Narayanan Potti K Book Review of “Grover Furr and Vladimir L. Bobrov “Trotsky’s Comintern Conspiracy – The Case of Osip Pyatnitsky”
Book Review: Narayanan Potti K
Received 21 October 2024; Published 4 November 2024; Minor amendments up to 6 November.
Grover Furr and Vladimir L. Bobrov “Trotsky’s Comintern Conspiracy – The Case of Osip Pyatnitsky”; 2024, Erythros Press and Media, 389.
This book confirms the earlier arguments, data and intuitions of Marxist-Leninists that a revisionist strengthening and control over Comintern and some higher offices in the USSR had taken place during the years 1928-1939 . This was achieved after J.V.Stalin was ‘cornered’, which was achieved by the revisionists creating and spreading the cult of personality around Stalin.
This new book by Grover Furr and Vladimir L. Bobrov provides some new content that confirms the analysis previously made. Namely that high-placed leaders of the Third International (Comintern) were traitors to the international working class. It confirms this with some new evidence about a series of conspiracies of Comintern leaders with Nazis and Leon Trotsky. These come through the archival recovery of primary documents.
The book is self-described by the authors as having the following content:
“Grover Furr and Bobrov’s research is based on newly released files from the archives after the fall of the USSR. In his new book, Furr & Bobrov examine the conspiracy within the Comintern by studying the investigation file of Osip Aronovich Pyatnitsky, head (secretary) of the Executive Committee of the Communist International (ECCI) from 1923 to 1935. Pyatnitsky’s investigative file contains a great deal of evidence, allowing the reader to see for the first time the vast extent of this combination of interconnected conspiracies.” https://www.amazon.com/Trotskys-Comintern-Conspiracy-Case-Pyatnitsky/dp/B0DGDY32VC
Some of the striking allegations in this regard appear in Furr and Bobrov’s book as follows:
“Pyatnitsky diverted Comintern funds to Trotsky – evidently $15,000 a year for several years.”
“Pyatnitsky was able to obtain intelligence about the communist parties of Germany and other countries, which he passed on to Trotsky. Trotsky then passed this information on to the Germans.”
“Pyatnitsky was apparently also involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Lazar Kaganovich, the workaholic executive of the drive to build heavy industry for defense against Nazi invasion.”
“Pyatnitsky knew about the Opposition’s involvement in trying to foment a war against the Soviet Union by the major capitalist powers.”
“He knew that the Opposition was also planning an uprising against the Soviet government, which they believed was their best chance to seize power.”
Furr and Bobrov, Ibid at p.291; and Cited by Charles Andrews
Grover Furr in a recent online talk while introducing the book said:
“Heinz Neumann had been a leading figure in the Communist Party of Germany. He was convicted of participating in the Right-Trotskyite conspiracy in the Comintern, tried, and shot on September 26, 1937.
…..Neumann names Pyatnitsky dozens of times in his interrogations and in a long statement of November 1, 1937. These passages also serve to clarify Neumann’s own activity in the Right-Trotskyite conspiracy within the Comintern. In our book we review the most important of these passages….
“Pyatnitsky’s main role in the conspiracy was to cultivate his contacts in the Comintern while preparing for the overthrow of the Soviet government by the opposition. Trotsky’s contacts with the Germans were essential for this purpose. The oppositionists had lost whatever hope they once had to oust the Stalin leadership by themselves.
Trotsky relied on Pyatnitsky to help steal money from the Comintern’s budget to send to Trotsky. This amounted to 20,000 gold rubles, about US$15,000 a year for three years. This money was supposed to go to support revolutionaries all over the world. But Pyatnitsky & Co. sent it to Trotsky to fund his collaboration with the Nazis and fascists and his sabotage against the Red Army and the Soviet economy!” Grover Furr- Online Talk on 20/10/24
As one strand of evidence of such a conspiracy, a statement by one Reinhard Müller – is reproduced by Hugo Eberlein as follows:
“The leaders of our organization of right-wing and Trotskyites Pyatnitsky, Knorin, and B. Kun have given their confidants the directive to bring all elements and groups expelled from the Comintern into cooperation. Practical steps were taken in accordance with this directive, the aim of which was to unite all anti-Comintern and anti-Soviet forces among German émigrés in Paris for a common struggle. In this way a bloc was created, which was joined by the Brandler– ists, the Ruth Fischer-Maslow group, the compromisers and the Neumann-Remmele group.“ Furr & Bobrov “Trotsky’s Comintern Conspiracy”; Ibid; p 94
Furr and Bobrov comment:
“So far this confession is consistent with the evidence we have against Pyatnitsky, with Pyatnitsky’s own confessions and those of Bela Kun, (Vil’gel’m) Knorin, and others.” Furr & Bobrov “Trotsky’s Comintern Conspiracy”; Ibid; p 95
However, surely some suspicion about other leaders of the Comintern should arise? Furr and Bobrov provide enough data in even their own book to point to this. But the net is cast only as far as Neumann, Kun, Knorin – and Pytanitsky.
For example, consider Manuilsky. Bela Kun stated, apparently in a confrontation between Kun and Pyatnitsky that was set up by the NKVD:
“Pyatnitsky said that Manuilsky would lead the Comintern”. Furr & Bobrov; “Trotsky’s Comintern Conspiracy” Ibid p.131
Moreover – again upon Manuilsky – from the Confession of Pyatnitsky:
“During the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU(b) before the VI Congress, at which two questions of the Communist International were raised: the program and the general question of the situation in the Comintern, Manuilsky acted as a speaker on this issue. Based on his report, Lominadze and someone else from the group spoke sharply. Manuilsky was very annoyed by this. He told me that the leadership of the CPSU(b) unleashed these fellows on him. From this you can see how close I stood to him then.”
Furr & Bobrov “Trotsky’s Comintern Conspiracy” Ibid; p 332
According to Furr & Bobrov, relying on and quoting the author F.Firsov (Moscow AIRO-XXI, 2020) – Stalin initially viewed all of these thus far named leaders as more or less the same. We can speculate that Stalin didn’t have much options to get a much better one. Furr and Bobrov cite Firsov:
“Initially, Stalin was inclined to have Dimitrov become the first secretary (general secretary) of the ECCI, and to make Pyatnitsky, Manuilsky and other foreign communists the secretaries of the ECCI. Thus, information about the existing disagreements between Dimitrov and Pyatnitsky, of which he was well aware, did not influence Stalin so much that he agreed to transfer Pyatnitsky to another job. But Dimitrov and Manuilsky, having learned about this, declared it impossible to work with Pyatnitsky. (This was the only time Dimitrov expressed his disagreement with Stalin’s intentions). By that time, Pyatnitsky in the ECCI apparatus controlled the financial side of the activities of the Comintern and the correspondence of the Comintern with the Communist parties, and his retention in the leadership of the ECCI was fraught with serious problems. Stalin agreed with the arguments of Dimitrov and Manuilsky. Pyatnitsky was transferred to the apparatus of the C.C. AUCP(b), where he headed the administrative and political department of the C.C. AUCP(b).” Furr & Bobrov “Trotsky’s Comintern Conspiracy”; citing Firsov; Ibid p 41
In addition the NKVD set-up confrontations between various accused, here between Kun and Pyatnitsky. In these one opportunist calls another the opportunist, in each of his own confessions. Furr and Bobrov quote Bela Kun in this NKVD interrogation, as saying the following:
“Now the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party(b) is creating a leader in the person of Dimitrov… a leader has been found Dimitrov who all his life, including in Bulgaria, has been an opportunist … The question of the leaders of the Comintern of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party(b) is resolved without us and without representatives of the communist parties … In Germany Dimitrov himself failed and he is incapable of leading the Comintern.”
Furr & Bobrov “Trotsky’s Comintern Conspiracy”; Ibid 124
In another NKVD statement, known from a text made available by Vladimir Pyatnitsky, Knorin states:
“KNORIN: In the counter-revolutionary Right- Trotskyite organization in the Comintern, to which I belonged and which fought against the Stalinist line, Dimitrov, and Manuilsky, against the expansion of united front tactics, Pyatnitsky was the leader.”
Furr & Bobrov “Trotsky’s Comintern Conspiracy”; Ibid Ibid p 170
In assessing the new book by Burr and Bubrov, the thought arises that perhaps it does not go far enough in its claims. For example – it should be suspected that Kuusinen, Manuilsky and Knorin – must have given active help to bamboozle the huge amount of 20,000 gold rubles. These four stood covertly for counter-revolution, while overtly they preached ‘revolution‘. In reality the Comintern leadership as a whole were concealed revisionists. We can suspect from various sources that Stalin endorsed that view.
I will indicate this through the various discussions that are revealed in “Dimitrov’s Diary”.
By 7th Nov 1937, Stalin viewed Piatnitsky as a Trotskyite. But even earlier Stalin was expressing grave reservations about the leadership of the Comintern.
For example, comments of his came on 24 April 1934 that the“foursome” named above (Piatnitsky, Kuusinen, Manuilsky and Knorin), were not good enough collectively to lead Comintern.
Dimitrov recorded these following characterisations in his diary as follows. It records a conversation Dimitrov claims that took place:
“24 April 1934
“Stalin: “Kuusinen is good, but an academic. Manuilsky—agitator; Knorin—propagandist. Piatnitsky -narrow!”
Dimitrov: “In prison I often thought that, finally, the administration of the CI Communist International had historically crystallized under their leadership (Manuilsky, Piatnitsky, Kuusinen, Knorin).”
Stalin: “Who says, that this “foursome” must remain so? You speak about history. But one must sometimes correct history.”
Stalin: “Yes, here at this table, we have discussed the theses for the plenum, and what has happened? When they go away from here, everything remains as before.”
“The Diary of Georgi Dimitrov (1933–1949)”; Introduced and Edited by Ivo Banac, German translation Jane T. Hedges, Russian Translation Timothy D. Sergay, and Bulgarian Translation by Irina Faion, Yale University Press New Haven & London 2003; p 14, 15
20 -May -1934 “Lunch at Kremlin cafeteria (“separate chamber”)—with Mann [Manuilsky]—then thorough discussion. His letter to Piatnitsky about reconstituting the leadership of the ECCI—discussion with Stalin about the French question (very unsatisfactory!)—in France—united front also “from above.”
“Dimitrov Diary”; Ibid p.22
Over the ensuing weeks, we hear from Dimitrov, that Stalin is getting progressively even more skeptical of the Comintern as a whole and its current mode of work:
“11 February 1937
“Stalin—”Play up their politics and their working for the defeat of the Soviet Union.
“The resolution is nonsense. All of you there in the Comintern are playing right into the enemy’s hands . . .
There is no point making a resolution.”
“Dimitrov Diary”; Ibid; p 52
Later by 1943 in fact, Stalin has decided that the communists have overestimated their “resources” when forming the CI and their ability to “direct the movement in all countries”:
21 May 1943
“Stalin explains that experience has shown that in Marx’s time, in Lenin’s time, and now, it is impossible to direct the working-class movement of all countries form a single international centre. Especially now in wartime conditions, when Communist parties in Germany , Italy , and other countries have the tasks of overthrowing their governments and carrying out defeatist tactics, while Communist parties in the USSR, England, America and other [countries], on the contrary have the task of supporting the governments to the fullest for the immediate destruction of the enemy. We overestimated our resources when we were forming the CI and believed that we would be able to direct the movement in all countries. That was our error. The further existence of the CI would discredit the idea of the International, which we do not desire.”
“Dimitrov Diary”; Ibid p 275-76
As stated already, entries in the Diary from 7 November 1937, show that by then Stalin was labelling Piatnitsky frankly as a “Trotskyite”:
“7 November 1937 From a conversation with Stalin:
….Knorin is a Polish and German spy (for a long time, and until recently).
Piatnitsky is a Trotskyite. Everyone’s testimony points to him (Knorin and others).” “Dimitrov Diary”; Ibid p 62
It would be prudent for Marxist-Leninists to consider the implications of all this. In fact according to “Dimitrov’s Diary” Stalin goes beyond just these individuals named by Furr and Bobrov. Stalin makes his doubts clear to Dimitrov about the leadership of the Comintern – extending even to Dimitrov himself. As again recorded by Dimitov:
“26 May 1937
At Yezhov’s (1 o’clock in the morning …..The major spies worked in the Comintern.)”“Dimitrov Diary”; Ibid p 61
7 November, 1937 “Stalin: I respect Comrade Dimitrov very much. We are friends and will remain friends. But I must disagree with him. He has even expressed himself here in an un-Marxist fashion.” “Dimitrov Diary”; Ibid p 66.
As we already saw – later still – Stalin comes to the stated conclusion that the CI was an over-stretch. Moreover that the “further existence of the CI would discredit the idea of the International”:
21 May, 1943 “Stalin… We overestimated our resources when we were forming the CI and believed that we would be able to direct the movement in all countries. That was our error. The further existence of the CI would discredit the idea of the International, which we do not desire.”
“Dimitrov Diary”; Ibid; p 276
As later incidents show, Stalin was much dissatisfied with Dimitov’s opportunism in Bulgaria too. These differences between Stalin and Dimitrov emerged most dramatically on the issue of Dimitrov’s proposals on a federation of Balkan states centered on Bulgaria. Stalin is blunt in his evaluation of Dimitrov:
10 -02-1948
“Stalin: We do not understand each other; therefore, there are disagreements between us. And you are trying to conceal this….
Stalin: You are a veteran politician. What are the mistakes we are talking about? You have some different assumptions, and maybe you are not completely aware of them. ….You provide ammunition to the reactionary elements in America for convincing public opinion that America would not be doing anything extraordinary in creating a Western bloc…..
…..You are either inexperienced or getting carried away like the Komsomol activists who fly like butterflies right into the burning flame…..
Stalin: These are leftist infatuations.”
“Dimitrov Diary”; Ibid p.439
Dimitrov was to be removed from the leadership of the international movement.
The Comintern was dissolved – at least in large part it would seem in order to facilitate the anti-Nazi Allied Front with the USA, Britain and France. But nonetheless, at the same time there were other reasons. Stalin appears to have had some background long standing concerns on the correctness of the Comintern leadership.
Instead of the now dissolved Comintern, a new organisation – the Cominform was set up. It was Zhadanov who was placed in that leadership position by Stalin.
To Conclude:
My final evaluation of the new publication:
Many in the leadership in the Comintern were either conscious traitors, or were inefficient. In either case they did much harm to the policies of Stalin. This was according to the opinions expressed by Stalin himself – as recorded by Dimitrov himself.
This overall view is reaffirmed by the recent archival records published by Grover Furr and Vladimir L. Bobrov. While they in fact confirm the much earlier suspicions of Bill Bland, they do not go as far as Bland. Bland in his various articles from 1953 onwards had argued that in the Comintern too, and not only in the CPSU alone – some leaders in top leadership roles were concealed revisionists. These writings are freely available through the site at Communist League (Subject Index); and the MIA (Bland Pages).
These leaders of the Comintern conspired with Nazis and Trotsky against the Soviet Union and adopted secret terrorism. Actually, they were aiming to assassinate Stalin and topple the first working state ever first in the history of mankind succeeded in building a socialist society.
The implications of all this were clear to Bland. Namely that the policies put forward by the Comintern cannot be taken at face value but must be evaluated as to whether they were correct or incorrect. That is the real meaning that underlies the ongoing exposure of Piatnitsky.
Bland has been vituperated by the international communist movement for years. Slowly, elements of that movement are verifying the points made by Bland. But only in a piecemeal fashion at present.
(knpottitvm@gmail.com)
Narayanan Potti K;
