Talk:Moscow trials

POV

There is a strong bias in the presentation of this material which favours Trotskyist and later Bukharinite narratives and serves only to establish a faux-martyrology for these sectarian network. The term "show trial" should not be used in the introduction at all because it gives the impression that their conclusions were unjust. By all means, mention that Trotskyists, capitalists, fascists, revisionists, etc, have cast doubt on their legitimacy, but lets use more nuanced language in the first sentence. Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The vast majority of books and articles regard them as show trials whose charges were basically nonsense. The fact you have to cast such a wide net of authors ("Trotskyists, capitalists, fascists, revisionists" and even included an "etc" at the end) shows this. It's like complaining of "bias" in the 9/11 article because it doesn't give equal weight to the argument that the Twin Towers were destroyed by remote explosives rather than airliners hijacked by terrorists. It's also worth adding that the term "show trial" does not necessarily mean the defendants of a trial are without guilt, just that it is not a proper trial (a good example of this is the People's Revolutionary Tribunal set up in Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge were overthrown, in which the defendants—Pol Pot and Ieng Sary—were denied a fair hearing despite scarcely anyone doubting that they would be found guilty in a "normal" court.) Of course, it should come as no surprise if the defendants in most show trials are innocent of the charges against them. --Ismail (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

yes the vast majority of books IN ENGLISH regard them as illegitimate show trials, and those books have almost invariably terrible methodology. these books were written by propagandists like Robert Conquests as part of the cold war, and with new evidence from the soviet archives have been completely debunked. On that note, the american ambassador to the soviet union, John E. Davis, who was himself a jurist, and was present at the moscow trials, said he believed them to be entirely proper and legitimate. Read J. Arch Getty. O-caudata (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that the consensus on the Moscow Trials is different in German, French, Russian, and other languages? I've read Getty, he refers to them as show trials. As for "John E. Davis" (you mean Joseph E. Davies), his view was far from universal among those who were present at the Trials (e.g. the British ambassador privately wrote to his government that the proceedings were a "travesty of justice"), as noted in Robert C. Tucker's Stalin in Power. --Ismail (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Well said. This entire article is Trotskyist revisionism. Trotsky was, as he admitted, plotting to overthrow the Soviet Union. These trials were hearings where they determined that - shocker - these people who followed Trotsky were plotting to overthrow the Soviet Union. Calling them "show trials" is entirely misleading. Asaturn (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

First, Trotsky argued that a workers' revolution was required to overthrow what he considered a "Thermidorean bureaucracy" that imperiled the future of the Soviet state. This is quite different from the claims of the Trials that (among other things) Trotsky established connections with foreign intelligence services and agreed with them to partition the USSR, that he organized individual acts of terrorism against leaders of the country, that he sought to carry out industrial sabotage, and that he formed a bloc with figures like Zinoviev and Bukharin. Second, it makes sense to call them "show trials" as the proceedings were little more than defendants confessing to incredible charges with no real attempt to question their narratives (plus multiple indications that can be cited that their testimony was coerced out of them by torture or other psychological pressure.) --Ismail (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

" the proceedings were little more than defendants confessing to incredible charges with no real attempt to question their narratives (plus multiple indications that can be cited that their testimony was coerced out of them by torture or other psychological pressure.)"

what indications? O-caudata (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a bunch of examples here (with sources provided): http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2019/08/again-about-stalinist-deniers-yes.html (obviously I'm not suggesting a blog post be inserted into the article, I link to it here in answer to your query.) --Ismail (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Lev Sheinin

Perhaps of interest!Rubiks2022 (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Fringe theory?

This edit cites Grover Furr, in a way that surprises me. I am not personally familiar with the literature, but I was under the impression that he was promoting a WP:FRINGE theory. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I removed it, there's no reason to cite Furr in this article unless it's to point out that there really are people in the present day who think the Moscow Trials were legitimate. Citing him as a reliable source, as the article did till my edit, is unwarranted. --Ismail (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Interrogation records?

A great many investigative materials (interrogation records etc) have recently begun to be published in relation to the Moscow Trials. While historians are still trying to work out (or arguing about) how to value these new primary sources (see Brandenberger, 'Role of Coercion', Chase/Novikova-Monterde, 'The Many Faces', Zhuravlev, Diukov), I see no reason why these important articles about Soviet history can't be updated in the meantime.

Would love to hear anyone else's opinions on how a large project like this could be tackled.

P.S. Luckily a great many of these materials I've alluded to are available online -- http://showtrials.ru/glavnaya/august1936-trial/august-materials/ Krystoff Moholy (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2026 (UTC)