Georgi Dimitrov: Selected Speeches and Articles (Georgi Dimitrov)

Georgi Dimitrov: Selected Speeches and Articles
Author	Georgi Dimitrov
Publisher	Lawrence & Wishart LTD., London
First published	1951
Type	Book
Source	https://archive.org/details/georgi_dimitrov_selected_speeches_and_articles/page/n1/mode/2up

A true revolutionary and proletarian leader is formed in the fire of the class struggle and by making Marxism Leninism his own.

It is not enough to have a revolutionary temperament — one has to understand how to handle the weapon of revolutionary theory.

It is not enough to know theory — one must also forge oneself a strong character with Bolshevist steadfastness.

It is not enough to know what ought to be done — one must also have the courage to carry it out.

One must always be ready to do anything, at any cost, which is of real service to the working-class.

One must be capable of subordinating one’s whole personal life to the interests of the proletariat.

G. DIMITROV

(Preface to The Life of Ernst Thaelmann)

Printed in Holland by De IJsel Press Ltd. Deventer, Holland

Introduction

In the passing of Georgi Dimitrov, July 2, 1949, the workers of the world, and the Bulgarian workers in particular, lost one of the most self-sacrificing, thoughtful revolutionary leaders, and one of the greatest Marxists of the present epoch.

The life of Georgi Dimitrov is a glorious page in the struggle of the working people all over the world against fascism and war and for the victory of socialism.

His life and activities are inseparably linked with the Bulgarian people — with its struggles for liberation from the imperialist yoke and from capitalist oppression over the last fifty years, with the people’s sufferings and victories, and, finally, with their successes in building the basis of socialism.

I can see him now, unfolding to me his dream of what the workers and peasants of his beloved Bulgaria would make of their beautiful country. And in spite of all the difficulties they would have to surmount, he had the firm and proud conviction that they would succeed.

Georgi Dimitrov’s unbreakable faith in the working class gave him, as it gives all who possess it, a strength which the capitalists and social democratic organisations can never give — the faith to triumph over all obstacles, never to be afraid of anything that the enemies of the workers may try and do, and the certainty both of the righteousness of our cause and that it will finally triumph. This lay at the heart of everything to which Dimitrov set his hand, from the time when as a young lad he commenced his activity in the revolutionary movement, to the day he became the proud leader of the new Bulgarian Workers’ and Peasants’ Fatherland.

Georgi Dimitrov was born on June 18, 1882, into a poor workers’ family. It was a family of fighters. His elder brother, Constantine, was secretary of the Print Workers Trade Union in Bulgaria; his other brother Nikolai, living in Odessa, took an active part in the illegal activities of the Bolshevik Party, for which he was sentenced to lifelong exile in Siberia, where he died. His third brother, Todor, was an active Communist in Bulgaria, and was murdered by the police in 1925. The rest of the family also took part in the struggle of the working people.

It was in such a family as this that Georgi Dimitrov was brought up.

From a very early age he suffered hardships, and at twelve years of age he had to leave school and become a printer. At 15 he entered the workers’ revolutionary movement, and at 18 he was already secretary of the oldest trade union in Bulgaria, the Print Workers Union.

In 1902, Georgi Dimitrov became a member of the Bulgarian Social Democratic Party, and joined the struggle of the revolutionary Marxist wing, known as the “Narrow Socialists”. In 1909 he was elected secretary of the revolutionary trade unions, formed and led by the party of the “Narrow Socialists”, in which position he remained until 1924, when the trade unions were dissolved by the fascist government.

As secretary of the Sofia organisation of the “Narrow Socialists”, as a County Councillor, a member of Parliament, member of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian trade unions, Dimitrov put his entire energy and his whole personal life at the service of the liberation of the working class.

Organising the workers in their everyday struggle, Dimitrov strove to combine the economic and political struggle of the working class. He ceaselessly explained to the workers that the historic task of the proletariat, the destruction of capitalism and the creation of a socialist society, could be fulfilled only by a persistent political struggle against the ruling class. For his incomparable activity in the struggle against the exploiters and for the defence of the interests of the workers, he won the love of the entire Bulgarian people.

It is characteristic of Georgi Dimitrov that from the very beginning of his political activity he stood firm by the principles of proletarian internationalism. There was no great event in the life of the international working class movement which did not find its response in the Bulgarian trade unions, led by Dimitrov.

The Bulgarian workers carried out strikes and demonstrations in solidarity with the first Russian Revolution of 1905 — 7. Dimitrov organised collections to help those who were taking part in the revolutionary struggle in Russia, as he did for those taking part in the great strikes in Great Britain, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain and other countries.

During the First World War, Dimitrov organised the struggle against Bulgaria's being involved. In 1915, when the Bulgarian Government hurled its people into the war on the side of the German imperialists, the "Narrow Socialists" issued the call to struggle against the imperialist war. In parliament they voted against military credits and unmasked the robber aims of the war.

The members of the Central Committee were arrested and put on trial. Dimitrov among them was thrown into prison for his revolutionary work among the soldiers.

At the outbreak of the October Revolution in Russia in 1917, the "Narrow Socialists" taught the Bulgarian workers and peasants to follow the path of the workers and peasants of Russia. Mutinies and great demonstrations culminated in a general uprising which knocked Bulgaria out of the war in September 1918.

Under the leadership of Blagoev and Dimitrov, in 1919, the Party of the "Narrow Socialists" changed its name to the Bulgarian Communist Party and joined the Third International. In 1921, Dimitrov was a delegate of the Bulgarian Communists to the Third Congress of the Communist International in Moscow, where for the first time he met the leaders of the world working class movement — Lenin and Stalin.

May I say, with all due modesty, that this was also the first occasion I had the pleasure and honour of meeting Georgi Dimitrov — an event I can never forget, because the personal charm of the man and his political sagacity made an indelible impression on my mind.

In 1923 the fascist government of the hangman Alexander Tsankov began a bloody onslaught against the Bulgarian working people. It was met with an armed uprising. Dimitrov took the lead and set an example as a brave and unshakeable revolutionary leader. The Bulgarian fascists succeeded in crushing the uprising, but nevertheless, as Dimitrov said, it had created a deep breach between the people and the government which nothing could bridge.

After 1923, compelled to emigrate abroad, Dimitrov led the life of a professional revolutionary. He worked actively in the Executive Committee of the Communist International and became one of the organisers of the international struggle against fascism.

In 1933 he was arrested by Hitler’s Gestapo. After being months on end in chains in his cell, he was placed on trial on the charge of having organised the burning of the Reichstag.

Only a few days before he was arrested I had parted with Dimitrov in a café on the Friedrichstrasse in Berlin. I remember now as clear as daylight the warnings that he gave as to how far the fascists would go in their terrorist activities.

There in the dock at Leipzig, Georgi Dimitrov demonstrated the courage of a revolutionary fighter. He exposed to the whole world the provocation of the Reichstag Fire and unmasked the fascist instigators of war. Before the fascist court he set an example of behaviour befitting a communist revolutionary.

Dimitrov told the fascist judges:

"It is true that I am a Communist, a proletarian revolutionary. It is true also that as a member of the Bulgarian Communist Party and of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, I am a responsible worker. But just because of this, I am not a terrorist adventurist, plotter, or incendiary.."

He refused the help of the official Defence Lawyer, announced that he would carry out his own defence, and explained what he was defending.

"I defend my own Communist revolutionary honour.

"I defend my ideas, my Communist views.

"I defend the meaning and content of my life"

Georgi Dimitrov was not defending himself, personally, at the Leipzig Trial, but the great cause of the working class. "No less determined than old Galileo we Communists declare 'And still it moves!’ The wheel of history moves on towards the ultimate, inevitable, irrepressible goal of Communism”.

From the defendant, he became the inexorable accuser of fascism, and carried millions of people throughout the world forward for the fight for peace and democracy. Progressive people from all countries arose to defend Dimitrov. Mass demonstrations of sympathy and a counter-trial were organised in Britain. Thanks to the mighty protests of the working people, to his own fight in the courtroom, and above all, to the action taken by the Soviet Union, Dimitrov was freed and again had the opportunity of continuing the fight as a leading personality in the international working class movement.

And in our present times, when the Tories and Right-Wing Social Democratic leaders of all capitalist nations fall over themselves to betray the national sovereignty and independence of their countries to the mercenary and aggressive warmongers of the U.S.A., it is timely to remember how proudly and defiantly Dimitrov defended his native land of Bulgaria.

“I think, comrades,” he said later, at the Seventh Congress of the Communist International, “that when the fascists at the Leipzig trial attempted to slander the Bulgarians as a barbarian people, I was not wrong in taking up the defence of the national honour of the toiling masses of the Bulgarian people, who are struggling heroically against the fascist usurpers, the real barbarians and savages; nor was I wrong in declaring that I had no cause to be ashamed of being a Bulgarian, but that, on the contrary, I was proud of being a son of the heroic Bulgarian working class.”

In Moscow, Georgi Dimitrov devoted himself entirely to the strenuous work of uniting all the forces of the working people in the world against fascism. Elected General Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Communist International in 1935, Dimitrov, under the leadership of the great Stalin, worked out the strategy and tactics of the struggle against fascism. He fought persistently for the establishment and consolidation of the united, proletarian and people’s front against fascism, and against the war which the governing cliques in Germany, Italy and Japan were at that time feverishly preparing, with the help of the Anglo-American imperialists.

In his report to the Seventh Congress of the Communist International, in his speeches to the Plenums of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, and in the press, Dimitrov ceaselessly appealed to the peoples of all countries to rally around the Communist Party and bar the road of the fascist aggressors.

Dimitrov carried out great work in educating and developing the leading cadres in the Communist Parties — cadres faithful to the great teachings of Marxism-Leninism, to the principles of proletarian internationalism, to the defence of the interests of the peoples in their countries.

"Comrades”, said Dimitrov, addressing the Bulgarian Communist émigrés in Moscow in May 1934, "we have learnt, we are now learning, and we shall still learn from the glorious Russian Bolsheviks .We are happy that following the example of the old Bolsheviks who are still alive, we can further strengthen our will for the fight, and our confidence in victory.

“I personally, sitting manacled in prison, remembered in my hardest hours how the revolutionary proletariat used to live in old Tsarist Russia. I remembered with what energy and courage hundreds of thousands of our old Bolsheviks fought against the hardship and dangers which confronted them, and what heroism the Russian Bolsheviks showed in the period of the Civil War and afterwards, in the period of the building up of socialism!

"And if they, I said to myself, bore all these sufferings honourably and bravely, then I, a Bulgarian Communist, standing on a world tribune, should also stand firmly and unwaveringly at my post, and set an example to the German proletariat, to my Bulgarian brothers, and to all the international proletariat, an example of how a Bolshevik can, and should, fight the bourgeoisie and fascism, most deeply convinced of the inevitability of the final victory of the proletarian revolution."

During the Second World War, Dimitrov worked to mobilise all progressive forces in the world for the fight against the German-fascist marauders. He was one of Stalin’s closest associates in teaching how to broaden the national liberation, anti-fascist movement in the countries occupied by the Hitlerites.

During the national liberation struggles, the unity of the peoples grew stronger. The embryo of the future people’s power was developing, the permanent basis of the new people’s power was being laid.

For his outstanding work in the struggle against fascism, Georgi Dimitrov, in 1945. was awarded the Order of Lenin by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.

After the war Georgi Dimitrov ceaselessly exposed the intrigues of the Anglo-American instigators of a new war. He passionately appealed to the working people all over the world to bar the road of the new candidates for world domination. With a passion which was characteristic of him, and with the steadfastness of a proletarian revolutionary, Dimitrov stressed the inevitability of the victory of the working class — at the head of all the working people — over the dark forces of reaction and fascism.

“The whole of historical development, comrades” said Dimitrov, “is moving in the interests of the working class. The attempts of the reactionaries, of fascists of all kinds, of the entire world bourgeoisie, to turn back the wheel of history, are in vain.”

While carrying out his political and revolutionary activities in the international field, Dimitrov never separated himself from his native Bulgarian people, never forgot their struggle and their everyday needs. Wherever he was during the years of his forced emigration, he always closely followed the life and struggles of the Bulgarian people, directing every step taken by the revolutionary fighters of his Motherland, Bulgaria. There was no action taken by the democratic forces in Bulgaria without the leading counsel of Dimitrov.

Dimitrov combined the features of a steadfast proletarian internationalist and of a passionate patriot. Always and everywhere, he stood for the true interests of his people.

During the war years, he formulated the programme of the Fatherland Front, and led the armed struggle of the Bulgarian people against the fascist invaders, and their agents in the country. The name of Comrade Dimitrov inspired tens of thousands of Bulgarian patriots, who took up their rifles for the fight against fascist domination and capitalist exploitation.

On September 9, 1944, under his leadership and with the decisive help of the liberating Soviet army, the Bulgarian people overthrew the fascist government and for the first time in the history of the country, took the fate of the people and of the state into their own hands. The example and the name of Dimitrov inspired the Bulgarian soldiers and their commanders, who helped to defeat the German fascists. In the early days after September 9, his constant counsel was a guide for the young government of the people.

In November 1945, after 22 years of exile, Georgi Dimitrov again stepped on to his native soil. Back in Bulgaria, he worked day and night. He directly led all the activities of the party. He addressed all sections of the working people — miners, transport workers, tobacco and textile workers, peasants, office workers, women and youth, and intellectuals. He put before them concrete and clear tasks, appealed to them to fight for fundamental, democratic changes in the country, and for the creation of the conditions for building socialism in Bulgaria. Under his leadership, the Bulgarian people carried out a referendum for the abolition of the monarchy, resulting in a unanimous vote for a People’s Republic.

After the Communist-led Fatherland Front had won a great election victory, Georgi Dimitrov became Prime Minister of the People s Republic of Bulgaria. Under his leadership, the new Constitution was drafted, widely discussed and adopted. This Constitution gave legal form to the basic, democratic changes which had taken place in Bulgaria. Under his leadership, Bulgaria started on the road to socialism.

In December 1948, the Fifth Congress of the Bulgarian Communist Party took place, in which the power and influence of the Party was clearly expressed. Georgi Dimitrov delivered an outstanding report, m which he analysed the long struggle of the Bulgarian Communists for the freedom and independence of the country, for fundamental, democratic changes in Bulgaria. He indicated the further path of development of the Party and the country, and posedas an immediate task for the Bulgarian Communists and for the entire people, the laying of the foundations of a socialist society in Bulgaria.

In this report, Dimitrov gave a theoretical summing-up of the post-war developments in Bulgaria, and defined the road for the building of socialism in the country. The building of a socialist society in Bulgaria would be carried out through the industrialisation and electrification of the country, the mechanisation of rural economy on the basis of co-operatives, the further strengthening of the regime of people’s democracy, which carries out the functions of the proletarian dictatorship and develops in alliance and friendship with the Soviet Union, in hard class struggle against internal and foreign reaction.

"According to Marxist-Leninist principles, the Soviet regime and people’s democracy are two forms of one and the same rule — the rule of the working class in alliance with and at the head of the working people from towns and villages. They are two forms of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The particular form of transition from capitalism to socialism in Bulgaria does not and cannot alter the basic laws of the transition period from capitalism to socialism, which are valid for all countries. The transition to socialism cannot be carried out without the dictatorship of the proletariat against the capitalist elements and for the organisation of the socialist economy . . .

"From the fact that the people's democracy and Soviet regime coincide in the most important and decisive respect, i.e. that they both represent the rule of the working class in alliance and at the head of the working people, there follow some very essential conclusions concerning the necessity of making the most thorough study and the widest application of the great experience of socialist construction in the U.S.S.R. And this experience, adapted to our conditions, is the only and best model for the construction of socialism in Bulgaria, as well as in the other people’s democracies.”

Georgi Dimitrov educated the working people of Bulgaria in the spirit of proletarian internationalism and international solidarity. He always appealed for the use of the great teachings of Lenin and Stalin and the rich experience of the Bolshevik Party as a guide.

He taught the Bulgarian Communists to be vigilant, to be always faithful to the great cause of Lenin and Stalin.

“Our Party” said Georgi Dimitrov, “has before it the example of the great Bolshevik Party, whose Central Committee and great leader Comrade Stalin, have lent us more than once invaluable aid by their advice and guidance. Our Party, which takes an active part in the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers’ Parties, is proud to belong to the great family of world communism, headed by the Bolshevik Party and the leader of progressive mankind, Joseph Vissarionovitch Stalin”.

Under Dimitrov's ideological leadership, the treacherous gang of foreign agents led by Traicho Kostov, which had penetrated the Bulgarian Communist Party, was crushed.

The Bulgarian Communist Party, headed by Georgi Dimitrov, decisively proclaimed itself against the nationalistic and treacherous clique of Tito in Yugoslavia. Giving all his energy to the consolidation of the anti-imperialist camp, and so uniting all democratic forces, Dimitrov mercilessly exposed the treachery of the Titoites to the cause of the united, anti-imperialist front.

Until the very last moment of his life, Georgi Dimitrov directed the social changes in Bulgaria, and the building of the basis of socialism. Under his leadership, the Bulgarian working people have healed the wounds of war and revived their national economy, which had been plundered by the Germans. Under his leadership, the nationalisation of industry and the land reforms were carried out. The factories passed into the hands of the people, and thousands of landless peasants received land for the first time. Under Dimitrov’s leadership, there began the transformation of village economy through the co-operative tilling of the soil.

Under Dimitrov’s leadership, the Bulgarian Government concluded agreements for friendship and mutual aid with the great Soviet Union and with the People’s Democracies, guaranteeing the country’s national independence and further development on the road to socialism.

The death of Georgi Dimitrov was deeply mourned by the Bulgarian people and by working people all over the world. Twenty-seven foreign delegations were present at his funeral.

The scenes in Sofia on that sad and unforgettable day of July i o, 1949, can never be effaced from the memory. Only once before have I seen such grief, tears and sense of loss depicted on people’s faces, and that was at the funeral of Lenin.

To see such scenes is indeed to read history in people’s eyes. In these solemn days there will be millions of working men and women, peasants and their families, the best in the ranks of the working intellectuals and all who love peace, who will think with sadness, but with a great pride, of everything that Dimitrov stood for, fought for, and yet saw achieved.

Let us resolve to carry his life’s work forward in the conditions of our time, fortified and strengthened by his immortal example and by his precepts, to intensify the fight for peace and remove for ever the shadow of imperialist war - Harry Pollitt.

THE REICHSTAG FIRE TRIAL.

DIMITROV’S FINAL SPEECH

Dimitrov: “By virtue of Article 2 58 of the Criminal Procedure Code I am entitled to speak both as defender and as accused.”

President:“You have the right to the last word and you can make use of that right now.”

Dimitrov: “By virtue of the Criminal Procedure Code I have the right to argue with the prosecution and then to deliver my final speech.”

My Lords, Judges, Gentlemen for the Prosecution and the Defence! At the very beginning of this trial three months ago as an accused man I addressed a letter to the President of the Court. I wrote that I regretted that my attitude in Court should lead to collisions with the judges, but I categorically refuted the suggestion which was made against me that I had misused my right to put questions and my right to make statements in order to serve propagandist ends. Because I was wrongly accused before this Court I naturally used all the means at my disposal to defend myself against false charges.

In the letter I acknowledged that several of my questions had not been as apposite from the point of view of time and formulation as I could have wished. May I explain this by referring to the fact that my knowledge of German law is but limited and further that this is the first time in my life in which I have played a part in judicial proceedings of this character. If I had enjoyed the services of a lawyer of my own choice I should doubtless have known how to avoid these misunderstandings so harmful to my own defence. Permit me to recall that all my requests for the admission as my defending counsel of MM. Detcheff, Moro-Giafferi, Campinchi, Torres, Gallagher and Lehmann were one after another rejected by the Supreme Court for various reasons. I have no personal distrust of Dr. Teichert either as a man or as a lawyer, but in the present conditions in Germany I cannot have the necessary confidence in his official defence. For this reason I am attempting to defend myself, a course in which I may have been sometimes guilty of taking steps legally inapposite.

In the interests of my defence before the Supreme Court and also, as I am convinced, in the interests of the normal course of the trial, I now apply to the Court for the last time to permit the lawyer, Marcel Willard, engaged by my sister, to undertake my defence in conjunction with Teichert. If the Court also rejects this application, then the only course remaining open for me is to defend myself as best I can alone.

***

Now that the Court has rejected my last application, I have decided to defend myself. I want neither the honey nor the poison of a defence which is forced upon me. During the whole course of these proceedings I have defended myself. Naturally I do not feel myself in any way bound by the speech made by Dr. Teichert in my defence. Decisive for my case is only that which I say and have said myself to the Court. I do not wish to offend my party comrade Torgler, particularly as, in my opinion, his defending counsel has already offended him enough, but as far as I am concerned I would sooner be sentenced to death by this Court though innocent, than be acquitted by the sort of defence put forward by Dr. Sack.

President (interrupting Dimitrov): “It is none of your business to make criticisms of that nature here.”

I admit that my tone is hard and sharp. The struggle of my life has always been hard and sharp.My tone is frank and open. I seek to call things by their correct names. I an no lawyer appearing before this Court in the mere way of his profession. I am defending myself, an accused Communist; I am defending my political honour, my honour as a revolutionary; I am defending my Communist ideology, my ideals, the content and significance of my whole life. For these reasons every word which I say in this Court is a part of me, each phrase is the expression of my deep indignation against the unjust accusation, against the putting of this anti-Communist crime, the burning of the Reichstag, to the account of the Communists.

I have often been reproached that I do not take the highest Court in Germany seriously. That is absolutely unjustified. It is true that the highest law for me is the programme of the Communist International; that the highest Court for me is the Control Commission of the Communist International. But to me as an accused man the Supreme Court of the Reich is something to be considered in all seriousness—not only in that its members possess high legal qualifications, but also because it is the highest legal organism of the German State, of the ruling order of society; a body which can dispose of the highest penalties. I can say with an easy conscience that everything which I have stated to this Court and everything which I have spoken to the public is the truth. I have always spoken with seriousness and from my inner convictions.

President: "I shall not permit you to indulge in Communist propaganda in this Court. You have persisted in it. If you do not refrain I shall have to prevent you from speaking."

I must deny absolutely the suggestion that I have pursued propagandist aims. It may be that my defence before this Court has had a certain propagandist effect. It is also possible that my conduct before this Court may serve as an example for other accused Communists. But those were not the aims of my defence. My aims were these: to refute the indictment and to refute the accusation that Torgler, Popov, Tanev and myself had anything to do with the Reichstag fire.

I know that no one in Bulgaria believes in our alleged complicity in the fire. I know that everywhere else abroad hardly anyone believes that we had anything to do with it. But in Germany other conditions prevail and in Germany it is not impossible that people might believe such extraordinary things. For this reason I desired to prove that the Communist Party had and has nothing whatever to do with the crime. If the question of propaganda is to be raised, then I may fairly say that many utterances made within this Court were of a propagandist character. The appearance here of Goebbels and Goering had an indirect propagandist effect favourable to Communism, but no one can reproach them on account of their conduct having produced such results.

I have not only been roundly abused by the press—something to which I am completely indifferent—but my people have also, through me, been characterised as savage and barbarous. I have been called a suspicious character from the Balkans, and a wild Bulgarian. I cannot allow such things to pass in silence.

It is true that Bulgarian fascism is savage and barbarous. But the working class, the peasants and the culture of Bulgaria are neither savage nor barbarous. True that the level of material well-being is not so high in the Balkans as elsewhere in Europe but it is false to say that the people of Bulgaria are politically or mentally on a lower scale than the peoples of other countries. Our political struggle, our political aspirations are no less lofty than those of other peoples. A people which lived for five hundred years under a foreign yoke without losing its language and its national character, a people of workers and peasants who have fought and are fighting Bulgarian fascism—such a people is not savage and barbarous. Only fascism in Bulgaria is savage and barbarous. But I ask you, in what country does not fascism bear these qualities?

President (interrupting Dimitrov): "Are you attempting to refer to the situation in Germany?''

At a period of history when the ‘German' Emperor Karl V vowed that he would talk German only to his horse, at a time when the nobility and intellectual circles of Germany wrote only Latin and were ashamed of their mother tongue, Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius invented and spread the use of the old Bulgarian script.

The Bulgarian people has fought obstinately and with all its strength against foreign oppression. Therefore I protest here and now against these attacks on my people. I have no cause to be ashamed of being Bulgarian, in fact I am proud to say that I am the son of the Bulgarian working people.

I must preface my discussion of the mam issues with this statement. Dr. Teichert has seen fit to accuse us of being responsible for our own plight and position here. In reply I must say that much time has elapsed from March 9, 1933,  when we were arrested, to the beginning of this trial. Any suspicious circumstance could have been thoroughly investigated during that period. During the preliminary inquiries I spoke with officials, members of the investigating authority, concerning the Reichstag fire. Those officials assured me that we Bulgarians were not to be charged with complicity in that crime. We were to be charged solely in connection with our false passports, our adopted names and our incorrect addresses.

President: "This is new matter. It has not been mentioned in the proceedings hitherto and therefore you have no right to raise it at this stage."

Mr. President, during that time every circumstance could have been investigated in order promptly to clear us of any charge in relation to the fire. The indictment declares that "Dimitrov, Popov and Tanev have alleged that they were mere political fugitives from Bulgaria but that it must be considered as proved that they were in Germany for the purpose of illegal political activities" They are, as the indictment further declares. "emissaries of Moscow sent to Germany to prepare an armed insurrection." Page 83 of the indictment points out that "although Dimitrov declares that he was not in Berlin from the 25th to the 28th of February, this does not materially affect the position and could not free him from the charge of being implicated in the burning of the Reichstag." Complicity, continues the indictment, is proved not only by the evidence of Helmer but by other facts...

President (interrupting): "You must not read the whole of the indictment here. In any case the Court is quite familiar with it."

As far as that goes, I must state that three-quarters of what the counsel for the prosecution and defence have said here was generally notorious long ago. But that fact did not prevent them from bringing it forward again. (Laughter in Court.) Helmer stated that Dimitrov and van der Lubbe were together in the Bayernhof restaurant. Now permit me to refer again to the indictment which says: "Although Dimitrov was not caught red-handed at the scene of the crime, he nevertheless took part in the preparations for the burning of the Reichstag. He went to Munich in order to supply himself with an alibi. The Communist pamphlets found in Dimitrov's possession prove that he took part in the Communist movement in Germany." That is the basis of this precipitate, this aborted indictment.

(The President here interrupted Dimitrov again and warned him not to refer disrespectfully to the indictment.)

Very well, Mr. President, I shall choose other expressions.

President: "In any case you must not use such disrespectful terms." I shall return in another context to the methods of the prosecution and the indictment.

The direction of this trial has been determined by the theory that the burning of the Reichstag was an act of the German Communist Party, of the Communist International. This anti-Communist deed, the Reichstag fire, was actually blamed upon the Communists and declared to be the signal for an armed Communist insurrection, a beacon fire for the overthrow of the present German constitution. An anti-Communist character has been given to the whole proceedings by the use of this theory. The indictment runs . .. The charge rests on the basis that this criminal outrage was to be a signal, a beacon for the enemies of the State who were then to commence their attack on the German Reich, to smash the existing constitution on the orders of the Third International and to set up in its place the dictatorship of the proletariat, a Soviet State."

My Lords, this is not the first time that such an outrage has been falsely attributed to Communists. I cannot here enumerate all the instances, but I would remind you of a railway outrage committed at Juterbog in Germany some time ago by a certain mentally-deranged adventurer and agent provocateur. For weeks the newspapers declared both in Germany and abroad that the outrage had been committed by the German Communist Party, that it was a terroristic act of Communists. Then it transpired that a mentally-afflicted adventurer, Matushka, was the author of the crime. He was arrested and convicted. Let me recall yet another instance, the assassination of the French President by Gorgulov. In this case too the press of many lands proclaimed for weeks that the hand of Communism had shown itself. Gorgulov was pronounced to be a Communist and emissary of the Soviet. And what was the truth? The outrage was the work of Russian white-guardists, Gorgulov was an agent provocateur who aimed at destroying the friendly relations between France and the Soviet. I would also remind you of the outrage in Sofia cathedral. This incident was not organised by the Bulgarian Communist Party, but the Bulgarian Communist Party was persecuted on account of it. Under this false accusation two thousand Bulgarian Communists, workmen, peasants and intellectuals were murdered. That act of provocation, the blowing up of Sofia cathedral, was actually organised by the Bulgarian police.

President (interrupting): "That has nothing to do with this trial."

The police official Heller, spoke in his evidence of Communist propaganda for arson. I asked him whether he had ever heard of arson having been committed by capitalists in order to get insurance monies and of Communists having been blamed for them. On October 5, 1933, the Völkischer Beobachter wrote that the Stettin police . . .

President: "The article in question was not referred to at any time during these proceedings."

Dimitrov attempted to continue referring to the article.

President: "Do not dare to refer here to matters which have not been previously referred to in the course of the trial."

Dimitrov: "A whole series of fires ..."

President again interrupts.

It was dealt with during the preliminary proceedings, because the Communists were accused of having been responsible for a whole series of fires which turned out to have been committed by the owners of the buildings themselves "in order to make employment." I should like also for a moment to refer to the question of forged documents. Numbers of such forgeries have been made use of against the working class. Their name is legion. There was for example the notorious Zinoviev letter, a letter which never emanated from Zinoviev, and which was a deliberate forgery. The English Conservative Party made effective use of the forgery against the working class. I would like to remind you also of a series of forgeries which have played a part in German politics...

President: "That lies outside the scope of these proceedings."

It was alleged here that the burning of the Reichstag was to be the signal for the breaking out of an armed insurrection. Attempts were made to justify this theory after the following fashion: Goering declared before the Court that the German Communist Party was compelled to incite the masses and to undertake some violent adventure when Hitler came to power. He proclaimed, "The Communists were forced to do something, then or never!" He stated that the Communist party had for years been appealing to the masses against the National-Socialist Party and that when the latter attained power the Communists had no alternative but to do something immediately or not at all. The Public Prosecutor attempted more clearly and ingeniously to formulate this hypothesis.

(President again interrupted Dimitrov.)

The statement which Goering as chief prosecutor made was developed by the Public Prosecutor in this Court. Dr. Werner declared "that the Communist Party had been forced into a situation in which it must either give battle or capitulate without even making preparations for a fight; that in the circumstances was its only alternative; that it had either to surrender its aims without a struggle or take a risk, dare a hazard which might alter the circumstances in its favour. It might fail, but its situation then could be no worse than having surrendered without firing a shot!" This hypothesis presented by the prosecution and laid at the door of the Communists is certainly no Communist hypothesis. It shows that the enemies of the Communist Party do not know much about Communism. He who desires to fight his enemy well, must learn to know him. Prohibition of the Party, dissolution of the mass working-class organisations, loss of legality are serious blows indeed for the revolutionary movement. In February 1933 the Communist Party was faced with the threat of suppression, the Communist press had been prohibited and the destruction of the Party as a legal organisation was momentarily expected. These things the Communist Party knew well. They were pointed out in pamphlets and newspapers. The German Communist Party was well aware of the fact that although the Communist Parties of many other lands were illegal they nevertheless continued to exist and to carry on their activities. Such is the position in Bulgaria, Poland, Italy and many other lands. From my own experience I am able to speak of the position in Bulgaria. The Communist Party there was prohibited after the insurrection of 1923, but has nevertheless continued to exist and to work. Despite great sacrifices it has in time become more powerful than in 1923 prior to its suppression.

Anyone with a critical faculty can appreciate the importance of this

phenomenon. Given the necessary situation the German Communist Party can still carry out a successful revolution. The experience of the Russian Communist Party proves this. Despite its illegality and the violence of the persecution to which it was subjected, that Party won over the working class in the end and came to power at its head. The leaders of the German Communist Party could not possibly think that with the suppression of their Party all would be lost; that at any given moment the question was now or never; that the alternative was insurrection or extirpation. The leaders of the German Communist Party could not have entertained such foolish thoughts. Naturally they knew perfectly well that illegality would mean tremendous losses, that it would mean self-sacrifice and heroism, but they also knew that the revolutionary strength of the Party would increase again and that one day it would be able to accomplish its final tasks successfully. For these reasons the possibility of the Communist Party seeking to indulge in any hazards at any moment must be rigorously excluded. The Communists fortunately are not so near-sighted as their opponents; neither do they lose their heads in difficult situations.

It must be added that, like every other Communist Party, the German Communist Party is a section of the Communist International. What is the Communist International? Permit me to quote from its programme: "The Communist International, an international association of workers, is the association of the Communist Parties in individual lands; it is a united world Communist Party, the leader and organiser of the universal revolutionary movement of the proletariat, the bearer of the principles and aims of Communism. Therefore the Communist International fights to win the the majority of the working class and the broad sections of the peasantry for the establishment of the world dictatorship of the proletariat, for the creation of a world union of Socialist Soviet Republics, for the complete abolition of classes and for the setting up of Socialism as the first stage towards a Communist society."

In this world Party of the Communist International, which numbers millions of members all over the world, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is the strongest single unit. It is not a party in opposition, but the governing Party of the Soviet Union, the largest State in the world. The Communist International, the world Communist Party, judges the political situation together with the Communist Parties of all countries. The International to which all its sections are directly responsible is a world Party, not a mere organisation of conspirators. Such a world Party does not play with insurrection and revolution. Such a Party cannot officially say one thing to its millions of adherents and at the same time in secret do exactly the opposite. Such a Party, my dear Dr. Sack, does not go in for double book-keeping. . .

Dr. Sack: "All right! Carry on with your Communist propaganda !"

Such a Party proceeds with all seriousness and with a full awareness of its responsibility when it approaches the millions of the proletariat and when it adopts its decisions concerning tactics and immediate tasks. It does not go in for double book-keeping. Permit me to quote from the decisions of the Twelfth Plenary Session of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, for these decisions were quoted in Court and I therefore have a right to read them out. According to these decisions the chief tasks of the German Communist Party were: "to mobilise the masses of the toilers in defence of their day to day demands, against the robber offensive of monopoly capital, against fascism, against the emergency decrees, against nationalism and chauvinism and for the development of political and economic strikes and, by the struggle for proletarian internationalism and by demonstrations, to bring the masses to the point of a political general strike: to win over the main sections of the Social-Democratic workers by overcoming the weakness in the trade union activity of the party. The slogan which the German Communist Party must put in the forefront, against the slogan of the fascist dictatorship, 'the Third Reich' and the slogan of social democracy 'the Weimar Republic' must be the slogan of the workers' and peasants' republic, 'Soviet Germany,' which in itself contains the possibility of the voluntary adherence to such Soviet Republic of Austria and other German districts."

Mass work, mass activity, mass opposition and the united front—no adventurism—these are the elements of Communist tactics.

A copy of the appeal of the Executive Committee of the Communist International was found in my possession, I take it that I may read from it. Two points in it are of particular importance. The appeal speaks of demonstrations in various countries in connection with the events in Germany. It further speaks of the tasks of the Communist Party in Germany in its fight against the National-Socialist terror and for the defence of the organisations and the press of the working class. (Dimitrov then read the appeal).

This appeal contains no mention of any immediate struggle for power. Such a task was put forward neither by the Communist International nor by the German Communist Party. It is of course true that the appeal of the Communist International does not preclude the possibility of armed insurrection. From this the Court has falsely concluded that the question of armed insurrection was an immediate one and that, having an armed insurrection as one of its aims, the German Communist Party must necessarily have prepared for an insurrection and worked for its immediate outbreak. But that is illogical, it is untrue, to use no stronger expression. Naturally the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat is the task of all Communist Parties the world over. That is our principle; that our aim. But the achievement of that aim is bound up with a process and a stage of development. It does not depend exclusively upon the forces of the working class, other sections of the toilers are necessary to its accomplishment. Everyone knows that the German Communist Party was in favour of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but that is by no means a point decisive for these proceedings. The point is simply this: was an armed insurrection aimed at the seizure of power actually planned to take place on February 27, 1933, in connection with the Reichstag fire?

What, my Lords, have been the results of the legal investigations? The legend that the Reichstag fire was a Communist act has been completely shattered. Unlike some counsel here, I shall not quote much of the evidence.

To any person of normal intelligence at least this point is now made completely clear, that the Reichstag fire had nothing whatever to do with any activity of the German Communist Party, not only nothing to do with an insurrection, but nothing to do with a strike, a demonstration or anything of that nature. The legal investigations have proved this up to the hilt. The Reichstag fire was not regarded by anyone—I exclude criminals and the mentally deranged—as the signal for insurrection. No one observed any deed, act or attempt at insurrection in connection with the

Reichstag fire. The very stories of such things expressly appertain to a much later date. At that moment the working class was in a state of alarm against the attacks of Fascism. The German Communist Party was seeking to organise the opposition of the masses in their own defence. But it was shown that the Reichstag fire furnished the occasion and the signal for unleashing the most terrific campaign of suppression against the German working class and its vanguard the Communist Party. It has been proved beyond refutation that the responsible members of the German Government did not in the least consider the possibility of a Communist insurrection on February 27 or 28. Upon this point I put many questions to the witnesses who appeared here. In particular I asked Heller, the notorious Karwahne, Frey and the police officers such questions. Despite other contradictions in their evidence they were all agreed on one thing, that they neither knew nor had heard anything about a threatening Communist insurrection. That indicates that the Government had taken no measures of any kind against the possibility of such an insurrection.

The President then pointed out that the Police Chief of the Eastern Command had given such evidence.

That official said no more than this: that he was summoned to Goering who gave him verbal instructions concerning the fight against Communism, that is to say, for the suppression of Communist meetings, strikes, demonstrations, election propaganda, etc. But his evidence mentioned no measures to be taken against the threat of an imminent Communist insurrection. Yesterday Dr. Seuffert dealt in his speech with the very same point and arrived at the conclusion that no governmental authority was anticipating the outbreak of any insurrection. He referred also to the evidence of Goebbels who stated, whether truly or not is another question, that when he first heard the news of the Reichstag fire he did not believe it! To this point the Government's emergency decree issued on the morning after the fire provides further proof. Read the decree—what does it say? It announces the suspension of various articles of the constitution, particularly those guaranteeing the inviolability of the person, the freedom of organisation and the press, the immunity of domicile and so forth. That is the essence of the emergency decree, its second paragraph.

The President again interrupts Dimitrov, accusing him of wandering from the point.

I should like to point out that under this emergency decree not only Communist, but also Social-Democratic and Christian workmen were arrested and their organisations suppressed. I would like to stress the fact that although this decree was directed chiefly against the Communist Party, it was not directed solely against them. This law which was necessary for the proclamation of the state of emergency was directed against all the other political parties and groups. It stands in direct organic connection with the Reichstag fire.

President: "If you attack the German Government I shall deprive you of the right to address the Court."

. . . One question has not been in the least elucidated, either by the prosecution or by the defending counsel. This omission does not surprise me. For it is a question which must have given them some anxiety. I refer to the question of the political situation in Germany in February 1933 –  a matter which I must perforce deal with now. The political situation towards the end of February 1933 was this, that a bitter struggle was taking place within the camp of the "National Front."

President: "You are again raising matters which I have repeatedly forbidden you to mention."

... I should like to remind the Court of my application that Schleicher, Bruning, von Papen, Hugenberg and Duesterberg, the Vice-Chairman of the Stahlhelm organisation, should be summoned as witnesses.

President: "The Court rejected the application and you have no right to refer to it again."

Dimitrov: "I know that, and more, I know why!"

President: "It is unpleasant for me continually to have to interrupt you in your closing speech, but you must respect my directions.

. . . This struggle taking place in the camp of the “National Front” was connected with the struggle which was being waged behind the scenes amongst the leaders of German economy. On the one hand was the Krupp-Thyssen circle, which for many years past has supported the National-Socialists, on the other hand, being gradually pushed into

the background, were their opponents. Thyssen and Krupp designed to establish absolutism, a political dictatorship under their own personal direction; it was to this end that the crushing of the revolutionary working class was necessary. At the same time the Communist Party was striving to establish a united working-class front and so consolidate all forces in resistance to the National-Socialist attempts to destroy the workingclass movement. The need for a united front was felt by many Social-Democratic workers. The meaning of the united front in February and March 1933 was the mobilisation of the working class against the principle of brutal absolutism established by the National-Socialists, it meant neither insurrection nor preparations for insurrection.

President: "You have always implied that your sole interest was the Bulgarian political situation. Your present remarks however show that you were also keenly interested in the political situation in Germany."

. . . Mr. President, you are making an accusation against me. I can only make this reply; that as a Bulgarian revolutionary I am interested in the revolutionary movement all over the world. I am, for instance, interested in the political situation in South America and, although I have never been there, I know as much about it as I do of German politics. That does not mean that when a government building in South America is burned down I am the culprit! I am interested in German politics, but I do not meddle in German political affairs.

During these legal proceedings I have learned much, and thanks to my political capacity for appreciating things much has become clear to me. The political situation at that time was governed by two chief factors: the first was the effort of the National-Socialists to attain power, the second, the counter-factor, was the efforts of the German Communist Party to build up a united working-class front against fascism. In my view, the accuracy of this has been made abundantly clear during these proceedings. The National-Socialists needed something which would both divert the attention of the people from the differences within the national front and, at the same time, break up the unity of the working class front. The

"National Government" needed a passable excuse for its emergency decree of February 28, 1933, which abolished the liberty of the press and of the individual and introduced a system of police persecution, concentration camps and other measures against the Communists.

President: "Now you have reached the limit, you are making suggestions"

Dimitrov: "My only desire is to explain the political situation in Germany on the eve of the fire as I understand it to have been."

President: "This court is no place for unwarranted suggestions against the government and for statements long since refuted."

. . . The attitude of the working class at this time was a defensive one, the Communist Party was, therefore, doing its best to organise a united front . . .

President: "You must proceed to your own defence if you want to, otherwise you will not have sufficient time."

. . . Once before I stated that I was in accord with the indictment on one point, and now I am compelled to reaffirm my agreement. I allude to the question whether van der Lubbe acted alone in setting fire to the Reichstag or whether he had accomplices. The junior prosecuting counsel, Pansius, declared that the fate of the accused depended upon the answer to the question whether van der Lubbe had accomplices. To this I answer, no, a thousand noes! Such a conclusion is illogical and does not follow. My own deduction is that van der Lubbe did not set fire to the Reichstag alone. On the basis of the experts' opinions and the evidence which has been submitted I conclude that the fire in the Plenary Sessions Chamber was of a nature different from that in the restaurant, the ground floor, etc. The Sessions Chamber was set on fire by other persons, employing other means. Although coincident in time with the fires caused by van der Lubbe himself, the fire in the Sessions Chamber is fundamentally different. Van der Lubbe has by no means told the truth in this Court and he remains persistently silent. Although he did have accomplices, this fact does not decide the fate of the other accused. Van der Lubbe was not alone, true; but neither Dimitrov nor Torgler nor Popov nor Tanev was in his company. Is it not probable that van der Lubbe met someone in Henningsdorf on February 26 and told him of his attempts to set fire to the Town Hall and the Palace? Whereat the person in question replied that things such as those were mere child's play, that the burning down of the Reichstag during the elections would be something real? Is that not probably the manner in which through an alliance between political provocation and political insanity the Reichstag fire was conceived ? While the representative of political insanity sits to-day in the dock, the representative of provocation has disappeared! Whilst this fool, van der Lubbe, was carrying out his clumsy attempts at arson in the corridors and cloak-rooms, were not other unknown persons preparing the conflagration in the Sessions Chamber and making use of that secret inflammable liquid of which Dr. Schatz here spoke?

(At this point van der Lubbe began to laugh silently. His whole body was shaken with spasms of laughter. The attention of everyone, the Court and the accused included, was directed upon him. Dimitrov resumed, pointing at van der Lubbe).

The unknown accomplices made all the preparations for the conflagration and then disappeared, without a trace. Now this stupid tool, this miserable Faust is here in the dock, while Mephistopheles has disappeared. The link between van der Lubbe and the representatives of political provocation, the enemies of the working class, was forged in Henningsdorf.

The Public Prosecutor declared that van der Lubbe was a Communist.

He went further, he asserted that even if van der Lubbe was not a Communist he carried out his deed in the interests of and in association with the Communist Party. That argument is entirely false. What is van der Lubbe? A Communist? Inconceivable! An anarchist? No! He is a declassed worker, a rebellious member of the scum of society. He is a misused creature who has been played off against the working class. No Communist, no anarchist anywhere in the world would conduct himself in Court as van der Lubbe has done. Anarchists often do senseless things, but invariably when they are haled into Court they stand up like men and explain their aims. If a Communist had done anything of this sort, he would not remain silent knowing that four innocent men stood in the dock alongside him.

Van der Lubbe is no Communist. He is no anarchist; he is the misused tool of fascism.

The Chairman of the Communist Parliamentary Group and we Bulgarians accused alongside him have nothing in common, nor any connection with this creature, this poor misused scapegoat. Permit me to remind the Court that on the morning of February 28 Goering issued a statement on the fire, declaring that Torgler and Koenen had together fled from the Reichstag at 10 o'clock the previous evening. This statement was broadcast all over Germany. In the same statement Goering declared that the Communists had set the Reichstag on fire. Yet no attempt has been made to investigate van der Lubbe's movements in Henningsdorf. No search is made for the man with whom van der Lubbe passed the night there.

President: "When do you intend to conclude your speech?"

Dimitrov: "I want to speak for another half-hour. I must express my views on this question."

President: "You cannot go on for ever."

Mr. President, during the three months this trial has lasted you have silenced me on many occasions with the assurance that at the conclusion of the trial I should be able to speak fully in my defence. The trial is drawing to a close now, but contrary to your assurance you are now limiting me in my right to address the Court. The question of what happened in Henningsdorf is indeed of importance. The man with whom van der Lubbe spent the night there, Waschinski, has not been found and my suggestion that the police should search for him was rejected as useless. Had van der Lubbe met Communists in Henningsdorf the question would have been gone into long ago, Mr. President! But no one is interested in finding Waschinski. The young man who brought the first news of the fire to the police at the Brandenburger Tor has not been searched for, his identity remains unestablished, he is still unknown. The preliminary examination was conducted in a false direction. Dr. Albrecht, the National-Socialist deputy who hurried out of the Reichstag after the fire had begun, was hardly interrogated. The incendiaries were sought where they were not to be found, in the ranks of the Communist Party, rather than where they would have been found. Thus the real culprits were permitted to disappear. As the real incendiaries could and durst not be found, other persons were taken in their stead.

President: "I forbid you to make such statements and I give you another ten minutes only."

I have the right to lay my own reasoned proposals for the verdict before the Court. The Public Prosecutor stated that all the evidence given by Communists was not worthy of credence. I shall not adopt the contrary view. Thus I shall not declare that all the evidence given by National-Socialist witnesses is unreliable. I shall not state that they are all liars for I believe that amongst the millions of National-Socialists there are some honest people.

President: "I forbid you to make such ill-intentioned remarks."

. . . But is it not remarkable that all the chief witnesses called in support of the prosecution are National-Socialist deputies, journalists or hangers-on? Karwahne declares that he saw Torgler with van der Lubbe in the Reichstag! Frey declares that he saw Popov with van der Lubbe in the Reichstag. Helmer declares that he saw Dimitrov with van der Lubbe! Weberstedt asserts that he saw Tanev with van der Lubbe! All National-Socialists! Is this a mere accident? The witness, Dr. Dröscher, known under the name of Zimmermann to contribute to the National-Socialist Völkischer Beobachter, declares in Court that Dimitrov was responsible for the Sofia cathedral outrage, which was completely disproved, and alleges that he has seen me with Torgler in the Reichstag.

Heller, the police official, read in Court a Communist poem out of a book published in 1925 to prove that the Communists set the Reichstag on fire in 1933. Permit me also the pleasure of quoting a poem, a poem by the greatest German poet, Goethe:

"Lerne zeitig kluger sein.

Auf des Gluckes grosser Wage Steht die Zunge selten ein;

Du musst steigen oder sinken,

Du musst herrschen und Gewinnen Oder dienen und verkieren, Leiden oder triumphieren, Amboss oder Hammer sein."

Victory or defeat! Be hammer or anvil!

The German working class did not realise the truth of this either in 1918, or in 1923 or in 1933 ...

Much has been said here about German law and I should like to express my views on the matter. Undoubtedly the political constellation ascendant at any particular moment affects the decisions of a Court of law. Let me refer to an authority whom this Court will doubtless accept, the Minister of Justice Kerrl. This gentleman has expressed his views in an interview on the subject of Prussian justice published in the press. He refers to the liberal prejudice that objectivity should be the fount of justice. "Objectivity," he declares, "has no worth in the struggle of a people for existence. It is a dead principle which must be abandoned once and for all. There must be only one judicial criterion: that which will nourish the nation, that which will succour the people!" Justice is a relative conception.

President: "Doubtless! But you must now bring forward your final proposals."

The Public Prosecutor has proposed that the Bulgarian accused should be acquitted for lack of proof. I dissent from that proposal. It is not enough; it would not completely clear us from suspicion. The truth is that this trial has proved absolutely conclusively that we had nothing whatsoever to do with the fire and that there is not the slightest ground to entertain further suspicions against us. We Bulgarians, and Torgler too, must all be acquitted, not for lack of proof, but because we, as Communists, neither have nor could have anything to do with an anti-Communist deed.

I therefore propose the following verdict:

1. That Torgler, Popov, Tanev and myself be pronounced innocent and that the indictment be quashed as ill-founded;
2. That van der Lubbe should be declared to be the misused tool of the enemies of the working class;
3. That those responsible for the false charges against us should be made criminally liable for them;
4. That we should be compensated for the losses which we have sustained through this trial, for our wasted time, our damaged health and for the sufferings which we have undergone.

A time will come when these accounts will have to be settled, with interest! The elucidation of the Reichstag fire and the identification of the real incendiaries is a task which will fall to the people's Court of the future proletarian dictatorship.

When Galileo was condemned he declared:

"E pur si muove!"

No less determined than old Galileo we Communists declare today: "E pur si muove!" The wheel of history moves on towards the ultimate, inevitable, irrepressible goal of Communism . . .

(The Court forbade Dimitrov to speak further.)

December, 1933