Letters on the murder of Rudolph Klement
July 18th, 1938
Trotsky Fears fate of Klement, G.P.U. Victim
Leon Trotsky
My friends in Paris informed New York yesterday by telephone about the disappearance of Rudolph Klement, a German exile living in Paris. Klement, a former Hamburg student, was for two years my secretary at Prinkipo and in France. He was a well educated young man, 28 years old, possessing a fluent knowledge of several languages. From Paris he had continued to give me a great deal of assistance in my literary work. Like Erwin Wolf, my Czechoslovakian secretary, Klement took an active part in the unmasking of the Moscow frame-ups and through this provoked the violent hatred of the G.P.U.
My Parisian friends say that they received a copy of a letter from Perpignan addressed to me by Klement. I have not received this letter yet. But from Klement’s previous letters it is clear that he had no intention of going anywhere. My Parisian friends think that Klement was kidnapped by the G.P.U., just as Erwin Wolf was some time ago. If this be so, it is entirely possible that the G.P.U. forcibly carried him to Spain for bloody revenge. I hesitated whether or not to give this information to the press before final verification. But since every hour lost may spell doom to my young friend, I consider it my duty to make public right now the information received by me.
|
Paper of the British section denouncing the abduction of Rudolph Klement |
*******************************************
August 1st, 1938
A ‘letter’ from Rudolph Klement
Leon Trotsky
This morning, August 1, I received a letter apparently in the handwriting of Rudolf Klement, in German. The letter is dated July 14 and presumably went via Paris and New York. The handwriting is undoubtedly similar to the handwriting of Klement but bears an extremely uneven, sickly and feverish character. The letter peculiarly is signed, “Frederic.” As to its contents it is one of the most fantastic documents that I have ever held in my hands. To start with, the salutation. All the preceding letters of Klement, including those written just a few days before, begin with the words, “Dear Comrade” or “Dear L.D.” (my initials). This last letter begins with the words, “Mr. Trotsky.” From beginning to end the letter presents an incoherent piling up of accusations against the Fourth International, against me personally, and against my deceased son.
The accusations are of two kinds: the first — clearly dictated by the GPU — the inevitable “bloc” with fascism and connection with the Gestapo; the second — a series of accusations concerning single episodes from the internal life of the Fourth International which seem to make an attempt at explaining the sudden change in Klement’s position.
What is most striking is that the content of the letter in all its details stands in direct and clear contradiction to hundreds of letters written by the same Klement up until a very short time ago to me personally and to mutual friends. The letter is written as if the past had not existed at all. Only a person tied hand and foot, physically and morally, could write like this, and then only under the dictation of other people absolutely unfamiliar with Klement’s past who wanted to make use of him for their purposes.
Theoretically it could still be assumed that Klement has lost his mind. But in this case the puzzle remains as to why his delirium should contain the elements of the well-known “accusations” of the GPU. We must not forget for one moment that Klement was closely familiar with the life and work of the Fourth International, that he was especially indignant at these “accusations,” and that his indignation found inimitable expression in dozens of letters. Klement took an active part in the unmasking of the Moscow trials, and this work, again, is imprinted in numerous letters and documents.
It is most probable, however, that the letter is written in the grip of the GPU and that Klement, in fear for his life or for the lives of people dear to him, or finally, under the influence of some drugs, submissively wrote down what he was ordered, not bothering to correct obvious absurdities. It is even possible that Klement included these absurdities with complete readiness in order, in this fashion, to compromise the GPU’s plot beforehand.
In any case this letter, written and transmitted to me, testifies that this affair will have its aftermath. The very fact of Klement’s disappearance remains of course the chief mystery.
Where is he? What has happened to him? The letter bears no indication of the place of mailing. Apparently the letter passed from city to city; the inner envelope bears only my initials. I will endeavor of course to obtain the necessary information about the postal route of this letter.
The letter ends with the words: “I have no intention to come out openly against you.” Needless to say, I wish more than anything else that the unfortunate Klement could speak and come out “openly” if ... he is still alive. I am immediately sending a photostatic copy of the letter for the disposal of the French authorities and the New York commission of Dr. John Dewey. Let us trust that the solution of this mysterious case will be found and that complete light will be shed upon it.
*******************************************
August 3rd, 1938
On the fate of Rudolph Klement
Leon Trotsky
1. I received by mail via New York City on August 1 the letter in German signed “Frederic.” The letter is dated July 14, without indicating the mailing place. The inner envelope bears in German the words, “for L.D.” It is necessary to establish from where and by what route the letter reached New York. Let me add that the marks and lines on the margin which appear on the photostatic copy were made by me in red pencil upon first reading the letter.
2. Klement began his letters to me with the words, “Dear Comrade L.D.” The present letter begins with the salutation, “Mr. Trotsky.” This salutation, apparently, should correspond to the hostile tone of the letter which announces the “break in relations.”
3. The handwriting of the letter is very similar to the handwriting of Klement. But after more careful comparison with old letters the difference becomes very striking. The handwriting of the last letter is not free, but studied, uneven; individual characters are drawn too carefully, others, on the contrary, are hesitating. Absence of erasures and careful spacing of words, especially at the end of lines, show beyond any doubt that the letter has been copied from a draft.
Was the letter really written by Klement? I shall not presume to deny it categorically. The handwriting is similar if each character is taken by itself; but the manuscript as a whole lacks naturalness and ease. If this is Klement’s handwriting, then it can be so only under very exceptional circumstances; more likely, however, it is skillful forgery.
4. From the point of view of the handwriting, the salutation and the signature draw attention. Clearly they have been written at different times (different shade of ink) and in a somewhat different hand. There is only one alternative: either the author of the letter hesitated a long time as to what salutation and what signature to use, and resolved the question only after the letter had been finished; or the forger already had samples of the words
“Trotsky” and “Frederic” before him from old correspondence while the rest of the letter had to be composed from individual characters. Therefore the greater naturalness and ease in the outline of the salutation and signature.
5. The name “Frederic” as a signature is difficult to explain. It is true that Klement once really used this pseudonym, but he abandoned it more than two years ago when he grew suspicious that the name had become known to the GPU or the Gestapo. The letters which I have received from Klement in Mexico for the last year and a half have been signed either “Adolphe” or “Camille,” but never “Frederic.” What made Klement return to a long abandoned pseudonym, especially in a letter to me? Here the hypothesis naturally arises that the forgers of the letter had in their possession old letters of Klement signed “Frederic,” and that they were not aware of the change in pseudonym. For the investigation this circumstance is of very great importance.
6. In the content of the letter there are something like two levels which are mechanically connected with one another. On the one hand, the letter repeats the vile falsifications of the GPU in reference to my connections with fascism, relations with the Gestapo, etc.; on the other hand, it criticizes my policy seemingly from the point of view of the interests of the Fourth International, and tries in this manner to give an explanation for Klement’s “turn.” This ambiguity threads the entire letter.
7. On the fabricated conversations between Klement and me concerning the admissibility of “temporary concessions to fascist heads for the sake of the proletarian revolution,” the letter represents only a belated repetition of corresponding “confessions” at the Moscow trials. “Frederic” does not even attempt to introduce any vital, concrete feature into the Moscow frame-up.
More than that, he declares simply that the “bloc” with fascism was concluded on “a basis not altogether clear to me” (Frederic), as if thus renouncing in advance any attempt to understand or explain the methods, tasks, and purposes of this fantastic bloc.
Thus it seems that somehow I found it necessary in the past to initiate “Frederic” into my alliance with Berlin, but did not initiate him into the meaning of this alliance. In other words, my “frankness” had the single purpose of helping out the GPU.
“Frederic” writes further on the same score that “what was called using fascism was direct collaboration with the Gestapo.” Not a word on what this collaboration consisted of and precisely how “Frederic” learned about it. In this part “Frederic” follows strictly the shameless methods of Vyshinsky-Yezhov.
8. Then follow accusations of an “internal” character intended to serve as motivation for Klement’s break with the Fourth International and with me personally. It is curious that this part of the letter should begin with a reference to my “Bonapartistic manners,” that is, it seems to return the epithet applied by me to the Stalinist regime. In passing, all the accusations in the trials against the Trotskyites are built on this pattern: Stalin plasters his political opponents with crimes of which he himself is guilty or with accusations which are advanced against him. Vyshinsky, the GPU and its agents carry out this operation almost automatically. “Frederic” submissively follows the strictly set pattern.
9. The letter further lists all the negative consequences of my “Bonapartist” methods. “In the past,” he states, “we were abandoned by such people as Nin, Roman Well, Jacob Frank.” The combination of these three names is strange. Roman Well and Jacob Frank openly returned in their time to the Comintern after having attempted for a while to act in our ranks as secret agents of the Comintern. On the contrary, Andres Nin, after his break with us, maintained an independent position, remained hostile to the Comintern, and fell victim to the GPU. Klement knows this distinction very well. But “Frederic” ignores it or does not know it.
10. “You have delivered the POUM,” continues “Frederic,” “to the mangling of the Stalinists.” This phrase is absolutely enigmatic, not to say senseless. Despite the POUM’s open break with the Fourth International, the GPU persecuted the members of the POUM precisely as if they were Trotskyites; in other words, the POUM is subjected to “mangling” on the same basis as the adherents of the Fourth International. “Frederic’s” enigmatic phrase is apparently dictated by the desire to set against Trotskyism. those members of the POUM who have not yet been murdered by the GPU.
11. The accusations which refer to a later period are of no less false a character. “Recently our organization was abandoned by such people as Sneevliet and Vereecken, who showed such great political sense and wisdom in the Spanish question.” Sneevliet and Vereecken in reality showed their sympathy for the POUM, which was accused by the Stalinists of being connected with fascism. Thus it seems that “Frederic” on the one hand solidarizes himself with the POUM, Sneevliet, and Vereecken; and on the other, repeats the accusations against the opponents of the GPU (among them, consequently, also against the POUM) of connections with fascism. It must be added that during the last several years Klement often reproached me in friendly fashion with being too tolerant and patient in regard to Sneevliet and Vereecken. But apparently “Frederic” knows nothing about this.
12. “We were abandoned,” he continues, “by Molinier, Jan Bur with his group, Ruth Fischer, Maslow, Brandler, and others.” In this list the name of Brandler, who never belonged to the Trotskyist camp but on the contrary was always its irreconcilable and open enemy, strikes the eye immediately. Years of open struggle in which he invariably defended Stalinism against us testify to his animosity. Klement well knew the political figure of Brandler and our attitude toward him. He knew only too well, at the same time, the inner life of the Fourth International. Why did “Frederic” introduce Brandler’s name among the people who belonged to our movement and then broke with it? Two explanations are possible. If we grant that the letter was written by Klement, we must assume that he wrote it under the muzzle of a revolver and included Brandler’s name in order to show the forced character of his letter. If we proceed from the fact that the letter was forged, the explanation is indicated by the entire technique of the GPU, where ignorance is combined with brazenness. In the Moscow trials all opponents of Stalin were thrown into one heap. Among the members of the nonexistent “Right-Trotskyite” bloc were included not only Bukharin but also Brandler and even Souvarine. In accordance with the same logic Brandler finds himself among people who broke with the Fourth International, to which he never belonged.
13. “It is puerile to think,” continues “Frederic,” “that public opinion will allow itself to be pacified by the simple declaration that they are all agents of the GPU.” This phrase is even less understandable. None of us have said that Nin and other leaders of the POUM, being annihilated by the GPU, were agents of the GPU. This applies as well to the other people mentioned in the letter, except Roman Well, who through his activity openly distinguished himself in the service of the GPU. Klement knew very well that none of us advanced such preposterous accusations against the people listed in the letter. But the whole thing is that by attempting, in passing, to defend the American, Carleton Beals, and other friends and agents of the GPU, “Frederic” must consequently compromise the very accusation of connection with the GPU. Hence, this clumsy trick, by means of which the suspicion is extended — in my name — to people to whom it obviously cannot be applied at all. This again is the style of Stalin- Vyshinsky- Yagoda-Yezhov.
14. The name “Beals” is spelled incorrectly in the letter: “Bills.” Only a person not familiar with the English spelling could write in such a manner. But Element knew the English language well, knew the name Beals, and was very pedantic in spelling out names.
15. The German of the letter is correct; but it seems to me much more primitive and unwieldy than the language of Element, who possessed stylistic abilities.
16. Worthy of attention, too, is the reference to the forthcoming International Conference, by means of which I hope, in the words of the letter, “to save the situation” for the Fourth International. In reality, as can be seen from ample correspondence, Element was the initiator of the conference and took the most active part in its organization. The GPU, insofar as it was aware of the internal affairs of the Fourth International (through the press, internal bulletins, and possibly through secret agents), might have hoped by kidnaping Element prior to the conference to stop the organizational work and prevent the conference itself.
17. This same part of the letter contains a reference to the proposal of including Walter Held in the International Secretariat “apparently by orders from over there.” In other words the author of the letter wishes to impute that Walter Held is an agent of the Gestapo. The absurdity of this information is apparent to all who know Held. But naturally, casting a shadow upon one of the prominent adherents of the Fourth International is one of the designs of the GPU.
18. The letter ends with these words: “I have no wish whatever to come out openly against you: I have had enough of it all, I am tired. I go and leave my place for Walter Held.” The falsity of these phrases is absolutely evident. “Frederic” would not have written this letter if he or his masters did not intend in some way or another to utilize it subsequently. In what way? This is not yet apparent. Possibly it may be used in particular in the Barcelona trial held behind closed doors against the “Trotskyites.” But possibly too it is for a larger purpose.
What conclusions follow from the foregoing analysis? At first, upon receipt of the letter, I had almost no doubt that it was written by Element’s own hand, but in a very nervous condition.
My impression is explainable from the fact that I was accustomed to receiving letters from Element and had never had any reason to question their authenticity. The more I scrutinized the text, however, and the more I compared it with his preceding letters, the more I became convinced of the fact that the letter is only a very skillful forgery. The GPU has no lack of specialists of all kinds. My friend Diego Rivera, who has the refined eye of a painter, does not at all doubt that the handwriting is forged. To solve this question we can and must utilize the services of a handwriting expert.
If it should be established, as I believe, that the letter is a forgery, all the rest will become clear of itself.
Klement was kidnaped, spirited away, and probably killed. The GPU fabricated the letter, representing Klement as a traitor to the Fourth International, possibly with the aim of shifting responsibility for his murder upon the “Trotskyites.” All this is entirely within the practices of this international gang. I consider this variant the most likely.
At first, as I have already stated, I assumed that the letter was written by Klement — at the point of a revolver or out of fear for the fate of people dear to him; or more correctly, not written but copied from an original placed before him by GPU agents. In case this hypothesis is confirmed, the possibility is not excluded that Klement is still alive and that the GPU in the near future will attempt to extract further “voluntary” confessions from him.
“Confessions” of this kind dictate their own reply from public opinion: let Klement, if he is alive, come out openly before the police, the judicial authorities, or an impartial commission and tell them all he knows. We can predict in advance that the GPU will in no case let Klement out of their hands.
Theoretically a third supposition is possible: namely, that Klement had suddenly radically altered his views and gone over voluntarily to the side of the GPU, drawing from this all the practical conclusions, that is, consenting to support all the frame-ups of this institution. One can go even further and assume that Klement has always been a GPU agent. But all the facts, including the letter of July 14, make this hypothesis absolutely inconceivable. Not a few times Klement could have granted the GPU the greatest services, so far as it was a question of taking my life, the life of Leon Sedov, or determining the fate of my collaborators and my documents. He had the opportunity to come out openly during the Moscow trials with his “revelations,” which in those days at least would have made a much greater impression than now. But during the Moscow trials Klement did what he could to unmask the frame-ups, actively helping Sedov in gathering data. Klement showed great devotion for the movement and a serious theoretical interest in the discussion of debatable questions. To his pen belong a series of articles and letters showing that he had a very earnest, even ardent attitude toward the program of the Fourth International. To feign devotion and theoretical interest for a movement for a number of years — that task is more than difficult.
It is just as difficult to accept the hypothesis of a “sudden” turn within the last period. If Klement had voluntarily gone over to the Comintern and the GPU — no matter for what reason— he would have had no basis whatsoever for hiding. The above-mentioned Roman Well and Jacob Frank, as well as Senin, the brother of Well, did not at all hide after their “turn”; on the contrary, they came out openly in the press, and Well and Senin (the brothers Sobolevicius) have even made a career. Finally, in the case of his voluntarily going over to the side of the Comintern, Klement as a capable and informed person should have written a much more coherent letter without self-evident incongruities and absurdities which any investigating magistrate, any impartial commission, armed with the necessary documents can easily refute.
These are the considerations which led to the conclusion that Klement was kidnaped by the GPU and that his letter to me is a forgery, fabricated by the specialists of the GPU. It is very easy to refute this hypothesis: “Frederic” must emerge from his hiding place and come out with open accusations. If he will not do this, it means that Klement is in the clutches of the GPU, and probably already “liquidated,” as have been so many others.
The chief responsibility in solving the mystery of Rudolf Klement’s disappearance lies with the French police. Let up hope, no matter how difficult this may be, that they will this time prove themselves more persistent and more successful than they have been in solving all the preceding crimes of the GPU on French soil.
August 4, 1938
P.S. — All the above had already been written when I received from Paris a letter by Comrade Rous, dated July 21, each line of which confirms the above conclusions.
1. Rous received a copy of the letter addressed to me, but signed “Rudolf Klement” and “Adolphe.” Assuming the same signature to be on the original addressed to me, Rous expressed legitimate astonishment over the letter being signed with the name “Adolphe” and not “Camille,” the signature Klement used during the entire last period. In fighting against the espionage of the GPU and the Gestapo, Klement changed his pseudonyms three times during the last few years in the following order: Frederic, “Adolphe,” Camille. Obviously, the GPU fell into a trap.
Possessing the names Klement, Frederic, and “Adolphe,” to lend more plausibility they placed on different copies all three of the names (which is absurd in itself), but did not use the only name which Klement actually utilized as his signature during the last period.
2. On July 8, that is five days prior to Klement’s disappearance, his portfolio of papers vanished in the subway. It is understood, of course, that the portfolio could not be found.
Klement, who well knew that the GPU in Paris acts as if it were in its own home, immediately informed every section of the Fourth International of the theft of the portfolio, suggesting that they cease sending letters to the old addresses.
3. On July 15, after receiving “Adolphe’s” letter postmarked Perpignan, the French comrades visited Klement’s room. His table was set, everything was in order, not the least sign of preparation for departure! The importance of this circumstance does not need any elucidation.
4. Comrade Rous points out that the address on the letter from Perpignan was written as the Russians write it, first the name of the city, then at the bottom of the envelope the name of the street.
It can be considered beyond all doubt that Klement, as a German and a European, never wrote addresses in this manner.
5. Why, asks Rous, is the name “Beals” written as in Russian, “Bills” (in other words, the Russian transliteration of the name is simply written in Latin characters)?
Omitting other remarks from Rous’s letter (Rous and other French comrades will themselves bring these considerations to the attention of the public and of the French authorities), I shall limit myself now to stating that the first factual information received directly from France fully confirms the conclusions at which I arrived on the basis of the analysis of the letter signed “Frederic”; that is, Rudolf Klement has been kidnaped by the GPU.
*******************************************
December 1st, 1938
On the murder of Rudolph Klement
León Trotsky
I have received a letter from Rudof Klement's aunt, who lives in one of the countries of Latin America, asking whether I know anything about her missing nephew. She states that Rudolf s mother, who lives in Germany, is in a state of utter despair, torn by the lack of any word about his fate. In the heart of the unhappy mother the hope arose that Rudolf might have succeeded in escaping danger and that he was hiding perhaps at my home. Alas, nothing remains to me but to destroy her last hopes. The letter of Rudolfs aunt is a further proof of the GPU's crime. If Rudolf had in fact voluntarily abandoned Paris, as the GPU with the help of its agents of various kinds would like us to believe, he would not of course have left his mother in ignorance and the latter would not have had any reason to appeal to me through her sister in Latin America. Rudolf Klement was murdered by the agents of Stalin.