SOMETHING NEW TO WORRY ABOUT
Worldwide contamination of the environment by lead from motor gasoline is reported by the National Science Foundation to have reached "alarming" proportions. The level of the poisonous metal in the blood of the average American has risen to half that required to produce obvious symptoms such as disruption of the central nervous system. More subtle effects at current levels might be “impairment of thought processes." This appears to have already become quite general among ruling circles in a lot of countries besides the U.S.
HOW TROTSKY DEFENSE COMMITTEE WAS ORGANIZED
[The following hitherto unpublished correspondence between George Novack, who was National Secretary of the American Committee for the Defense of Leon Trotsky, and A.V.N. van Woerden, at present the administrator of the International Review of Social History, published in Amsterdam, is of unusual interest because of the new facts it brings to light concerning the organization of the defense of Trotsky against the infamous charges levelled against him by Stalin in the Moscow frame-up trials of the thirties. The correspondence also shows how difficult 1t is even at this late date to get a fair hearing for Trotsky in publications that are presumably dedicated to ascertaining the truth about past events. ]
Hoe HR,
July 10, 1965 Editorial Secretary International Review of Social History Amsterdam, Holland
Dear Sir:
.My attention has been called, somewhat belatedly, to the article by Dr. M.S.Venkataramani on "Leon Trotsky's Adventure in American Radical Politics, 1935-7" published in Vol, IX-1964—Part 1 of the International Review of Social History.
As National Secretary of the American Committee for the Defense of Leon Trotsky during those years, I should like to bring forward some facts based on my recollections which contravene the version of these events advanced by the author,
His thesis may be summarized as follows: Trotsky wanted support from American liberals, and above all from Norman Thomas, the. head of the Socialist Party, to expose the Moscow Trial frameups. He urged James P. Cannon, the U.S, Trotskyist leader, to effect entry of his forces into the Socialist Party "as a deliberate, cold-blooded maneuver to bring into existence an international commission for the investigation of Stalin's charges." Cannon carried through this scheme at Trotsky's behest and under his directives. Thomas was instrumental in obtaining asylum for Trotsky in Mexico and forming the Dewey Commission of Inquiry which later found Trotsky and his son Sedov innocent. This mission accomplished, Trotsky then ordered Cannon to wreck and quit the Socialist Party which Cannon dutifully did.
Apart from its implausible political and psychological assumptions, this misinterpretation disregards some fundamental facts connected with the problems of securing a safe refuge for the Russian revolutionist and the origins of the Dewey Commission. Since I played
—3Qu
a pivotal role in these two developments, I feel obliged to set the historical record straight in regard to them.
In the eleven years between his expulsion from the Soviet Union in 1929 and his assassination in 1940, Trotsky lived in constant insecurity and peril. The most accurate and authoritative account of this period is given by Isaac Deutscher in The Prophet Outcast which was published after Dr. Venkataramanits paper was completed.
Trotsky's situation became highly precarious when he was forced to live incognito and move from place to place in the crisis-torn France of:.19354-35. (This caused considerable concern to his followers and admirers. The organ of the American Trotskyists, the Militant, on April 21, 1934, stated that a chorus of Russian White Guards, French fascists and Stalinists was demanding Trotsky's, deportation by the French government and it called for launching a campaign to secure his asylum in the United States.
In accord with this appeal and in agreement with the leader-~ ship of the newly-formed Workers Party to which I belonged, early in 1934 I took the initiative in organizing a committee of prominent intellectuals to work for the admission of the hounded exile into the United States. Quincy Howe, then editor of The Living Age and today editor of Atlas magazine, was chairman and the most active liberal member of this American Committee for Asylum for Trotsky. I cannot now recall whether or not Norman Thomas joined its list of sponsors,
Through Morris Ernst, General Counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union and a friend of the Roosevelt family, we sought to sound out President Roosevelt on the chances of White House approval for an application for a Trotsky visa. Roosevelt turned down our overture, presumably, among other reasons, because his State Department did not care to disturb the diplomatic honeymoon with Moscow following Washington's recognition of the Soviet Union. Thereupon our Committee tried without success to get some other country in the Western hemisphere to open its doors to Trotsky.
The American Committee was discontinued and remained dormant after the newly-installed Labor government admitted Trotsky to Norway in 1935. It was reactivated and reorganized following the first Moscow Trial and execution of Zinoviev and Kamenev in August 1936 when Trotsky was interned and refused a renewal of his stay by the Nor~ wegian government under pressure from the Kremlin's ambassador.
. In addition to seeking a new asylum for the jailed and gagged Trotsky, the American Committee for the Defense of Leon Trotsky assumed the second aim of joining with similar forces in other countries, such.as France and England, to set up an international commission of inquiry into the charges against Trotsky in the Moscow Trials. This would enable the principal accused to answer the accusations against him and present evidence refuting them.
The activity of both committees was carried on without any special reference to or dependence upon Norman Thomas or the Socialist Party. This does not mean that the attitude of the Socialist Party or its most prominent figure was a matter of indifference to the organizers or officers of the Committee. They were eager to secure cooperation from these quarters.
I recall that some members of the National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party were reluctant, for various reasons (among them pressure from Conmunist Party elements) to endorse the purposes of the Trotsky Defense Committee. In November 1936 Max Shachtman, James Burnham and I went as a delegation to the N.E.C. meeting in Philadelphia to press for its official endorsement of our Committee, This was voted with some dissenting voices,
During these months Norman Thomas did assist the Committee, though not in any leading capacity. The negotiations with President Cardenas which resulted in the granting of a Mexican visa to Trotsky were initiated by the well-known writer Anita Brenner, a member of our Committee, and concluded by Diego Rivera who made a special trip into the interior of Mexico to persuade Cardenas to approve Trotsky's admission to his country.
' The telegram signed and sent by Norman Thomas and others to the Mexican President was part of our Committee's effort to spur action by his government. It proved effective and the Norwegian government hustled the Trotskys aboard a tanker which arrived in Tampico on January 9, 1937, There Max Shachtman and I met the exiles who were free, for the first time in six months, to speak to the world.
Although we discussed the project at length with Trotsky after his arrival, very little was done to organize an International Commission of Inquiry even after the Second Moscow Trial of Piatakov, Radek and others January 23-30, 1957. Trotsky became very impatient at the inertia of the American Committee and in March sent a vehement letter to New York insisting that the Commission be established without further delay. Under his prodding the executives of the American Committee intensified their efforts to assemble the personnel, raise the finances, and organize a subcommittee to go to Mexico to hear Trotsky's testimony.
At this critical juncture the principal liberal and left figures involved were not Norman Thomas, as Dr. Venkataramani pic= tures it, but the philosopher John Dewey and Professor Sidney Hook. We had asked Charles Beard, the foremost American liberal historian, to serve on the Commission but he declined. Dewey at first demurred but reconsidered, After an intervention by Sidney Hook and an interview with James Cannon and me, he agreed to serve as Chairman of the Commission and leave early in April for Mexico City. This despite his family's objections due to his age.
-~4i—
If any individuals are to be singled out at this point, a far more important part in helping to organize the Commission was played by Sidney Hook than by Norman Thomas. Prof. Hook was an intermediary in the fusion of the American Workers Party with the Trotskyist Com-~ munist League in 1934, in the entry of the Workers Party into the Socialist Party in 1936, and in persuading Dewey to undertake his key role on the International Commission of Inquiry in 1937.
I do not wish to derogate the honorable role that Norman Thomas did play throughout this period in cooperating with others to get at the truth about Stalin's monstrous frameups. However, it was not the central and crucial role assigned him by Dr. Venkataramani. This may be necessitated to buttress his erroneous thesis that "an American Committee for the Defense of Leon Trotsky had been established and Norman Thomas! active membership in it was deemed vitally important by the Trotskyists." But that does not correspond to the actual circumstances in the case,
The American Committee had been set up in 1954 long before Trotsky or Cannon had any thought or plan of entering the Socialist Party. And while those responsible for the Committee's operations welcomed and received support from the Socialist Party and its leader, they were not at any time guided by the consideration that this was so "vitally important" as to shape and direct its work,
The tasks of establishing the truth about Stalin's frameups undertaken by the Trotsky Committee, and the Commission of Inquiry it helped bring into being, were of immense political and historical importance and have been thoroughly vindicated by the passage of time. They could not have been, and were not, inspired by petty factional motives and maneuvers as Dr. “Venkataramani would have us believe.
September 6, 1965
Mr. George Novack
Sir: 7
Thank you very much for your interesting letter of July 10. As the post of Editorial Secretary of the "International Review of Social History" was abolished on July 1, 1964, I shall have to answer you,
The contents of your letter are very interesting indeed, and we should be glad to communicate them to the readers of our journal, if Dr. Venkataramani's paper had not been published so long ago.
In any case, the Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis will file your letter into their archives as an essen-
tial contribution to the study of Trotsky and Trotskyism,
Sincerely yours, |
A.V.N. van Woerden
Administrator,
"International Review of
Social History"
eo
September 21, 1965 Mr. A.V,N. van Woerden, Administrator International Review of Social History
Dear Sir:
I must protest your refusal to publish my letter of July 10, 1965, correcting the distorted version of the motives for forming the Dewey International Commission of Inquiry into the Moscow Trials given by Dr. Venkataramani in your journal.
As Secretary of the American Committee for the Defense of Leon Trotsky from 1935 to 1958, I was perhaps better situated than any other living person to know the real facts in this matter. However Dr. Venkataramani did not communicate with me to obtain them while he undertook his research for his article in the United States. -I therefore feel as equally obligated to defend Trotsky's role and reputation from deformation in this case after his death as during his lifetime.
I am surprised that the International Review of Social History should file away my corrected account of the real situation on the pretext that Dr. Venkataramani's paper was published so long ago. As its name indicates, your publication is not a newspaper but an historical review seeking the whole truth about past events.
Your esteemed journal has the reputation of treating the most disputed historical events in the labor and socialist movement fairly and impartially. Your decision to withhold my testimony, after publishing Dr. Venkataramani's opinion, is completely inconsistent with your policy.
I therefore hope you will reconsider your refusal and find space in a forthcoming issue for my brief contribution to the clarification of one of the most important episodes in contemporary revolutionary history.
Sincerely yours,
George Novack
Sept. 23, 1965 Mr. George Novack |
Dear Sir:
Thank you for your letter. I regret that the editorial board of the "International Review of Social History" cannot go back from its decision not to publish your letter, I think the decision as to what is consistent with our editorial policy should be better left to us; anyhow, it has never been our custom to pubiish niensy political criticisms two years after date.
I trust that your criticism will be inserted in some American periodical, with or without an additional criticism of our policy, but I do hope that by looking into the previous volumes of the "International Review of Social History" you will better realize what ‘a scholarly journal is like and what not.
Sincerely yours,
A.V.N. van Woerden,
Administrator,
"International Review
of History"