1.
Formulate the topic in two simple sentences. Why such a limitation? Because this is the natural length of an intelligible answer to the oral question "What did you want to talk about?"
If you can't articulate the topic in two sentences that grab the reader's attention, then something is wrong. The limitation of two sentences will help hone your thought, determine which lines and episodes are important and which are secondary. Repeat this technique for each chapter. It really helps to build the thought, plot and structure of the text on a segment of any length.
2.
As you explore the topic, try to keep a fresh perspective on things. Yes, you have read a thousand books on the topic, you are already a bit of an expert, but remain an alien, a child who is surprised at what adults have put up with and does not hesitate to ask questions.
3.
There are details and there are details, but they are not the same thing. Details are signs of a hero, an episode that tell something important about a person, a landscape, a scene. And the details are malicious, irrelevant clarifications that could be dispensed with.
Example: "In 2013, the daily milk yield per cow stood at 20 liters, and in 2014 it increased to 40 liters." Why this jumble of numbers if you can simply write "cows began to give twice as much milk"?
4.
Try to have one, maximum two numbers per paragraph. Unless, of course, you are writing an article on accounting or mathematics.
5.
You should not give up your trump cards right away: it is better to hold back the most striking episode, but start a little from afar, in the first sentences to confuse the reader a little, but to interest (even in articles, sometimes you can not present the main character right away).
6.
On the Internet, you can patiently google at least 20 ways to combat procrastination. But, as practice shows, only two are working properly.
Method A is to calculate in advance how many thousand characters you need to write today - and when procrastination enmeshes you, starting to write is as boring as you like, but detailed plan... Through force, persistently - and at the same time without literary processing, just write what you think about this matter.
This activity by itself brings electrodes to the brain, and after a while it will sparkle.
Method B - to talk to yourself, to give a detailed speech in a free form in response to the question "what do I want to say in this piece." After talking, we, as a rule, find successful formulations or moves for the beginning of this or that piece, or even the whole text. If after a few minutes you realize that it is easier for you to speak today, turn on the pre-prepared dictaphone.
7.
Superfluous words are the most terrible enemies. Once you've written a phrase, look at it and discard half the words. Does not work? Change the wording to make it work.
8.
Do not use constructions of three verbs or adjectives in a row.
9.
It is unacceptable to clerk like "carried out scheduled repair work." It looks much better as “repaired”.
10.
Every time you look at a complex description of a complex phenomenon, try to put it in a concise phrase of four to five words.
Assign yourself a number that you cannot go beyond.
Example: if n. has pessimistic forecasts regarding the development of the oil industry ", then it can be formulated in a shorter form:" N. doesn't believe in oil. "
11.
One of the main misconceptions is that one should express himself literally, not write dryly, pour water, expand the text due to the abundance of words, descriptions, and complex structures.
The opposite is true.
If you fully express a thought or situation and show all its complexity in three paragraphs, great. Let it be so. If, for example, you were asked to write an article for a certain magazine and its editor said “at least 6,000 characters,” and you have no more than 3,000, then unfold the idea, plot, look for shades that would be great to tell about, remember others situations and describe them. But in general, a clever editor will accept 3000 - if the author has captured his attention in this short segment.
12.
The shorter the better. Let's say we have a very long sentence in our text. Somewhere in the middle, the reader will get lost in it, not following the logic. But as soon as a long sentence is split into several short ones, attention and positive perception are activated again.
13.
Different lengths of sentences make the text dynamic, easier and more fun to read, gradually mastering each line.
14.
If you are writing informational or commercial text, do not forget about the law of high readability: the shorter the word, the higher the readability. In Russian, a word containing four or more syllables is considered long; in a professional environment there is even a special designation “words 4+”. And when you need to identify the readability of the text, the following gradation is used:
high readability - up to 10% of long words;
average readability - 10-30% of long words;
low readability - over 30%.
15.
People always read carefully what is on the lists. So if part of your story can be presented as a bulleted or numbered list, do it and make sure the result is visually appealing.
16.
Connect your own experiences - both positive and negative. Best stories - these are your personal adventures (the reader can learn about them only from you).
17.
Use visualization words: imagine, see, remember, etc.
18.
Write in aphorisms.
19.
Difficult, but possible: write so that you can feel your smile.
1. Briefly state what is the meaning of your business
Surprisingly, most salespeople find it difficult and confusing to describe their activities over the phone. So, the phrase "we are engaged in IT outsourcing" sounds deadly. Instead, it is better to say: “We are engaged in software for dairy factories. It allows you to reduce costs by 15-40%. " Practice: in 10-15 seconds, tell 15 friends and acquaintances what is the essence of your business. If they understand, you have a good wording.
2. Prepare for difficult questions
Call 20 key companies in your area, introduce yourself as a client, and record the managers' answers to questions that baffle you. Analyze, select the best options and implement at home.
3. Study your business inside and out
If you do not understand what you are selling, the very first highly specialized question (“And what kind of gluten do you have?”) Will confuse you and may disrupt the deal. Find out in the dictionary the meaning of the most common terms in your industry and actively use them in conversation. This will add weight to you as an expert.
4. Do not "load" the interlocutor with a long monologue-patter
One of the typical mistakes in sales is the desire to bring down on potential client all the available information, without allowing him to insert a word. The person on the other end of the line will be grateful to you if you briefly and clearly, in a calm tone, state your proposal, and, most likely, will want to continue the communication.
For example, the following speech combination works well: “Good afternoon, my name is Andrey. (Pause, don't rush!) We supply energy saving light bulbs for businesses in your sector. We are entering the Moscow market with a new product line. Determining the key companies - we will work with them on special conditions. I would like to explain the essence and understand whether we can cooperate with you. "
5. Manage the conversation
To hide insecurity and seize the initiative, some salespeople start talking in a condescending domineering manner. The goal is to make it clear that the subscriber knows nothing about the matter and must listen to everything " knowledgeable people". As practice shows, this behavior sharply repels customers.
The flip side of the coin is too soft, timid approach and complete denial of one's own benefit. “I’m just for a minute… I don’t want to take your time… please read our commercial offer…” The pleading, frightened intonations give the interlocutor the impression that he is dealing with an inexperienced newcomer and should not enter into business relations with him.
Here's an effective voice over to take over the initiative: “To save time, let's do this. I will ask a few questions (by volume, documents, preferences), then I will list the options to choose from. If you like it in general, we will talk in detail. If not, that's okay. Okay?" This gives you permission to ask questions and can control the conversation.
Read more at
Key experience tips successful specialists for telephone sales:
1. Briefly state what the meaning of your business is.
Surprisingly, most salespeople find it difficult and confusing to describe their activities over the phone. So, the phrase "we are engaged in IT outsourcing" sounds deadly.
Instead, it’s better to say, “We do software for dairies. It allows you to reduce costs by 15-40% ”. Practice: In 10-15 seconds, tell 15 friends and acquaintances what the essence of your business is. If they understand, you have a good wording.
2. Prepare for difficult questions.
Call 20 key companies in your area, introduce yourself as a client, and record managers' answers to questions that baffle you on a speakerphone. Analyze, select the best options and implement at home.
3. Study your business inside and out.
If you do not understand what you are selling, the very first highly specialized question (“And what kind of gluten do you have?”) Will confuse you and may disrupt the deal. Find out in the dictionary the meaning of the most common terms in your industry and actively use them in conversation. This will add weight to you as an expert.
4. Do not "load" the interlocutor with a long monologue-patter.
One of typical mistakes in sales - the desire from the doorway to bring down all the information available to the potential client, without allowing him to insert a word. The person on the other end of the line will be grateful if you briefly and clearly state your proposal in a calm tone, and, most likely, will want to continue the communication.
For example, the following speech combination works well: “Good afternoon, my name is Andrey. (Pause, don't rush!) We supply energy saving light bulbs for businesses in your sector. We are entering the Moscow market with a new product line. We are determined with key companies - we will work with them on special terms. I would like to explain the essence and understand whether we can cooperate with you. "
5. Manage the conversation.
To hide insecurity and to seize the initiative, some salespeople start speaking in an indulgent, domineering manner. The goal is to make it clear that the subscriber knows nothing about the matter and must listen to "knowledgeable people" in everything. As practice shows, such behavior sharply repels customers.
The flip side of the coin is too soft, timid approach and complete denial of one's own benefit. “I’m just for a minute… I don’t want to take your time… please read our commercial offer…” The pleading, frightened intonations give the interlocutor the impression that he is dealing with an inexperienced newcomer and should not enter into business relations with him.
Here's an effective voice-over for taking over the initiative: “To save time, let's do this. I will ask a few questions (by volume, documents, preferences), then I will list the options to choose from. If you like it in general, we will talk in detail. If not, that's okay. Okay?" This gives you permission to ask questions and can control the conversation.
March 1938
Presiding (V. V. Ulrikh. - Ed.).We pass to the interrogation of the accused Bukharin. The first question is to the accused Bukharin: do you confirm your testimony at the preliminary investigation about anti-Soviet activities?
Bukharin.I confirm my testimony in full and in full.
Vyshinsky.Briefly state what exactly you are guilty of.
Bukharin.First, in belonging to the counterrevolutionary "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites."
Vyshinsky.From what year?
Bukharin.Since the formation of the block. Even before that, I plead guilty to belonging to a counter-revolutionary organization of the right.
Vyshinsky.From what year?
Bukharin.Since about 1928. I plead guilty to the fact that I was one of the largest leaders of this "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites."
Vyshinsky.What goals was pursued by this counter-revolutionary organization?
Bukharin.This counter-revolutionary organization, in short ...
Vyshinsky.Yes, so far short.
Bukharin.It pursued, in essence, - although, so to speak, perhaps, it was not sufficiently aware and did not put all the "i's" over its main goal - the restoration of capitalist relations in the USSR.
Vyshinsky.Overthrow of Soviet power?
Bukharin.The overthrow of Soviet power was a means to achieve this goal.
Vyshinsky.With help?
Bukharin,Through the use of all the difficulties that are encountered on the path of Soviet power, in particular, through the use of war, which was predictively in the future.
Vyshinsky.Which stood prognostically in the future with whose help?
Bukharin.From the side of foreign states.
Vyshinsky.On the terms?
Bukharin.On the terms, more specifically, of a number of concessions. Up to territorial concessions.
Vyshinsky.I.e?
Bukharin.If we dot all the "i" s, - on the terms of the dismemberment of the USSR.
VYSHINSKY: Separation from the USSR of entire regions and republics? Bukharin. Yes.
Vyshinsky.For instance?
Bukharin.Ukraine, Primorye, Belarus.
Vyshinsky.In favor?
Bukharin.In favor of Germany, in favor of Japan, partly England.
Vyshinsky.What about sabotage things were?
Bukharin.With sabotage, the situation was such that in the end *, especially under pressure from the Trotskyist section of the so-called contact center, which arose around 1933, despite a number of internal differences and manipulative political mechanics, after various vicissitudes, disputes, an orientation towards sabotage was adopted.
Vyshinsky,Consequently, was the focus on weakening on undermining the defenses?
Bukharin.This was not formally, but in fact it is.
Vyshinsky.But actions and activities in this direction were
Bukharin. Yes.
Vyshinsky.Can you say the same about acts of sabotage?
Bukharin.I mainly dealt with the problems of general leadership and the ideological side, which, of course, did not exclude either my awareness of the practical side of the matter, or the adoption of a number of practical steps on my part.
Vyshinsky.But the bloc, at the head of which you stood, set the task of organizing acts of sabotage?
Bukharin.As far as I can judge from separate different things that pop up in my memory, it depends on the specific situation and specific conditions ...
Vyshinsky.Accused Khodzhaev, did you have a conversation with Bukharin about speeding up sabotage?
Khodzhaev... In August 1936 at my dacha, when I talked with Bukharin, he pointed out that sabotage work was poorly organized in our nationalist organization.
Vyshinsky,So what needs to be done?
Khodzhaev... Strengthen, and not only intensify sabotage, but it is necessary to move on to organizing insurgency, terror and the like.
Vyshinsky(to Bukharin). Was it your task to organize an insurrectionary movement?
Bukharin.The rebel orientation was.
Vyshinsky.Was there an orientation? Did you send Slepkov to the North Caucasus to organize this case? Did you send Yakovenko to Biysk for the same purpose?
Bukharin.Yes. Ithought that when you ask about Central Asia, then my answer should be about Central Asia only.
Vyshinsky.So, the organization of the insurrectionary movement took place in the activities of the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites"?
Bukharin.It took place.
Vyshinsky.Did the bloc have an intention to organize terrorist acts, to kill the leaders of the party and the Soviet government?
Bukharin.It was, and I think that this organization should be dated around 1932, in the fall.
Vyshinsky.And your attitude to the murder of Sergei Mironovich Kirov? Was this murder also committed with the knowledge and instructions of the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites"?
Bukharin.This was not known to me.
Vyshinsky.Accused Rykov, what do you know about the murder of Sergei Mironovich Kirov?
Rykov.I do not know about any participation of the right and right side of the bloc in the murder of Kirov.
Vyshinsky.Were you associated with Yenukidze?
Rykov.With Yenukidze? Very little.
Vyshinsky.Was he a member of the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites"?
Rykov.Been since 1933.
Vyshinsky.Accused Yagoda, do you know that Yenukidze, about whom the accused Rykov spoke now, represented the right side of the bloc and was directly involved in organizing the murder of Sergei Mironovich Kirov?
Berry.Both Rykov and Bukharin are not telling the truth. Rykov and Yenukidze took part in the meeting of the centers where the question of the murder of Sergei Mironovich Kirov was discussed.
Vyshinsky.Did the right have anything to do with this? Berry. Direct, since the bloc is a Trotskyite bloc.
Vyshinsky.Did the defendants Rykov and Bukharin, in particular, have anything to do with this murder?
Berry.Direct.
Vyshinsky.Did you have anything to do with this murder, as a member of the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites"?
Berry. Had.
Vyshinsky.Are Bukharin and Rykov now telling the truth that they did not know about it?
Berry... This cannot be, because when Yenukidze told me that they, that is, the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites," had decided at a joint meeting the issue of committing a terrorist act on Kirov, I categorically objected ...
Vyshinsky.Why?
Berry... I declared that I would not allow any terrorist acts. I considered it completely unnecessary.
Vyshinsky.And dangerous for the organization?
Berry... Sure. Rykov and Yenukidze at first categorically objected to the terrorist act, but under pressure from the rest of the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" they agreed. That's what Yenukidze told me.
Vyshinsky.After that, did you personally take any measures to make the murder of Sergei Mironovich Kirov come true?
Berry. I gave orders to Zaporozhets. When Nikolaev was detained ...
Vyshinsky.First time?
Berry.Yes. Zaporozhets arrived and reported to me that a man was detained ...
Vyshinsky.Which one in the portfolio?
Berry.There was a revolver and a diary. And he freed him.
Vyshinsky.Did you approve of this?
Berry. Itook note of this.
Vyshinsky.And then you gave instructions not to obstruct the assassination of Sergei Mironovich Kirov?
Berry.Yes, I did ...
Vyshinsky.There is one more question for Bukharin. Is your attitude towards terror positive or negative, towards terrorism against Soviet leaders?
Bukharin.You ask ... I, as a member of the "Trotskyite center", was I a supporter ...
Vyshinsky.Terrorist acts.
Bukharin.Was.
Vyshinsky.Against who?
Bukharin.Against the leaders of the party and government.
Vyshinsky.Did you become such a supporter from about 1929-1930?
Bukharin.No, I think it's been around since 1932.
Vyshinsky.And in 1918 you were not a supporter of the murder of the leaders of our party and government?
Bukharin.No wasn `t.
Vyshinsky.Were you a supporter of Lenin's arrest?
Bukharin.Arrest? There were two such cases ...
Vyshinsky.It was?
Bukharin. Yes.
Vyshinsky.And about killing Vladimir Ilyich?
Bukharin.It was said for the first time about being detained for 24 hours.
Vyshinsky.And did you count on the arrest of Comrade Stalin in 1918?
Bukharin.There was talk about the formation of a new government of "left communists".
Vyshinsky.Ii ask, did you have a plan to arrest Comrade Stalin in 1918?
Bukharin.There was a plan to arrest Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov.
Vyshinsky.Comrades Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov?
Bukharin.Quite right.
Vyshinsky.And what about the murder of comrades Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov?
Bukharin.In no case.
Vyshinsky.I will petition the court to summon today by the end of the session or at the next court session witnesses on this issue: the former active member of the group of "left communists" Yakovlev, former active members of the so-called group of "left communists" Osinsky, Mantsev and then of the The Central Committee of the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries Karechin and Kamkov in order to interrogate them on the question of whether Bukharin and the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries had and what kind of plan for the arrest and murder of comrades Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov.
Presiding(after consultation with members of the court). The court decided to grant the petition of the public prosecutor to summon as witnesses: Yakovleva, Osinsky, Mantsev, Karelin and Kamkov.
Accused Bukharin, if you want to say something about your criminal anti-Soviet activities, please, you have the floor.
Bukharin.I want to dwell on the question of the restoration of capitalism. Allow me?
Vyshinsky.Of course, this is your main specialty.
Bukharin.I would like to start with the ideological guidelines. I want to answer the question that the citizen public prosecutor asked Rakovsky - in the name of what the "right-Trotskyist bloc" carried out such a criminal struggle against Soviet power. I realize that I am not a lecturer and should not read sermons here, but I am a defendant who must be held accountable as a criminal facing the court of a proletarian country.
We have all turned into bitter counter-revolutionaries, traitors to the socialist homeland, we turned into spies, terrorists, restorers of capitalism. We went for betrayal, crime, treason. We turned into an insurgent detachment, organized terrorist groups, engaged in sabotage, wanted to overthrow the Soviet power of the proletariat.
Vyshinsky.You tell me, accused Bukharin, how did this practically turn into anti-Soviet activity in your country?
Bukharin.Then let me list some of the program points. And now I will turn to an exposition of my counter-revolutionary practical activities.
If we formulate practically my programmatic directive, it will be in relation to the economy - state capitalism, the economic muzhik - an individual, the reduction of collective farms, foreign concessions, the concession to the monopoly of foreign trade and the result is the capitalization of the country.
Vyshinsky.What were your goals? What was your overall prediction?
Bukharin,The forecast boiled down to the fact that there will be a greater tilt towards capitalism.
Vyshinsky.But it turned out?
Bukharin.But it turned out to be quite different.
Vyshinsky.But it turned out to be the complete victory of socialism.
Bukharin.The complete victory of socialism turned out to be.
Vyshinsky.And the complete collapse of your forecast?
Bukharin.And the complete collapse of our forecast. Inside the country, our actual program, it must be said, is a slide towards bourgeois-democratic freedom, a coalition, because from the bloc with the Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and others follows the freedom of parties, and the coalition follows quite logically from blocking the struggle, because if you select allies for yourself to overthrow the government, then on the second day, in the event of a mental victory, they would be accomplices in power. A slide not only on the rails of bourgeois-democratic freedom, but in the political sense - on the rails where there are undoubtedly elements of Caesarism.
Vyshinsky.Speak simply - fascism.
Bukharin.If in the circles of the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" there was an ideological orientation toward the kulaks and, at the same time, an orientation toward a palace and coup d'etat, toward a military conspiracy, toward the praetorian guard of counterrevolutionaries, then this is nothing more than elements of fascism.
Vyshinsky.In short, you have slipped into outright rabid fascism.
Bukharin.Yes, that is correct, although we did not put all the dots on the "i"
Now let me go straight to the presentation of my criminal activities.
Vyshinsky.Maybe I can first ask two or three questions of a biographical nature? Have you lived in Austria?
Bukharin.Lived.
Vyshinsky.Long?
Bukharin.1912-1913 years.
Vyshinsky.You had no connection with the Austrian police?
Bukharin.Did not have.
Vyshinsky.Lived in America?
Bukharin. Yes.
Vyshinsky.Long?
Bukharin.Months 7.
Vyshinsky.In America, were you not connected with the police?
Bukharin.Absolutely not.
Vyshinsky.From America to Russia you traveled through ...
Bukharin.Through Japan.
Vyshinsky.How long have you been there?
Bukharin.A week.
Vyshinsky,Have you been recruited this week?
Bukharin.If you want to ask such questions ...
Vyshinsky.I have the right to ask such questions on the basis of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Presiding Officer.The prosecutor all the more has the right to ask such a question, because you, Bukharin, are accused of attempting to murder the leaders of the party back in 1918, of raising your hand in the life of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin back in 1918.
Vyshinsky.I do not go beyond the framework of the Criminal Procedure Code. Okay - you can say no, and I can ask.
Bukharin.Absolutely correct.
Vyshinsky.No connections with the police?
Bukharin.Absolutely.
Vyshinsky.Then why did you come so easily to the bloc that was engaged in espionage work?
Bukharin.I know absolutely nothing about espionage work.
Vyshinsky.And what was the block doing?
Bukharin.There were two testimonies regarding espionage - Sharangovich and Ivanov, that is, two provocateurs.
Vyshinsky.Accused Bukharin, do you consider Rykov a provocateur?
Bukharin.No, I don't.
Vyshinsky.(To Rykov). Accused Rykov, do you know that the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" conducted espionage work?
Rykov. Ii know that there were organizations that carried out espionage work.
Vyshinsky.Tell me, did the Belarusian national-fascist organization, which is part of your "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites," led by the accused Sharangovich, carried out espionage work?
Rykov. Yes.
Vyshinsky.Was it connected with Polish intelligence?
Rykov.Yes.
Vyshinsky.Did you know about this?
Rykov.I knew.
Vyshinsky.Didn't Bukharin know?
Rykov.In my opinion, Bukharin also knew.
Vyshinsky.So, accused Bukharin, it is not Sharangovich who is talking about this, but your friend Rykov.
Bukharin.But still, I didn't know.
Vyshinsky.I would like to explain to the accused Bukharin. Do you now understand why I am asking you about Austria?
Bukharin.The connection with the Austrian police was that I was sitting in a fortress in Austria.
Vyshinsky.Accused Sharangovich, you were a Polish spy even though you were in prison?
Sharangovich.He was, although he was sitting.
Bukharin. Iserved in a Swedish prison, twice in a Russian prison, in a German prison.
Vyshinsky.The fact that you were in prison does not mean that you could not be a spy.
Accused Rykov, do you confirm that after all the snares and imprisonment in prisons of different countries, Bukharin, together with you, knew about Sharangovich's espionage connection with Polish intelligence? Did you know and approve of this?
Rykov.I knew about the organizations that conduct espionage work.
Vyshinsky.The fact that Bukharin was in different prisons did not prevent him from approving the connections with the Polish intelligence of his accomplices. Do you understand this?
Bukharin. Iunderstand, but I deny it.
Vyshinsky.When did your counter-revolutionary right-wing organization take shape?
Bukharin.Approximately, in 1928-29, my rapprochement with Tomsk and Rykov belongs, then - contacts and probing among the then members of the Central Committee, illegal meetings, and on this basis a kind of organization of leadership of a right-wing organization quickly grew, which can be depicted as a hierarchical ladder at the head with a troika - Rykov, Tomsky and me ...
In 1930-1931, the next stage in the development of the counter-revolutionary organization of the right began. At that time, there was a great aggravation of the class struggle in the country, the sabotage of the kulaks, the resistance of the kulaks to party policy, and so on. I consider this stage as a transition to "double-entry bookkeeping" along the entire front. The troika has turned into an illegal center, and therefore, if earlier this trio was the head of opposition circles, then it has now turned into the center of an illegal counter-revolutionary organization.
Close to this illegal center was Yenukidze, who had a connection with this center through Tomsky. Uglanov was also standing close to him.
Approximately by the fall of 1932, the next stage in the development of the right-wing organization began, namely, the transition to the tactics of the violent overthrow of Soviet power.
In general, I date the transition to the tactics of violent overthrow by the moment when the so-called Ryutin platform was fixed. She was named Ryutin for conspiratorial purposes to hedge against failure.
Just at this very moment, the situation turned out that Trotsky had to throw off his leftist uniform. When it came to the exact formulations of what should be done in the end, his right platform was immediately revealed, that is, he had to talk about decollectivization and so on.
Vyshinsky.That is, you armed Trotskyism ideologically as well?
Bukharin... Quite right. There was such a balance of forces that Trotsky pressed in the sense of sharpening the methods of struggle, and we armed him ideologically to a certain extent. The Ryutin platform recorded the transition to the tactics of the forcible overthrow of Soviet power. The Ryutin platform was tested on behalf of the right-wing center. The essence of the Ryutin platform included the "palace coup", terror, the course towards a direct link with the Trotskyists. At that time, a political blockade arose with Kamenev, Zinoviev. During this period, there were meetings with Syrtsov and Lominadze.
I used legal opportunities for anti-Soviet, illegal purposes. Pyatakov told in a conversation that took place in the summer of 1932 about a meeting with Sodov regarding Trotsky's attitude to terror. At that time, Pyatakov and I believed that these were not our ideas, but we decided that we would very quickly find a common language and that the differences in the struggle against Soviet power would be eliminated. Tomsky and Rykov, perhaps I'm wrong, talked with Kamenev and Sokolnikov. I remember that during this period Tomsky especially insisted on the implementation of a coup d'etat and on the concentration of all forces, while the members of the right-wing center were guided by the insurrectionary movement. In 1932, a counter-revolutionary bloc of rightists, Trotskyists and Kamenevites-Zinovievites was formed.
With this, the evening session on March 6 ends, and the Presiding Officer announces a break until 11:00 on March 7.
Presiding Officer.Accused Bukharin, continue your testimony about your anti-Soviet activities.
Bukharin.The day before yesterday I ended by saying that at the end of 1932 a bloc of Rightists, Trotskyists, and Zinovievites was formed, approximately on the basis of the Ryutin platform. By this time, terrorist sentiments had already begun to emerge among the participants in the counter-revolutionary organization of the Right. They could be ascertained in the circle of my so-called students, in Matveev's group, grouped around Uglanov, among Rykov's supporters and among some trade unionists. The creation of a group of conspirators in the Red Army belongs to this period. I heard about this from Tomsky, who was directly informed about this by Yenukidze.
At about the same time, that is, by the end of 1932 or the beginning of 1933, a so-called contact center was formed, which included representatives of various anti-party counter-revolutionary currents, including the right.
The inception of the idea of \u200b\u200ba coup d'etat among us, among the right-wing conspirators, dates back to about 1929-30. This idea was first expressed by Tomsky in connection with the fact that Yenukidze, who was personally associated with Tomsky and often communicated with him, at that time the Kremlin's security was concentrated. And at the same time, one could speak of the use of his official position by Rykov, who was the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars.
During this period, we already discussed the issue of overthrowing the Soviet government by force with the help of a group of military participants in the conspiracy.
Vyshinsky.In the person of Tukhachevsky, Primakov and some others?
Bukharin.Quite right. By 1931-1932, due to a change in the political situation, emphasis was placed on the development of the insurrectionary movement, and several kulak uprisings were provoked by the counter-revolutionary right-wing organization headed by the right-wing center.
Vyshinsky.Under your direct direction and guidance?
Bukharin.Quite right. I am Ambassador Slepkov to prepare a kulak uprising in the Kuban, Rykov sent Eismont to the Caucasus, who made contact with the right-wing Pivovarov and the Trotskyist Beloborodov. In addition, I can report that P. Petrovsky and Zaitsev informed me about kulak sabotage as a preliminary stage of more acute forms of struggle.
Vyshinsky.Since you mentioned Eismont, I would like to ask you about your connections with White Guards and German fascists. Do you know this circumstance?
Bukharin.I don't know that. Anyway, I don't understand. Vyshinsky(to the court). Let Rykov ask. What can you say about this?
Rykov.I knew from Pivovarov that the Cossack union, which was organized by order, on the advice of Slepkov ...
Vyshinsky.White Guard Cossack Union?
Rykov.Yes ... through the re-emigrants who were part of the cadres of this counter-revolutionary organization, he had connections with the remnants of the Cossack emigration abroad. And in this regard, assistance was provided german fascists.
Vyshinsky,Accused Bukharin, did you know about this, did you know Pivovarov?
Bukharin.I didn't know Pivovarov.
Vyshinsky.Rykov knew that Pivovarov was the head of the local organization of traitors, counterrevolutionaries in the North Caucasus and that he was connected with White Guard Cossack circles abroad, but you, Bukharin, did not know?
Bukharin. Ii do not dispute the possibility of such a fact, but I did not know it.
Vyshinsky.Accused Rykov, did Bukharin know about this fact or did he not?
Rykov.The initiative to organize this union, according to Pivovarov, belonged to Slepkov, whom Bukharin had sent to the North Caucasus and to whom, I believe, Bukharin gave certain instructions and directives.
Vyshinsky.Consequently, this connection originated along the Bukharin line?
Rykov.The idea came along the Bukharin line.
Vyshinsky.An idea and its practical implementation?
Rykov.Slepkov did this.
Bukharin,That I sent Slepkov, I do not deny. I sent him to get in touch with the White Guard Cossack circles.
Vyshinsky.Accused Bukharin, is it a fact or not a fact that a group of your accomplices in the North Caucasus were connected with White émigré Cossack circles abroad? Rykov talks about this. Slepkov talks about this.
Bukharin.If Rykov talks about this, I have no reason not to believe him.
Vyshinsky.You, as a conspirator and leader, knew this fact?
Bukharin.From the point of view of mathematical probability, we can say with a very high probability that this is a fact.
Vyshinsky.Let me ask Rykov again: Bukharin was aware of this fact?
Rykov.I personally believe with mathematical probability that he should have known about it.
Vyshinsky.Clear. Accused Bukharin, did you know that Karakhan was a member of a Trotskyite conspiratorial group?
Bukharin.It is known.
Vyshinsky.Did you know that Karakhan is a German spy?
Bukharin.No, it is not known.
Vyshinsky(to Rykov). Accused Rykov, did you know that Karakhan was negotiating with certain German circles?
Rykov.Yes Yes.
Vyshinsky.Treasonable negotiations?
Rykov.Treacherous.
Vyshinsky.Karakhan, on behalf of your bloc, intended to cede some part of the Union territory to the Germans?
Rykov.Ii have not seen Karakhan myself, I know this from the words of Tomsky, who expounded in my presence and in the presence of Bukharin.
Vyshinsky.So Bukharin knew too? Allow me to ask Bukharin. Did you know?
Bukharin.I knew.
Rykov.The presentation was such that the German fascists accept these conditions, that is, privileges on concessions, trade agreements, and so on, but on their part they demand that the national republics be granted the right of free separation.
Vyshinsky.Well, what does this mean?
Rykov.It means - not what we suggested. This was a new demand from the Germans. This, of course, means in business language the dismemberment of the USSR.
Vyshinsky.That is, the return of part of the USSR to the Germans?
Rykov.Sure.
Vyshinsky.Did you mean to tear away Ukraine in favor of German fascism?
Rykov.Practically speaking, it could be about Belarus.
Vyshinsky.And what about Ukraine?
Rykov.We could not resolve this issue without the consent of the Ukrainian counter-revolutionary organizations.
Vyshinsky.Then I turn to the accused Bukharin. Did you negotiate with Radek about this in 1934?
Bukharin.Radek told me about his negotiations with Trotsky that Trotsky had negotiations with the German fascists on territorial concessions for aid to counter-revolutionary organizations.
Vyshinsky.Did Radek tell you that, on Trotsky's orders, you must yield, give the Ukraine back to the Germans?
Bukharin.As for Ukraine, I remember positively, it was also about other areas, but which I do not remember.
Vyshinsky.You have shown in this way: "that Trotsky, while forcing the terror, still considers the main chance for the bloc's coming to power to be the defeat of the USSR in the war with Germany and Japan through territorial concessions (to the Germans - Ukraine, to the Japanese - Far East) ". Was it?
Bukharin.Yes it was.
Vyshinsky(to Rykov). You showed at the preliminary investigation and here at the trial that Karakhan negotiated with the German fascists to help your conspiracy. Was it a fact or was it not?
Rykov,We have taken measures to facilitate the practice of the right-wing center. This was realized in the work, in the leadership in relation to Belarus.
Vyshinsky.So, the Germans were worried about Belarus in favor of whom?
Rykov.What the Germans were worried about, I cannot say.
Vyshinsky.They were worried that you would give Belarus to whom? Not to the Germans?
Rykov.To the Poles.
Vyshinsky,And what about the Germans? It turns out that the Germans are bothering for whom? For the Poles? The Germans are doing you a favor, and you are giving Belarus to the Poles in return. They find themselves in a ridiculous position. (Rykov is silent).
Vyshinsky.Now I'm moving on to the first question. Consequently, Karakhan was negotiating with the Germans. Apparently, this happened with the knowledge of your bloc. Did Bukharin know about this?
Rykov.Tomsky told Bukharin and me about this.
Bukharin. Ii found out about it after the fact, because Karakhan ...
Vyshinsky.Did you approve of Karakhan's negotiations on behalf of the bloc with the German fascists?
Bukharin.In general, regarding the negotiations ... I approved, that is, I believed that it was expedient ...
Vyshinsky.Not in general, but the negotiations led by Karakhan? Have you approved these negotiations?
Bukharin.Not disavowed, therefore, approved.
Vyshinsky.And you say that you found out about it after the fact. Permit me to ask the accused Rykov. Did Karakhan conduct these negotiations on his own initiative?
Rykov.He led them on instructions, on the initiative of Tomsky, but Bukharin and I approved this initiative when we were reported on these negotiations.
Vyshinsky.Did you approve not only the fact of negotiations, but also the initiative, that is, the whole matter?
Rykov.Both of us are not small people. If you don't approve of such things, then you have to fight them. You cannot play neutrality in such things.
Vyshinsky.So, it can be established that with the knowledge of Bukharin, Karakhan was negotiating with the German fascists. Do you confirm this, accused Rykov?
Rykov. Yes.
Vyshinsky.So, accused Bukharin, are you responsible for these negotiations between Karakhan and the Germans?
Bukharin.Certainly.
Vyshinsky.The defendant Rykov said that at that time it was a question of rejecting Belarus. So I understand?
Bukharin.I imagine it is not at all like that.
Rykov.Tomsky told us that the Germans told Karakhan that, in addition to economic concessions, the German fascists insist on granting the national republics the right of separation. We immediately understood and interpreted this to mean that we are talking about the dismemberment of the USSR.
Vyshinsky.That is, about giving up Belarus?
Rykov.And right there in general form we accepted it.
Vyshinsky.Who are we"?
Rykov.I , Bukharin and Tomsky.
Vyshinsky,Is that correct, accused Bukharin?
Bukharin.Not really. Not about Belarus, but about Ukraine.
Vyshinsky.Yeah, now about Ukraine. But it was still about Belarus. Allow me to present the accused Rykov with his testimony, Volume 1, page 119: “I must, however, say that the question of orienting ourselves towards Poland, from the point of view of enlisting its support in the event of our coming to power, arose much earlier, namely in 1930- 1931 ". Do you confirm this?
Rykov. Yes.
Vyshinsky.I am announcing further: "The general formula, on which we then agreed, was that in negotiations with the Poles, contact with whom through Chervyakov had already been established by that time, we would agree to reject the Belarusian Soviet Republic from the USSR." Right? With whom did you discuss this issue?
Rykov.I discussed this with Glazed and Chervyakov, they were in the know.
Vyshinsky.They were in the know. Was Bukharin aware of the matter?
Rykov. Yes.
Vyshinsky.Accused Bukharin, did you know about all this?
Bukharin.In 1930, such a question could not have arisen, Hitler by this time was not yet in power.
Vyshinsky.In 1930-31, did you have any conversations with Rykov and Tomsky?
Bukharin. Ii don't remember that.
Vyshinsky.Don't you remember? Accused Rykov, what do you say?
Rykov.The first message about this was made by Tomsky, he referred to Chervyakov, who was at his dacha. And then, according to Tomsky, the three of us discussed this issue and this proposal to contact the counter-revolutionary Belarusian organization was accepted. In any case, it was in Bukharin's presence.
Vyshinsky.Since it was in Bukharin's presence, it means Bukharin knew it.
Let me turn to Sharangovich, one of the leaders of the Belarusian underground conspirators' organization. What do you say about this, accused Sharangovich?
Sha rankovich.Both Glazed and Chervyakov informed our organization about this installation as an accomplished fact. Moreover, I must say that Tomsky never figured in conversations about this attitude, it was about Rykov and Bukharin. At the same time, Chervyakov had several conversations with Bukharin, and after the conversations he not only informed me, but informed our organization at a meeting of the center with references to Bukharin and Rykov.
Vyshinsky.The next paragraph of Rykov's answer, page 120: "Chervyakov launched an extremely active activity in Belarus. In their relations with the Poles, he and those associated with him in illegal activities drew all practical conclusions from this directive of ours." Do you confirm this, Rykov?
Rykov.Sure.
Vyshinsky.Consequently, Chervyakov and the people associated with you had a systematic connection with the Poles?
Rykov. Yes.
Vyshinsky.What is this connection?
Rykov.There was also a spy connection.
Vyshinsky.Did you have spy connections with the Poles in a part of your organization on your instructions?
Rykov.Sure.
Vyshinsky.Including Bukharin?
Rykov.Sure.
Vyshinsky.Were you and Bukharin obliged?
Rykov.Certainly.
Vyshinsky.So you were spies? (Rykov is silent).
Vyshinsky.And the organizers of espionage?
Rykov.I'm no better than a spy.
Vyshinsky.Were you the organizers of espionage, were you spies?
Rykov... We can say yes.
Vyshinsky.Accused Bukharin, do you plead guilty to espionage?
Bukharin. Ii don't admit it.
Vyshinsky.And what does Rykov say, and what does Sharangovich say? Are you interested in espionage cases?
Bukharin. Ii did not receive any information about this type of activity.
Vyshinsky.You have no need to put on a lean face, accused Bukharin, and you must confess that there is. And there is this: you had a group of your accomplices, conspirators in Belarus, headed by Glaze, Chervyakov, Sharangovich. Right, Sharangovich?
Sharangovich.Right.
Vyshinsky.And on the instructions of Bukharin and Rykov, under their leadership, you got in touch with the Polish intelligence and the Polish General Staff? Right, Sharangovich?
Sharangovich.Absolutely correct.
Vyshinsky.Therefore, who was the organizer of the espionage that you did?
Sharangovich.Rykov, Bukharin.
Vyshinsky.So they were spies, just like ...
Sharangovich.As well as myself.
Vyshinsky(to Rykov). Accused Rykov, in 1932 Golled told you that all any major appointments of people to leading posts in Belarus were previously agreed with the Polish intelligence service?
Rykov. Yes.
Vyshinsky.Did Bukharin know about this?
Rykov.I cannot say that.
Vyshinsky.Do not know? Don't want to betray your friend? Do you think that it would be natural for the same Glazed to have a conversation with Bukharin on this issue, or should they have conspired it from Bukharin?
Rykov. Ii think that, naturally, he spoke with Bukharin, but what they were talking about, I do not know.
Vyshinsky.Do you know about the treasonous activities of the Polish spy Ulyanov?
Rykov.I know.
Vyshinsky.Did Bukharin know about this?
Rykov. Ii do not know.
Vyshinsky.Do you know about the treasonous activities of the Polish spy Ulyanov?
Rykov.I know.
Vyshinsky.Bukharin knows?
Rykov.I do not know.
Vyshinsky.Allow me then, Comrade Chairman, to read the sheet of file 127, which contains a question to Rykov and his answer: “Question: With regard to awareness and leadership of the activities of your organization in Belarus, you always talk almost exclusively about yourself. : What I showed here ... "And you showed here about Benek, about Ulyanov, about the directive of the Poles about undermining the defenses, about the appointment with the knowledge of the Polish intelligence officials - you showed it ... "What I showed here, of course, the other members of the center also knew. Bukharin and Tomsky knew ..." Do you confirm this?
Rykov.This applies to our entire attitude towards Belarus.
Vyshinsky.No, you won't get out here. I will read on ... "Bukharin and Tomsky knew, Schmidt was also partially involved in these matters" - you mean Vasily Schmidt. “I dwelt more on my role for the reason that, according to the decision of the center, the main contacts in the Belarusian anti-Soviet organization of the right were concentrated in my hands.” Clear?
Rykov.This is clear to me.
Vyshinsky.I ask the court to be sure. What I have quoted has full identity with what is recorded in the original protocol signed by Rykov, and I ask you to show this to Rykov so that he can identify his signature.
Rykov.I do not deny.
Presiding Officer.I confirm that these quotes correspond to the genuine protocol, which has Rykov's signature on every page.
Vyshinsky(to Rykov. Byyour assumption, did Bukharin know about these espionage connections or not?
Rykov.He should have known, but in less detail and less detail than I knew.
Vyshinsky.I am not asking you about the details, but about the being. Did Bukharin know the creature?
Rykov.Bukharin was informed about the nature of the connection and knew about it.
Vyshinsky. Ithis is what I wanted to install. Allow me to consider it established that Rykov and Bukharin knew about the essence of the treasonous connection, which included espionage. I have no more questions.
Presiding Officer.
Bukharin.In 1933-34, the kulaks were already defeated. The insurrectionary movement ceased to be a real possibility, and therefore, in the center of the right-wing organization, a period came again when the orientation towards a counter-revolutionary conspiratorial coup became the central idea.
The forces of the conspiracy were the forces of Yenukidze plus Yagoda, and Yenukidze at that time managed to recruit, as far as I remember, the former commandant of the Kremlin Peterson, who, by the way, was at one time the commandant of Trotsky's train, then the military organization of the conspirators: Tukhachevsky, Kork and others ...
Vyshinsky.What year was that?
Bukharin.I believe it was in 1933-34.
Vyshinsky.And at the same time you were negotiating with Khodjayev of a defeatist-treasonous nature?
Bukharin.I had only one conversation with Khodjaev in 1936.
Vyshinsky.Did you talk with Khodjayev that there is already an agreement with Nazi Germany?
Bukharin.No, I didn't.
Vyshinsky(to the court). Allow me to ask the accused Khodzhaev.
Accused Khodzhaev, did Bukharin talk to you?
Khodzhaev.Yes, he did.
Vyshinsky.How, where, when, what exactly?
Khodzhaev. ATthe month of August, when Bukharin arrived in Tashkent. The conversation between me and Bukharin took place at my dacha in Chimgan. After reviewing the internal situation in the USSR, Bukharin said that our activity should be directed in such a way that this activity would help lead to the defeat of the Union. According to him, the internal and external situation led to this. He said that we, the Rights, have an agreement with Nazi Germany and are outlining an agreement with Japan.
Vyshinsky.Accused Bukharin, were you at Khodzhaev's dacha?
Bukharin.Was.
Vyshinsky.Did you have a conversation?
Bukharin.Not this, but another conversation, also conspiratorial ...
Vyshinsky.I'm not asking about the conversation at all, but about this
conversation.
Bukharin. AT"This" is considered the most difficult word for Hegel's logic ...
Vyshinsky. Ii ask the court to explain to the accused Bukharin that he is not a philosopher here, but a criminal, and it is useful for him to refrain from talking about Hegelian philosophy, it would be better, first of all, for Hegelian philosophy ...
Bukharin.There was a conversation at the dacha.
Vyshinsky.Accused Bukharin, do you confirm the testimony of Khodzhaev?
Bukharin. Isaid that we will have to deal with different foreign states and that we cannot deal with only one grouping, but we need to deal with others.
Vyshinsky.Was there a talk about England?
Bukharin.Was.
Vyshinsky.Was there a talk about Japan?
Bukharin.Was.
Vyshinsky.Was there a conversation about Germany?
Bukharin.Was.
Vyshinsky.Was there a talk about the need to use both in the interests of your struggle against Soviet power?
Bukharin.There was no such formulation of the question. This was the first time I spoke with Khodjayev.
Vyshinsky.Did you talk with Khodjayev about the overthrow of Soviet power, which your conspiratorial group was preparing?
Bukharin.He spoke in closed, hazy formulas.
Vyshinsky.In such, however, formulas so that he understands everything? Bukharin.Quite right.
Vyshinsky(to Khodzhaev). Did you understand?
Khodzhaev... Absolutely.
Vyshinsky.So Khodjayev is right, what did you tell him about connections with British intelligence officers?
Bukharin.But that was not the case.
Vyshinsky(to Khojaev). Was it like that, Khodzhaev?
Khodzhaev... It was.
We established with him that it is better to act either through the Tajik people, or to send a person to Afghanistan.
Vyshinsky(to Bukharin). Once again, I ask, on the basis of what has been shown against you here, would you like to confess before a Soviet court what intelligence you were recruited by - British, German or Japanese?
Bukharin.No.
Vyshinsky.I have no questions for Bukharin yet. Presiding Officer. Accused Bukharin, continue your testimony, just be more specific.
Bukharin.In the period around the 17th party congress, on the initiative of Tomsky, the idea arose that a coup d'etat by using armed counter-revolutionary forces should be timed to coincide with the 17th party congress. According to Tomsky, part of this coup was a monstrous crime - to arrest the 17th Party Congress.
Pyatakov opposed this idea not for reasons of principle, but for considerations of a tactical nature: this would have caused exceptional indignation among the masses. This idea was rejected.
I must say that in much more early period I personally gave instructions to Semenov about organizing terrorist groups, and I reported on this in our right center. This was accepted. Thus, more than any other member of the center, I am responsible for organizing Semenov's terrorist groups. I also gave instructions to the Socialist-Revolutionary Semyonov, about whom it was the third day during interrogation, to contact the underground members of the Socialist-Revolutionary Central Committee.
Secondly, I tried to establish contact with foreign organizations and groups of Socialist-Revolutionaries through a certain S. B. Chlenov. The Socialist-Revolutionaries responded with a principled agreement to maintain the bloc and contact with the Rights, Trotskyists, Zinovievites and others, but they demanded formal guarantees, almost in writing. The conditions they set boil down to a change in the peasant policy in the spirit of a kulak orientation and then to the legalization of the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik parties, from which, of course, followed the coalition composition of the government that would arise in the event of a successful conspiracy.
In addition, personally personally, during my last trip abroad in 1936, after a conversation with Rykov, I established contact with the Menshevik Nikolayevsky, who is very close to the leading circles of the Menshevik Party. From a conversation with Nikolayevsky, I found out that he was aware of the agreements between the right-wing, Zinoviev, Kamenev people and the Trotskyists, that he was generally aware of all kinds of affairs, including the Ryutin platform. That concrete and new, about which there was a conversation between us, was that, in the event of a failure of the center of the right, or
contact center, or in general the top organization of the entire conspiracy, through Nikolayevsky there will be an agreement with the leaders of the 11th International that they will launch a corresponding campaign in the press.
Apart from me personally, some other of the major leaders of the Trotskyite organization of the Rights had the same connections, establishing criminal contacts with representatives of long-established counter-revolutionary organizations.
Rykov had connections through Nikolayevsky with the Mensheviks, and A.L.Smirnov had very important connections. They were established even when he was in the People's Commissariat of Agriculture, where, as is known, there were a number of the largest leaders of the Socialist-Revolutionary or near-Socialist-Revolutionary movement.
Thus, there is no doubt whatsoever - and I fully admit this fully and completely - that in addition to blocking with the Trotskyists, Zinovievists, Kamenevites, bourgeois-nationalist organizations, there was also a completely direct and real connection with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, of which the direct culprit was to a large extent I myself was, of course, as the leading center of the Rights. It was primarily about the underground Socialist-Revolutionaries who remained here, that is, about the former central committee of the official Socialist-Revolutionary Party and, secondly, about a foreign organization, which mainly concentrated around such a figure as Mark Vishnyak, the former secretary of the Constituent Assembly.
Vyshinsky. Ii would like to ask you about the SR questions. Here Bessonov testified regarding his trip to Prague and his meeting with Sergei Maslov. There, in the conversation between Bessonov and Maslov, there was a reference to Bukharin and Rykov. Accused Bessonov, did Maslov tell you that he is aware of Bukharin's underground activities?
Bessonov.He said that he was aware of the counter-revolutionary views of the right opposition and their underground activities.
Vyshinsky.Accused Bukharin, did you have a direct connection with Maslov?
Bukharin.No.
Vyshinsky.Accused Bessonov, do you also know who Maslov was in Prague? That he was the organizer of the counter-revolutionary kulak party? That he lived on the funds of foreign intelligence and on the funds of his newspapers and magazines? So, accused Bessonov?
Kessonov.Quite right.
Vyshinsky.Through whom was he informed?
Bukharin.I am not aware of this, but I assume that it was done through the remaining members of the Central Committee of the Social Revolutionaries abroad.
Vyshinsky.Were you connected with the Central Committee of the Socialist-Revolutionaries?
Bukharin.Through Chlenov with Rapoport.
Vyshinsky.Socialist-Revolutionary?
Bukharin.This Rape port was associated with Mark Vishnyak.
Vyshinsky.This means that you assume that Sergei Maslov was informed about your underground activities through members of the foreign Central Committee of the Socialist-Revolutionary organization, or ...
Bukharin.Or Rapoporta, or Vishnyak.
Vyshinsky(to Rykov). Did you inform Nikolayevsky about your underground work?
Rykov. Yes.
Vyshinsky.Accused Bukharin, go on.
Bukharin.With the coming to power of the Nazis in Germany, an exchange of views began among the elite of the counter-revolutionary organizations regarding the possibility of using foreign states in connection with the military situation.
In the summer of 1934 Radek told me that directives had been received from Trotsky that Trotsky was negotiating with the Germans, that Trotsky had already promised the Germans a number of territorial concessions, including Ukraine. If my memory serves me, it also featured territorial concessions to Japan.
I must say that then, at that time, I objected to Radek. It seemed to me that with the development of a mass of yogi patriotism, which is not subject to any doubt, this point of view of Trotsky is politically and tactically inexpedient from the point of view of the conspiratorial plan itself, that here one must act much more carefully.
Vyshinsky.Who said this?
Bukharin. Isaid it. I even thought that preliminary negotiations were completely unnecessary.
Vyshinsky.In order not to fail?
Bukharin.I'm not talking about failure in terms of arrest, but in terms of arrests, but in terms of failure of the whole case.
Vyshinsky.I'm talking about this too. What year was that?
Bukharin.The conversation with Radek took place in the summer of 1934.
Vyshinsky.Was there a conversation with Karakhan later?
Bukharin.Was after his arrival in Moscow, in 1935.
Vyshinsky.Was this conversation with Karakhan preceded by a conversation with Yenukidze, or was there a conversation with Yenukidze on this topic later?
Bukharin.The first conversation was with Tomsky. Tomsky recognized the possible use of war and preliminary agreements with Germany.
Vyshinsky.When did you have a conversation about opening the front to the Germans?
Bukharin.When I asked Tomsky how he thought about the mechanics of the coup, he replied that this was the business of the military organization, which should open the front.
Vyshinsky.Let me show Bukharin's testimony - volume 5, sheets 95-96: "Tomsky told me that two options were being discussed: the case when a new government is organized during peace" ... - which means that the conspirators will organize a new government during peace, - "and the case when it is organized during the war, and for the latter case the Germans demand large economic concessions" ... - the concessions, which I have already spoken about - "and insist on territorial concessions." Tell me is it right or not?
Bukharin.Yes, that's all right.
Bukharin.Yes, right.
Vyshinsky.And when he told you this, did you mind?
Bukharin.I objected.
Vyshinsky.Why didn't you write "I object"?
Bukharin.In the event of a front opening.
Vyshinsky.That's right ... "In this case, it is advisable to bring to justice those responsible for the defeat at the front. This will give us the opportunity to draw the masses along with us, playing with patriotic slogans." Is this your objection?
Bukharin... Yes.
Vyshinsky.What does it mean to play with patriotic slogans? Bukharin.This does not mean "playing" in an odious sense ...
Vyshinsky.To play with patriotic slogans, that is, to take revenge, to portray as if someone had cheated, and we are patriots ... The fact that you used the Jesuitical, treacherous method here is evidence of the future. Let me say further: "I meant that by this, that is, by condemning the perpetrators of the defeat, it would be possible to get rid of the Bonapartist save the net that worried me along the way."
Bukharin.Yes, that's right.
Vyshinsky.So this is how you "objected" to the opening of the front! To prosecute those responsible for the defeat at the front, play on patriotic slogans and get out of the water. Did you talk to Yenukidze about this?
Bukharin.I spoke with Yenukidze.
Vyshinsky.Have you spoken to Karakhan?
Bukharin.Spoke.
Vyshinsky.What did Yenukidze and Karakhan say about this?
Bukharin.They confirmed, firstly, that Karakhan had concluded an agreement with the Germans on the terms of economic concessions, and secondly, that the Germans had put forward a demand for the cession of territory, to which Karakhan did not give an answer, saying that this case should be discussed. Including there is a formula for the separation of the union republics. Thirdly, regarding the treaties of the USSR with Czechoslovakia and France on mutual assistance. The Germans demanded the termination of these agreements, and Karakhan answered this question in the affirmative, we hoped that we would cheat the Germans and would not fulfill this demand.
Vyshinsky.So, everything here was built on swindle? Did they expect to cheat you?
Bukharin.It always happens that way.
Vyshinsky.Use you and then throw you in a landfill? Bukharin.Right.
Vyshinsky. ATin general, both you and they have lost. Did you talk with Karakhan about opening the front?
Key Tips from Successful Phone Sales Experts
1. Briefly state what is the meaning of your business
Surprisingly, most salespeople find it difficult and confusing to describe their activities over the phone. So, the phrase "we are engaged in IT outsourcing" sounds deadly. Instead, it’s better to say, “We are in the dairy software business. It allows you to reduce costs by 15-40%. " Practice: In 10-15 seconds, tell 15 friends and acquaintances what the essence of your business is. If they understand, you have a good wording.
2. Prepare for difficult questions
Call 20 key companies in your area, introduce yourself as a client, and record managers' answers to questions that baffle you on a speakerphone. Analyze, select the best options and implement at home.
3. Study your business inside and out
If you do not understand what you are selling, the very first highly specialized question (“And what kind of gluten do you have?”) Will confuse you and may disrupt the deal. Find out in the dictionary the meaning of the most common terms in your industry and actively use them in conversation. This will add weight to you as an expert.
4. Do not "load" the interlocutor with a long monologue-patter
One of the typical mistakes in sales is the desire from the doorway to bring down all the information available to a potential client, without allowing him to insert a word. The person on the other end of the line will be grateful if you briefly and clearly, in a calm tone, state your proposal, and, most likely, will want to continue the communication.
For example, the following speech combination works well: “Good afternoon, my name is Andrey. (Pause, don't rush!) We supply energy saving light bulbs for businesses in your sector. We are entering the Moscow market with a new product line. We are determined with key companies - we will work with them on special terms. I would like to explain the essence and understand whether we can cooperate with you. "
5. Manage the conversation
To hide insecurity and to seize the initiative, some salespeople begin to speak in an indulgent, domineering manner. The goal is to make it clear that the subscriber knows nothing about the matter and must listen to "knowledgeable people" in everything. As practice shows, this behavior sharply repels customers.
The flip side of the coin is too soft, timid approach and complete denial of one's own benefit. “I’m just for a minute… I don’t want to waste your time… please read our commercial offer…” The pleading, frightened intonations give the interlocutor the impression that he is dealing with an inexperienced newcomer and should not enter into business relations with him.
Here's an effective voice-over for taking over the initiative: “To save time, let's do this. I will ask a few questions (by volume, documents, preferences), then I will list the options to choose from. If you like it in general, we will talk in detail. If not, that's okay. Okay?" This gives you permission to ask questions and can control the conversation.