissar of Defence (1942-45).
*SHTEMENKO. Sereev M.. Soviet revisionist military officer (1907- ): Chief of
General Staff and Deputy Minister of Armed Forces (1948-52): Chief of Staff and 1st Deputv C-in-C of Ground Forces (1962-64): USSR Deputy Chief of Staff (1964-68): general (1968): Chief of Staff. Warsaw Pact Forces (1968-90).
*STALIN. Vasilv J.. Stalin’s son (1921-62).
*STRONG. Anna L.. American journalist (1885-1970).
*TALBOTT. Strobe, American journalist (1946- ).
*ULAM. Adam B.. Polish-born American political analyst (1922- ): Professor
Government,. Harvard University (1959-79): Professor of History and Political Science. Harvard University (1979Director. Russian Research Centre. Harvard (1973-76. 1980- ).
*VASILEVSKY. Aleksandr M.. Soviet revisionist military officer (1895-1977):
Chief of General Staff. lst Deputy Minister of Defence (1946-49): USSR Minister of Armed Forces (1949-53): USSR Deputy Minister of Defence (1953-57).
*VINOGRADOV. Vladimir N.. Soviet revisionist medical specialist (1882-1964).
*VOLKOGONOV. Dmitry. Soviet revisionist historian’ (1928- ): on staff of Main
Political Directorate. Red Armv (1970-85): Director. Institute of Militarv Historv (1985- ).
*ZAPOTOCKY. Antonin, Polish revisionist politician (1884-1957): Deputy Premier
(1945-48): Premier (1948-53): President (1953-57).
*ZHDANOV. Andrev A.. Soviet Marxist-Leninist politician (1896-1948): CPSU
Secretarv (1934-48): CPSU Secretary. Leningrad (1934-48): murdered by revisionists (1948).
*ZHUKOV. Georei K.. Soviet revisionist military officer (1896-1974): Marshal
(1943): commander-in-chief. Soviet occupation forces in Germany (194546): USSR Minister of Defence (1955-57): Member. Presidium of CC. CPSU (1957).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alliluyeva, S. (1967): ‘Twenty Letters to a Friend’; London; lq67.
Alliluyeva, S. (1969): ‘Only One Year’; London; 1969.
Bortoli, G.: ‘The Death of Stalin’; London; 1973.
Carre’re d’Encausse, H.: ‘Stalin: Order through Terror;’; London; 1981.
Conquest, R. (1961): ‘Power and Policy in the USSR: The Study of Soviet Dvnastics’; London; 1961.
Conquest, R. (1971): ‘The Great Terror’; Harmondworth; 1971.
Deriabin, P.: ‘Watchdogs of Terror: Russian Bodyguards from the Tsars to the Commissars’; n.p. (USA); 1984.
Deriabin, P. & Gibney, F.: ‘The Secret World’; New York; 1959.
Deutscher, I.: ‘Stalin: A Political Biography’; Harmondsworth; 1968.
Ducoli, J.: ‘The Georgian Purges (1951-53)’, in: ‘Caucasian Review’, Volume 6 (1958).
Fairbanks, C. H., junior: ‘National Cadres as a Force in the Soviet System: The Evidence of Beria’s Career: 1949-53’, in: Azrael, J. R. (Ed.): ‘Soviet Nationality Policies and Practices’; New York; 1978.
Grey, I.: ‘Stalin: Man of History’; London; 1979.
Hoxha, E. (1984): ‘The Khrushchevites’; Tirana; 1984.
Hoxha, E. (1979): ‘With Stalin: Memoirs’; Tirana; 1979.
Khrushchev, N. S. (1956): Secret Speech to the 20th Congress of the CPSU, in: Russian Institute, Columbia University (Ed.): ‘The Anti-Stalin Campaign and International Communism: A Selection of Documents’; New York; 1956.
Khrushchev, N. S. (1971): ‘Khrushchev Remembers’, Volume 1; London; 1971.
Lang, D. M.: ‘A Modern History of Georgia’; London; 1962.
Laqueur, W.: ‘Stalin: The Glasnost Revelations’; London; 19qO.
Levytsky, B.: ‘The Uses of Terror: The Soviet Secret Service: 1917-1970’; London; 1971.
Lewis, J. & Whitehead, P.: ‘Stalin: A Time for Judgement’; London; 1990.
McNeal, R. H.: ‘Stalin: Man and Ruler’; Basingstoke; 1988.
Nicolaevsky, B.: ‘Power and the Soviet Elite’; New York; 1965.
Pistrak, L.: ‘The Grand Tactician: Khrushchev’s Rise to Power’;London; 1961.
Rapoport, Y.: ‘The Doctors’ Plot: Stalin’s Last Crime’; London; 1901.
Rosenfeldt, N. E.: ‘Knowledge and Power: The Role of Stalin’s Chancellery in the Soviet System of Government’; Copenhagen; 1978.
Salisbury, H. E.: ‘Stalin’s Russia and After’; London; 1955.
Suny, R. G.: ‘The Making of the Georgian Nation’, London; 1989.
Ulam. A.B.: ‘Stalin : The Man and His Era’; London; 1989.
Volkogonov, D.: ‘Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy’; London; 1091. Wolin, S. & Slusser, R.: ‘The Soviet Secret Police’; London; 1957.
: ‘Bakinsky Rabochy’.
: ‘Current Digest of the Soviet Press’.
: ‘Izvestia’ (News).
: ‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’.
: ‘New York Times’, New York.
: ‘Pravda’ (Truth).
: ‘Shorter Oxford English Dictionary’; Oxford; 1977.
: ‘Zarya Vostoka’.