For many years the capitalist press, erudite professors and bourgeois analysts have been going on about the "secrets in the Soviet archives". There was much speculation about the "terrible secrets of the communist regime" that would finally confirm the "evil character" of communism.

After the events that took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s, historians were finally allowed access to the Soviet archives. So one would expect a flow of terribly indicting facts. However the results for the bourgeois historians have been really disappointing. Of course, they did find a large amount of new evidence that confirms the shocking crimes of Stalinism. But we never had any doubt about this. Trotsky and his followers condemned these crimes long before any archives were opened. Trotsky's supporters in Soviet Russia in the 1920 and 1930s had first hand knowledge of these crimes because they were among the first to suffer the consequences of the Stalinist degeneration. Thousands of them died at the hands of Stalin's henchmen.

What the bourgeois historians were hoping for was a mass of evidence that they could use to show that there was no difference between Stalinism and the healthy regime under Lenin and Trotsky in the first period after the revolution. But they met with real problems in trying to find documents that could be used to discredit the leaders of the Russian Revolution - Lenin and Trotsky. The most difficult documents to get to in the past were those concerning the leaders of the Left Opposition. It is now clear to any historian why this was. The archives show that these leaders played a key role in the 1917 revolution and in establishing the Soviet state.

During the last ten years many new interesting sources about critical moments of the Russian Revolution have been published. Among them are two books about the most tragic act of the Russian Revolution ? the so-called Kronstadt rebellion.

It is not necessary to describe here all the aspects of this well-known event. At the beginning of March 1921, in one of the most critical periods of the Soviet Republic's existence, in the naval base of Kronstadt near Petrograd, there was an attempt at a military coup against the Soviet government. The critical state that the Soviet Union was passing through in that moment meant that Lenin and Trotsky were forced to deal with the rebels very quickly. After rejecting the government's ultimatum to capitulate, Kronstadt was stormed and captured in the second attack. The rebel leaders escaped to Finland.

At the end of the 1930s a group of former Trotskyists, including Victor Serge, Max Eastman, Souvarine and some others, attacked Trotsky for his behaviour during the rebellion. (In doing this Serge contradicted his own earlier views expressed at the time of the rebellion). They described the Kronstadt events as a workers' and sailors' rebellion against the "Bolshevik dictatorship", and saw the crushing of the rebels as a "first step towards Stalinism". Later on, this criticism was adopted by other anti-Communist ideologues and propagandists. Trotsky answered these people in 1938 in his article "Hue And Cry Over Kronstadt" where he analysed the petit-bourgeois nature of this putsch.

There is no need to repeat Trotsky's arguments here, as anyone can read his article by linking to it above. Anyone who wants to know the truth can read Trotsky for themselves. What I intend to do here is to highlight some of the new information published in these recent documents - a collection of material on Kronstadt.

The first book was published under the strange title, "The Unknown Trotsky: the red Bonaparte" (Krasnov V.G., Moscow, 2000). This attempts to describe the role of Trotsky during the Russian civil war. The second book ? "Kronstadt 1921" (Moscow, 2001) - is a collection of documents about the Kronstadt rebellion. It is important to stress that neither of the two books have been written by Bolshevik sympathizers.

The popular image that anti-Bolshevik critics try to portray is that there was widespread sympathy among the then Red Army soldiers towards the rebels. There has been a lot of speculation about the mass of soldiers refusing to take part in the attack for political reasons and also stories of mass desertions among the Red Army soldiers with many of them passing to the side of the Kronstadt rebels. This, however, is a myth.

What really happened was absolutely different. There was one case where one unit moved to the side of those defending Kronstadt. This was during the first unsuccessful attack. It was a battalion from the 561st Red Army regiment. This regiment was recruited among former Machno, Wrangel and Denikin prisoners. It is a well-known fact that during the civil war in Russia some peasant units changed sides even several times as a result of military failures.

There was the other case of the 236th and 237th infantry regiment which refused to go attack. Their position was: "We'll not go on the ice", "we'll go to our villages". These peasant units were terrified at the idea of having to attack across the ice this first class fortress defended by battleships. There are other reports about refusals to carry out orders on the part of different units, but in all these cases the causes were such things as the poor quality of food and clothing, the bad quality of the camouflage. No political reasons were given. This is easily understood if we remember how the young Soviet regime inherited a backward economy and, on top of that, had been forced to use its scarce resources to defend itself against the White armies backed by the imperialists who were trying to crush the revolution.

The situation inside Kronstadt also appears different to the myth. There was no solid mass of soldiers, firmly behind the rebellion. Even bourgeois historians such as Krasnov have had to recognize this fact. Inside Kronstadt there were clashes between the old revolutionary sailors and the new recruits who came from peasant and petit-bourgeois families. This fact can be confirmed by the fact that some ships declared their neutrality, while others moved against the rebels.

Here it is worth quoting from some of the statements issued by the crews of a number of ships, among them the mine-sweepers "Ural", "Orfei" and "Pobeditel": "The men of the White guards that are leading the rebels can do a lot of damage to the Republic, and they may not even hesitate to bomb Petrograd".

The same situation was to be found behind the rebel battle lines. From the 7th Army intelligence report we learn that many rebel sailors and soldiers wanted to move over to the side of the Bolsheviks, but they were terrorized by their commanders.

However, the final nail in the coffin for the anti-Bolshevik mythology built up around Kronstadt comes later. According to documents published in these two books new facts emerge about what happened in the town around Kronstadt. During the attack on Kronstadt, the workers of the town moved against the putschists and liberated the town even before the main forces of the Red Army arrived. So in reality what we had was not a workers' and sailors' rebellion against Bolshevism, but a workers' and sailors' Bolshevik uprising against the "rebels"!

In the proclamations of the Kronstadt sailors we see the words that refer to "the men of the White guards that are leading the rebels ". These were not mere words. The real command over the rebels was concentrated not in the Kronstadt soviet, as some naive individuals may think, but in the so-called "Court for the Defence of Kronstadt Fortress". One of its leaders was rear-admiral S.H. Dmitriev (who was executed after the fortress fall), the other was general A. H. Koslovsky, who escaped to Finland. Both of these senior officers were very far from having any kind of sympathy for Socialism "with Bolsheviks" or "without Bolsheviks".

There is also much talk about S. M. Petrechenko - the sailor and anti-Bolshevik leader. What is really interesting is to note that in 1927 this man was recruited by Stalin's GPU and he was one of Stalin's agent until 1944 when he was arrested by the Finnish authorities. The following year he died in a Finnish concentration camp.

So, the real story is that the Kronstadt workers and sailors actually understood the real nature of these rebels far better than any of the later intellectuals who have tried to build up the myth of Kronstadt. The same can be said of the counterrevolutionary forces that were operating in Kronstadt. The former Tsarist prime-minister and finance minister, and in emigration the director of the Russian Bank in Paris, Kokovzev, transferred 225 thousand francs to the Kronstadt rebels. The Russian-Asian bank transferred 200 thousand francs. The French prime-minister, Briand, during the meeting with the former ambassador of Kerensky's government, Malachov, promised "any necessary help to Kronstadt".

As Trotsky explained, the so-called Kronstadt rebellion was not the first petit-bourgeois, anti-Bolshevik movement to take place during both the civil war and the revolution. There were a lot of other movements that were lead by people raising the slogan of "Soviets without Bolsheviks", etc. There were such movements in some factories in the Urals and among the Aries Cossacks. But from these experiences we can see clearly that in the conditions of uncompromising class war this kind of slogan can lead straight into the camp of Mediaeval reaction and barbarism. There cannot be a revolution without a revolutionary party. And again, the ordinary Russian workers and soldiers of the time understood this very well. They understood it far better than some people today, among them even some people on the left.

The fact is that many ordinary members of the Anarchists, Mensheviks, Social-Revolutionaries and others parties took part in the Soviets with the Bolsheviks, but not without them. There was a huge difference between the ordinary rank and file members of these parties and their leaders who were completely anti-Bolshevik in their feelings. In the early 1920s the local Soviet authorities in some Jewish areas of the Ukraine were totally recruited from members of the Bund. Many Anarchists took part in the Revolution and in the Civil War on the side of the Bolsheviks against the White reaction. They also cooperated with the new power until the rise of Stalinism. To this day, those courageous people are considered by some modern anarchists as "traitors". Some people never learn!

We have nothing to fear from the publication of more material from the Soviet archives. We hope that over the next few years more documents will be found in these archives about the long and glorious struggles of the Russian proletariat. They will surely provide more information on the revolutionary traditions of the Russian workers.

December, 2003

So most of the Red Army troops thought that it was ok to massacre the Kronstadt sailors because they were demanding free elections and the end of one-party rule. And a few rank and file Mensheviks and anarchists thought so as well. That really removes all doubt from my mind that these murders were entirely justified, even though the murder of Trotsky and thousands of his followers not too many years later was a terrible crime. I'm sure that Stalin thought it was a good idea to murder these people as well - but that was before he turned bad and murdered the Left Opposition. This must have been the good Stalin, who only wanted to murder people calling for democracy. But, as you said, "some people never learn." The mass killings that took place between 1918 and 1922 had nothing to do with setting a precedent for the tidal wave of blood that washed over the USSR during Stalin's reign.

"... the long and glorious struggles of the Russian proletariat."


Really? I have a close friend who grew up under Soviet Communism, as did her parents. They'd love to hear you regale them with tales of this 'long and glorious struggle'. They would punch you in the mouth and educate you about the reality of life under Soviet Communism and why they are here in the US today.

You don't have a clue.

Gee, I have friends from Russia too, who go back and forth from their and regale me with their stories about the rampant gangsterism that runs the country now that the communist regime has fallen. They say that most Russians would actually prefer to stay there, but hate the direction the country has taken after the wall fell. They would describe how a Moscow mafioso would smash your face in.

I hope I am not letting you in on something new, Virgo, but there are other alternatives besides one-party rule backed up by mass executions and a capitalist society partly dominated by organized crime.
If you think those are the only alternatives, you are in agreement with Richard Nixon. The only difference is that you chose the first alternative and he chose the second.

The citizens were ripped off and their standard of living fell. The treasury was looted the spoils were divided up. People were paid off. Still they do have enough nukes to french fry everyone on earth a couple of hundred times over. So do we. Lots of people got really rich as they sucked the product of so much labor out of the general economy to make all those obscenities. So did we. They were bled white by wars and weapon making.
Now our US economy is set to meet the same fate. As are its people, only most of them don't know it yet.

If the people of the USSR were not given the false idea that socialism = one party rule, huge labor camps for political prisoners, a priveleged bureacracy, and mass murder they would not have been duped into following those who promised them that free market capitalism would solve their problems when it only brought them greater misery than they already had. Bullets from muggers or mafia hitmen kill you just as well as bullets from Stalinist stooges.

not in disagreement.
The convincing is done through the avenue of state terror to coheres the unmobilized into numbed acquiescence. It is only by revealing the hand of the state in most of the hidden reality that the media constructs, can we resist the herding instinct. Or call the truth to obvious lies. The public who cares in increasing numbers, are growing evermore skeptical and unified in their realization to who the enemy is.

You said... "...the rampant gangsterism that runs the country now that the communist regime has fallen. "

Earth to Virgo... Soviet Communism was deeply corrupt from its very inception. Criminal gangs are not a new development there... They've been there for centuries. The recent liberalization of the Russian economy has allowed them more access to more cash, but their core values and modus operandi are the same as they were under communism.

It's true that some Russians prefer communism. Especially older Russians who pine for the Welfare state of old, where they didn't have to take responsibility for their future and they were wards of the state from cradle to grave.

That said, to insinuate, as you did, that Russians as a whole prefer that jackboot of dictatorship on their necks over the ability to vote, to own a business and travel freely is ridiculous.

I personally know some young Russians who live here in the US who talk trash about the US and are proud of their Russian heritage... but they stay here. Most of them have trouble coping with capitalism because it isn't the massive crony system the Soviets ran.

For example, in the Soviet Union, if you wanted to go to a dentist or buy a car you had to know someone who knew a dentist or sold cars. It was a network of personal connections and 'favors'. No one advertised car dealerships or dentistry services. Much of this still exists today as a legacy of the the old system. But today there is far more economic liberty and mobility. Today, there are car dealerships and dentistry ads. There is also a great deal of open political debate that was forbidden under Soviet rule.

In the end most Russians that live in the US like it here, even if some of them bitch about it. But for you to suggest that living under a Soviet dictatorship is better than the liberties they have now, even if they are struggling with them, is plainly stupid.

Look at all those homeless people and working poor who can't pay for their regular dentists and such. They just clog up my hospitals when they enjoy the just deserts of their criminal poverty. We should round them up into camps where they can decide to work or starve. It would keep them off the streets. Things would be neater.

Scorpio would have to trim his own bushes and pay hefty checks for meals in restaurants or even coffee shops; he would'nt like that. He likes having slaves here because they make his life easier and cheaper and they give him the sadistic pleasure of insulting them and ridiculing them. What a wonderful guy.

I see that Meyer has waddled in and belched out his opinion on this. Aside from the stench he brings into the room, his opinion is dead wrong and juvenile.

Your poorly thought out comment, that I like "slaves", reveals your schoolyard mental approach to problems. I don't like slaves any more than you do Meyer. In fact, I would argue that you, Meyer, with your love of Socialism and the Welfare State, are the one who likes slaves... slaves to The State. And unlike you I have no desire to live as a ward of The State.

Further, if hiring legal immigrants and american citizens means paying a bit more at the counter that's a tradeoff I am happty to make. In fact, I seek out products that are made in the USA and buy those when possible, even when they cost a bit more. You see Meyer, unlike you, I have no interest in damaging the United States in every way possible.


Nor do I insult illegal immigrants. But you and your ilk do by supporting the illegal criminal enterprise that brings them here. You also insult them by insisting that a Nanny State is the only way they can survive here... after all, immigrants can't possibly succeed, Meyer, without your help. In fact, you insult every hard working legal immigrant in this country.

Now, isn't it time you finally earned that GED?

Well, you have certainly gotten things off topic, which was Leon Trotsky and the crushing of the




Well, Mr. Reactionary, you certainly have gotten this track off topic, which was Leon Trotsky and the crushing of the Kronstadt revolt. You never miss an opportunity to trash undocumented immigrants and their alleged co-conspirators in the US. Are you sure your ancestors all came here legally? Don't you feel a little awkward demanding strict border controls to keep out Mexicans when California, Texas and several other areas were stolen from Mexico in what amounted to a giant pirate raid by pro-slavery North Americans looking for new places to plant their cotton - or rather have their slaves plant the cotton? If some genealogist pointed out that two of your ancestors came here illegally from Albania or Iceland I doubt if we would see you headed back to the old homeland and begging for citizenship.








k

Meyer said: "Well... "

Translation: I don't possess the intellect to respond to the points you made above so I'll just drag out the same old tired Leftist talking points. This is what I get for being a functionally illiterate college student.

would respond the the ridiculous and racist "points" that you made - and which were entirely off topic. You manage to convert every thread into either a discussion of homosexuality or a chance to dump on immigrants.