The Bloc of the Right and Trotskyites, Anglo-German intelligence Agent-Provocateurs promoting the ‘Permanent Revolution’ so to provoke anti-Soviet Aggression – Reports from MI6 sources

Saed Teymuri

The History of the USSR & the Peoples’ Democracies

Chapter 2, Section 10 (C2S10)

Trotsky promoted German intelligence penetration into USSR, as Grigori Tokaev, an MI6 officer residing in London, admitted in his memoirs.

Trotskyite politicians Rakovsky and Rozenholz worked for Anglo-German secret services, Tokaev added.

The Bukharin Network’s Plot against Lenin and Sverdlov, as reported by British intelligence official Robert Conquest.

The Trotsky faction worked to provoke anti-Soviet aggression through ’Permanent Revolution’, a declassified MI6 report shows.

For an invasion of the Soviet Union, the MI6 and other imperialist powers hostile to Soviet power, needed a pretext. The tactic to use for provoking such a pretext was to have the Trotskyite officers in the Soviet military command launch provocations against the USSR’s neighbours, so that the imperialist encirclers of the USSR could obtain the excuse to invade the land of proletarian power. This technique of having rogue officers launch such provocations is an ancient technique and has never been limited to the Trotsky faction. However, Trotsky was the most prominent figure to give this ancient counter-revolutionary tactic of provoking invasions a ‘communist’ theoretical clothing.

A socialist state’s refusal to outright invade capitalist or feudalist countries, the Trotskyites claimed, was an abandonment of class struggle and hence a betrayal of the revolution. The establishment of socialism in one or few countries was impossible, they argued. The ‘Permanent Revolution’ this thesis of Trotsky’s was called. As early as 1914, Lenin had condemned the vacillator Trotsky’s ‘Permanent Revolution’ thesis as absurdly left-deviationist:

At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i.e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that “between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf”. In 1904-05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left “permanent revolution” theory. ( Disruption of Unity under Cover of Outcries for Unity, Lenin, 1914. MIA) (IMG)

As further corroboration of evidence, the MI6 report sheds light on the important truth about the clash between Lenin and Trotsky on this matter:

As regards international policy, Lenin holds the view that the best way to secure world revolution is to compromise with the victorious Allies and to make concessions which would lead to the abandonment of intervention. It is for this reason, probably, that he authorised Litvinov to sound the Allies from Stockholm and to communicate with President Wilson. Litvinov has always belonged to the moderate wing, and is essentially one of Lenin’s personal followers. Following Litvinov’s proposals came the Prinkipo proposal. According to private information from Stockholm, which was probably an expression of Litvinov’s views, the Prinkipo proposal would have the effect of strengthening the moderates represented by Lenin as against the extremists led by Trotski. No details are available about the debates that took place in Moscow before the answer to the Prinkipo proposal was telegraphed to the Allies, but Chicherin’s answer would seem to be the expression of Lenin’s views.

Lenin’s disagreement with Trotski … hinges … on the question of tactics. The difference is now almost exactly the same as at the time of Brest-Litovsk. At that time Lenin favoured compromise and a “respite,” while Trotski and others favoured violence, refusing to sign peace at all. Trotski now advocates world revolution by means of aggression, i.e., by means of the Red Army carrying the revolution into other countries. It is not that Lenin has changed his views. His desire for the world revolution and the class war is just as strong as Trotski’s, but he thinks he can now succeed better by diplomacy and peaceful penetration than by open war.

(MEMORANDUM ON TWO TENDENCIES IN THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT, Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office, Russia /020, February 15, 1919. In: Foreign Office (1917-1918), p. 58) (IMG)

The MI6 report is in turn corroborated by an American intelligence document detailing the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union:

Leon Trotsky was sent to Brest-Litovsk in White Russia to negotiate with the representatives of the Central Powers for an Armistice. Trotsky was perhaps a poor choice. He was a devotee of permanent revolution. He believed that the revolution having been successful in Russia, revolt would follow in rather short order in the great industrial nations of the West. Therefore, Trotsky chose the occasion of the negotiations at Brest-Litovsk to propagandise to the peoples of the West over the heads of their leaders. The Germans, and the Austro-Hungarian representatives listened to Trotsky for a while and then left in disgust. Trotsky left Brest-Litovsk with his famous statement, “Neither War nor Peace.” Trotsky may have felt that there could be a situation where they could have “neither war nor peace,” but the Germans did not agree with him and the forces of the Central Powers once more began to move to the East, thrusting on into the Ukraine, the Baltic States and West Russia. Lenin realized that peace immediately was absolutely essential to the preservation of his revolution. He therefore acted to persuade the party that Russia must sign [peace] at any cost. (HISTORY OF THE CPSU, CIA archives, p. 27) (IMG)

The attempts to sabotage the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty was a Trotskyite tactic of having the German imperialists bogged down in the Soviet Union, so that on the one hand socialism would be damaged and on the other hand, the British Empire could splendidly ‘stand outside’ and watch as its Trotskyite agents used the Red Army forces as cannon-fodder against the German imperial rivals of Britain.

It is not difficult to imagine that had Trotsky’s ‘insane’ argument of the military conquest of the world – among his many other insane or reactionary arguments – won out in intra-Party debates, the Soviet state had no chance for survival. And forget not: that same Trotsky faction which sought to provoke an invasion of the USSR through such left-opportunism was the same Trotsky faction, which, when facing a British invasion, deliberately opened up the front to the British and Japanese invaders. It thus follows that the plan for ‘invading’ other countries was merely a provocation for actually providing the pretext for the invasion against the USSR much like how opening up the front was for the same purpose. By contrast, it was precisely Lenin’s common-sense call for diplomacy that made Soviet power a menace to imperialism. The MI6 agreed:

To the outsider, knowing Lenin’s great intellectual powers, and remembering his skill in dealing with the Germans, it cannot but appear that Lenin’s policy, if successful, would be far more dangerous to the stability of Europe than Trotski’s. (MEMORANDUM ON TWO TENDENCIES IN THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT, Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office, Russia /020, February 15, 1919. In: Foreign Office (1917-1918), pp. 58-59) (IMG)

Precisely because Trotskyism helped counter the communist menace to imperialism, did the MI6 and the pro-British faction of the German intelligence as early as 1921, begin subsidizing Trotsky and his network. This is confirmed by an anti-Soviet and anti-Stalin oppositionist Grigori Tokaev who had infiltrated the Soviet state for quite some time and who later defected to Britain, providing his intelligence directly to the MI6. In 1956, when Khrushchev was rehabilitating numerous Trotskyites, Tokaev wrote in his memoirs:

Further, Trotsky, supposed originally to have inspired the formation of the ‘bloc’, had long since been linked with the Nazi secret service and the British intelligence service! On Trotsky’s orders, Krestinsky, former Deputy People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs, had been in the German service since 1921. Rozenholz, former People’s Commissar of Foreign Trade, joined the British service in 1926 and the German service in 1932. Rakovsky, one of the big figures of the Revolution, had served the British intelligence service since 1924, and the Japanese since 1934. And so on. All this Bukharin and Rykov had connived at, since they too were foreign agents. (Comrade X, Grigori Tokaev, 1956, p. 87) (IMG)

Among those who have studied Soviet history, it is common knowledge that Krestinsky, Rozenholz, and Rakovsky were all close friends and associates of Trotsky, whereas Rykov was a close ally and associate of Bukharin. Bukharin and Trotsky and Co. had established a covert ‘bloc’ to conspire against Soviet power.

Since the establishment of the Soviet state, Bukharin too had joined forces with Trotsky in seeking to prevent the peace of Brest-Litovsk , going so far as to try to assassinate Lenin, Sverdlov, and Stalin. Regarding the attempts:

in 1918 to upset the peace of Brest-Litovsk to overthrow the government and to assassinate Lenin, Stalin, and Sverdlov…. (N 1253/26/38, No. 119, Viscount Chilston to Viscount Halifax – (Received March 11), Moscow, March 8, 1938. Foreign Office (1937-1938), p. 319) (IMG)

the MI6 station in Moscow reported that Bukharin was the ‘actual ringleader’ in the scheme:

Bukharin was the actual ringleader though the scheme was first pronounced by Trotski, Pyatakov being designated by Bukharin to succeed learning as head of the proposed new Government of “Left Social Revolutionaries” and “Left Communists.” (N 1253/26/38, No. 119, Viscount Chilston to Viscount Halifax – (Received March 11), Moscow, March 8, 1938. Foreign Office (1937-1938), p. 319) (IMG)

Viscount Chilston was making such confessions (which were in favor of the USSR) from an anti-Soviet, anti-CPSU, and anti-Stalin perspective. Take the following quote as an example of the anti-Sovietism:

It would however be a mistake to assume that … those who direct Soviet policy necessarily allow themselves to be influenced to any appreciable extent by purely logical considerations. With them the necessity of keeping up nervous tension inside the country, of providing with an excuse for past and probably also for future atrocities, carries far more weight than the importance of securing … a certain standard of efficiency in the administrative and political body, the armed forces and the economic system… (N 1253/26/38, No. 119, Viscount Chilston to Viscount Halifax – (Received March 11), Moscow, March 8, 1938. Foreign Office (1937-1938), p. 320) (IMG)

The MI6 agent Robert Conquest too confirmed:

But in the following year, Bukharin had led the «Left Communists» in opposition to the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, in a struggle that at one time reached the point of tentative plans for Lenin’s overthrow. (The Great Terror: A Reassessment, Oxford University Press, Robert Conquest, 1990, pp. 16-17) (IMG{Factional Conflict & Great Purge})

In 1917 Lenin had thought of Sverdlov … as the natural successor…. (The Great Terror: A Reassessment, Oxford University Press, Robert Conquest, 1990, p. 16) (IMG{Factional Conflict & Great Purge})

Click here for Screenshots of Source Documents

Fuentes:

https://sovinform.net/MI6-Trotsky-Bukharin-Permanent-Revolution.htm