trek marlin handlebar riser

Unleash Your Inner Geek on a Bike

How to Raise the Handlebars on a Trek Bike

Shahed Parvej

Affiliate Disclaimer

As an affiliate, we may earn a commission from qualifying purchases. We get commissions for purchases made through links on this website from Amazon and other third parties.

As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

To raise the handlebars on a Trek bike, you can either get a stem riser or replace the stem with one that has a higher rise or a larger angle. This will allow you to adjust the handlebar height and make your riding position more comfortable.

Additionally, you can also replace flat handlebars with a riser model, which can be slightly higher than flat bars. By following these steps, you can easily raise the handlebars on your Trek bike and customize your riding experience for optimal comfort.

Step 1: Assessing Your Handlebar Height

To raise the handlebars on a Trek bike, start by assessing the handlebar height. This can be done by adjusting the stem or using a stem riser. Choose a stem with a larger angle or a shorter stem altogether to achieve the desired handlebar height.

Before you can start raising the handlebars on your Trek bike, you need to assess the current handlebar position. This step is crucial as it helps you determine if an adjustment is necessary and how much you need to raise the handlebars.

Checking The Current Handlebar Position

To check the current handlebar position, follow these steps:

• Stand in front of your bike and ensure it is on a level surface.
• Locate the stem, which is the component connecting the handlebars to the fork of the bike.
• Note the position of the stem in relation to the steerer tube. The steerer tube is the vertical tube that connects the fork to the frame.
• Observe the number and position of any spacers between the stem and the headset.

By checking the current handlebar position, you can get a better understanding of the adjustments that need to be made to raise the handlebars successfully.

Identifying The Need For Adjustment

After checking the current handlebar position, you can now identify whether an adjustment is needed. Here are a few signs that indicate the need to raise the handlebars:

• You experience discomfort or pain in your wrists, shoulders, or back while riding.
• Your riding posture feels too hunched over, causing strain on your neck.
• Your bike feels unstable or difficult to control, especially when turning or navigating rough terrain.
• You want a more relaxed and upright riding position, which is ideal for casual rides or long-distance cycling.

By identifying these signs, you can determine if an adjustment to the handlebar height is necessary to improve your comfort and overall riding experience.

Step 2: Tools And Materials Needed

To raise the handlebars on a Trek bike, you may need tools such as a stem riser or a stem with a higher angle or shorter length. This adjustment can improve your riding position and make it more comfortable.

Step 3: Loosening The Stem Bolts

To raise the handlebars on a Trek bike, start by loosening the stem bolts. This will allow you to adjust the height of the handlebars according to your preference.

Loosening the stem bolts is the next crucial step in raising the handlebars on your Trek bike. This step allows for the necessary movement and adjustment to achieve your desired handlebar height. Follow these simple instructions to ensure a smooth and successful process:

Preparing The Bike For Handlebar Adjustment

• Find a suitable workspace where you can comfortably work on your bike.
• Ensure your bike is securely placed on a stand or elevated surface to provide stable support.
• Make sure you have the necessary tools, including an Allen wrench or suitable tool for the stem bolts.

Loosening The Bolts To Allow Movement

Now that you’ve prepared your bike for handlebar adjustment, it’s time to proceed with loosening the stem bolts. Follow these steps:

• Locate the stem bolts on the top of your bike’s steerer tube. These bolts connect the stem to the fork and hold the handlebars in place.
• Using the appropriate tool, turn the stem bolts counterclockwise to loosen them. Be sure to loosen each bolt evenly to allow for a balanced adjustment.
• Continue loosening the bolts until you feel some loosening of the stem, allowing for upward movement. Keep in mind that you may need to apply some force, but be careful not to overtighten or strip the bolts.
• Once the bolts are sufficiently loosened, you can gently move the stem upwards to raise the handlebars to your desired height.

Remember, it’s important to maintain a balanced adjustment and ensure the stem is securely tightened once you’ve achieved the desired handlebar height. This will provide stability and safety while riding your Trek bike.

In the next step, we will discuss how to securely tighten the stem bolts to complete the handlebar adjustment process. Stay tuned!

Step 4: Adjusting The Handlebar Height

Adjusting the handlebar height on a Trek bike is a simple process that can improve your riding comfort. By following the steps outlined above, you can raise the handlebars using spacers or flipping the stem for a more ergonomic position.

Now that you’ve learned about the different methods of raising the handlebars on your Trek bike, it’s time to dive into the fourth step: adjusting the handlebar height. This step involves two techniques that you can use to achieve the desired height: raising the handlebars using spacers and flipping the stem for increased height.

Raising The Handlebars Using Spacers

If you’re looking for a simple and cost-effective way to raise the handlebars on your Trek bike, using spacers is a great option. Handlebar spacers are small, cylindrical pieces that can be inserted between the stem and the headset to increase the height.

To raise the handlebars using spacers, follow these steps:

• Loosen the stem bolts using an Allen wrench.
• Gently lift the stem and handlebars upward to create some space.
• Place the desired number of spacers on top of the headset.
• Align the stem with the spacers and tighten the bolts to secure everything in place.
• Ensure that the stem is properly aligned and the handlebars are level before tightening the bolts completely.

By adding or removing spacers, you can fine-tune the height of your handlebars to achieve the most comfortable riding position. Experiment with different spacer combinations until you find the height that suits you best.

Flipping The Stem For Increased Height

If you’ve already reached the maximum height using spacers or want to explore other options, flipping the stem can provide further elevation for your handlebars. This technique involves removing the stem, turning it upside down, and reinstalling it onto the bike.

To flip the stem for increased height, follow these steps:

• Remove the stem from the headset by pulling it upward.
• Turn the stem upside down, so the angle between the stem and the handlebars is reversed.
• Reinsert the stem into the headset and align it with the desired height.
• Tighten the bolts to secure the stem in place.

Flipping the stem not only raises the handlebars but also alters your riding position by changing the reach and the angle of the handlebars. Make sure to test your new setup and adjust the stem angle as needed to achieve a comfortable riding position.

With these two techniques, you now have the knowledge to adjust the handlebar height on your Trek bike to best suit your riding style and comfort preferences. Remember to take your time and make small adjustments until you find the perfect handlebar height for an enjoyable and pain-free ride.

Step 5: Ensuring Proper Tightening

To ensure proper tightening of the handlebars on a Trek bike, follow these steps carefully and avoid any overused phrases. Keep sentences brief, choose different expressions, and make your content SEO-friendly and easy to understand.

Tightening The Stem Bolts Securely

Testing the stability of the handlebars, step 6: checking for comfort and fit.

To raise the handlebars on a Trek bike, follow these steps. First, loosen the stem cap and remove any spacer above the stem. Then, adjust the stem to your desired height and tighten the bolts. Finally, reassemble the stem cap and test for comfort and fit.

Making Adjustments For A Comfortable Riding Position

Once you have raised the handlebars to your desired height, the next step is to make further adjustments for a comfortable riding position. It’s important to ensure that your bike fits you properly to prevent any discomfort or strain while riding.

One way to achieve a comfortable riding position is by adjusting the stem. The stem is the component that connects the handlebars to the steering tube of your bike. By adjusting the stem, you can fine-tune the reach and height of the handlebars.

If you still feel that the handlebars are too low, you can try installing a stem riser. A stem riser is an extension that raises the height of the stem, allowing you to achieve a more upright riding position. Alternatively, you can also consider getting a stem with a larger angle or a shorter stem altogether, which can also help in raising the handlebars and bringing them closer to you.

Testing The Handlebar Height Before Finalizing

Before finalizing the handlebar height, it’s crucial to test and ensure that it feels comfortable and provides a good fit for your body. Here are a few things you can do to check the handlebar height:

• Take your bike for a short test ride around your neighborhood. Pay attention to how your body feels in relation to the handlebars. Are you able to maintain a relaxed and comfortable grip? Does the height allow you to maintain an upright posture without strain on your back or neck?
• Experiment with different handlebar positions. You can try adjusting the angle of the handlebars slightly up or down to find the most comfortable position for you. Remember, small adjustments can make a big difference in your riding experience.
• Consider your riding style and preferences. If you prefer a more aggressive riding position, you may opt for a lower handlebar height. On the other hand, if you prioritize comfort and a more relaxed riding stance, a higher handlebar height may be more suitable.

Remember, finding the perfect handlebar height is a personal preference, and what works for one rider may not work for another. It’s important to listen to your body and make adjustments accordingly. Once you have tested the handlebar height and ensured a comfortable fit, you can enjoy a more enjoyable and ergonomic biking experience.

Step 7: Additional Considerations For Trek Bikes

For those looking to raise the handlebars on their Trek bike, there are several additional considerations to keep in mind. This includes options such as using a stem riser, adjusting the stem height, or even considering a new stem with a steeper rise.

Don’t let discomfort affect your cycling experience, explore these possibilities to find the perfect fit.

When it comes to raising the handlebars on your Trek bike, it’s important to consider the specific model you have. Different Trek bikes may have different handlebar options and limitations. In this step, we will explore handlebar options for specific Trek models and discuss the limitations and compatibility that you should be aware of. By understanding these considerations, you can ensure that your handlebar adjustment is both safe and suitable for your bike.

Exploring Handlebar Options For Specific Trek Models

Each Trek bike model may have its own unique handlebar options. It’s important to choose a handlebar that suits your riding style and preferences. Here are some popular handlebar options for specific Trek models:

Understanding The Limitations And Compatibility

When raising the handlebars on your Trek bike, it’s important to be aware of the limitations and the compatibility of different components. Here are a few key considerations:

• Compatibility with stem: Ensure that the new handlebars are compatible with the stem of your Trek bike.
• Handlebar clamp diameter: Check the clamp diameter of your stem to ensure it matches the diameter of the handlebars you want to install.
• Cable routing: Consider the cable routing on your Trek bike and how it may be affected by the new handlebars. Ensure that the cables have enough length and can be properly routed.
• Brake and gear compatibility: Check if the new handlebars are compatible with your current brake and gear systems. Make sure the levers and shifters can be properly installed and function effectively.

Understanding the limitations and compatibility factors is crucial to ensure a successful handlebar adjustment on your Trek bike. By taking these considerations into account, you can avoid any compatibility issues and ensure that your handlebar modification is both safe and effective.

Credit: www.trekchicago.com

Frequently Asked Questions Of How To Raise The Handlebars On A Trek Bike

Can you raise the handlebars on a trek bike.

Yes, you can raise the handlebars on a Trek bike by either using a stem riser or getting a stem with a larger angle or a shorter length. This will make your riding position less stretched and more comfortable. Additionally, you can also replace your flat handlebars with a riser model to increase the height.

What Is The Problem With The Handlebars On A Trek Bike?

The problem with the handlebars on a Trek bike is that the carbon base bar and handlebar/stem can crack if overloaded, posing a safety risk. Trek has issued a recall for these products to ensure customer safety. It is important to have the handlebars inspected and replaced if necessary.

Can You Raise The Height Of Bike Handlebars?

Yes, you can raise the height of bike handlebars by moving the stem or flipping it. If that doesn’t provide enough height, you can consider using a stem riser, a stem with a higher rise, or a shorter stem altogether.

Another option is to replace flat bars with riser bars for additional height.

To raise the handlebars on your Trek bike, follow the simple steps outlined in this guide. By adjusting the stem or adding stem raisers, you can achieve a more comfortable riding position. Remember to consult your bike’s owner’s manual for specific instructions and safety guidelines.

With the right tools and knowledge, you can customize your bike to fit your needs and enjoy a more enjoyable cycling experience. Don’t forget to prioritize your safety while making any adjustments. Happy riding!

About the author

I’m Shahed Parvej, the proud owner and founder of this platform. As a passionate Bike Enthusiast, I’ve embarked on a journey to share my knowledge, experiences, and insights with fellow enthusiasts, newcomers, and everyone intrigued by the world of biking.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Latest posts

Discover the Ultimate Best Bike Brake in 2024 for Unbeatable Cycling Performance

As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.Looking for the best bike brake in 2024? The shimano xtr m9100 disc brake offers top-notch performance, reliability, and precision, making it a standout choice for cyclists.   The importance of a reliable bike brake cannot be overstated, especially when it comes to ensuring safety on the…

Can You Put 27 5 Wheels On A 29Er: Unveiling the Ultimate Upgrade

As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.Yes, you can put 27.5 wheels on a 29er bicycle as long as the frame and brakes allow for the smaller wheel size. Swapping to smaller wheels can improve agility and maneuverability on rough terrain.   It’s essential to consider the impact on the bike’s geometry, bottom…

What is a Wet Bike

As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.A Wet Bike is a planing motorized watercraft that combines the features of a motorcycle and a jet ski. It is propelled by pump jets, similar to other personal watercraft. The original Wetbike was introduced by Spirit Marine and marketed as a “water motorcycle” with the thrill…

• More Networks

How to Raise Handlebars on Trek Mountain Bike

Last Updated on March 10, 2022

Trek is one of the biggest and most popular bike manufacturers in the globe. And there’s a good chance you might ride one!

If so, you might have asked yourself how to raise handlebars on Trek mountain bike . Well, you’ve just found the perfect place.

Because here, we’ll show you the right way on how to raise handlebars on Trek mountain bike . We’ll also tell you the tools needed and some tips to adjust your handlebar.

Table of Contents

Tools needed

• Torque wrench

Related: What Mountain Bike Tools Do I Need

How to add headset spacers?

The best way to raise your bike’s handlebar is to add spacers. The first thing to do is to place your bike on your workstation stand.

Make sure that the wheels are firm on the ground. Then slowly loosen the clamp bolts on your stem’s rear area. Add a bit of grease on the top cap’s bolt. This is important to avoid seizing especially if you always ride on gnarly trails.

The next thing to do is to remove the top cap. This is the one that sits directly above the stem’s top part. Then slowly slide the stem away from the steerer tube. You’ll see that it’s like how the bolt and top cap looks like.

Thread these into a star nut. This holds them in place and ensures it won’t topple off when hitting jumps and drops.

But you need to use a bung if you have a carbon handlebar. This is an expanding wedge which makes the adjustment process easier and more accurate.

Decide how many centimeters you’ll raise your handlebar. You need to add more spacers if you want to have a very high handlebar. You’ll usually need 2 or 3 additional spacers if you ride downhill trails.

This provides better maneuverability and control when tackling technical sections. Add a bit of grease so that the two surfaces won’t rub and damage each other. Then slowly slide the stem directly into your steerer tube.

Make sure there’s enough gap between your stem, spacer, and steerer tube. This gap usually measures around 3 to 5 mm. This ensures that there is enough space for the top cap headset to clamp back on your headset bearing.

It also allows the headset to preload. Then slowly palace the bolt and top cap on top of the stem. Tighten it until you feel some kind of resistance. But make sure it’s not too tight as this can break your stem. It’s best if you use a torque wrench to get the right tightness.

The next thing to do is to align your stem with your front wheel. This ensures that the handlebar is at your wheel’s right angle. It also makes it easier for you to straddle on the bike’s top tube. This makes your ride more controllable and comfortable, especially if you always ride downhill.

Get your torque wrench once you’ve aligned the stem and front wheel. Use the torque wrench to clamp the bolts back to the bar.

We recommend you set the torque around 5 to 8 Nm. This isn’t tight or loose, but just right. This is important because a very tight stem might break your handlebar especially if it’s carbon.

Then check the adjustment of your headset. Hold your front brake with one hand, while the other is on your headset. Then slowly rock the handlebar sideways and back and forth.

Get a feel of the rocking motion to see if it’s installed properly. Loosen the clamp bolts again if you feel any rocking motion. Then tighten the top cap bolt again. You’ll usually need just a quarter turn. Then use your torque wrench to tighten the bolts again.

How to flip the stem on a Trek mountain bike?

The most popular way to raise your handlebars is to add spacers. But if these aren’t enough, then you can just flip the stem. This changes the bar height because the shape of the stem is upside down.

Note that most stems are in a positive position which creates an upward angle. But you can flip it so it goes the other way around. Unbolt the handlebar from the stem’s front part. Make sure that both your bike’s wheels are on the ground so it won’t move.

We also recommend putting it on a workstation stand to secure it in place. Remember the angle of the handlebar and brake lever. This is important so you can keep your preferred angle later.

Use masking tape to mark the handlebar and face plate’s original angle. This will help you get the correct angle when refitting. Then undo the bolts which connect the handlebar to the stem’s frontal section. Remove the faceplate of the stem.

Then slowly release the handlebar and let it gently drop to the side. Then follow the steps mentioned above on how to add spacers. Flip the stem that is off the bike and slide it back to its original place on the steerer tube.

Reinstall the handlebar and follow the original angle of the handlebar and brake lever. Tighten the stem to the recommended torque. This is usually around 5 to 8 Nm. Make sure that all bolts are tightened evenly so there’s no gap.

This is very important, so your cockpit won’t rattle and get loose when you jump your bike . There should also be an even gap from top to bottom. The handlebar is pinched if the gap isn’t even. This can damage the bars if left unfixed in the long run.

Knowing how to raise handlebars on Trek mountain bike is important. Not only does this ensure that you are comfortable on your ride. But it also gives better control and safety.

The steps on how to raise handlebars on Trek mountain bike isn’t really difficult. In fact, it’s easy as long as you follow the right steps!

Just remember to take good care of your bike, use the right tools, and ride safely. When you do, then you’ll surely have a fun time riding your Trek mountain bike.

How to Change Handlebar Grips on a Mountain Bike

How to Cut Carbon Handlebars

How to Measure Mountain Bike Handlebars

This site is reader-supported and we earn commissions if you purchase products from retailers after clicking on a link from our site. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

© MTB Rules

Privacy Policy | Terms Of Service

• MAGAZINE OFFERS
• BIKE INSURANCE
• Best Products
• Maintenance
• Accessories
• Long-Term Reviews
• BikeRadar Podcast
• First Look Friday
• Bike of the Week
• Tech Features
• Routes and Rides
• Bike Galleries
• BikeRadar Bargains
• Buyer's Guides
• Fitness & Training
• Sizing & Fit
• Mountain Biking UK
• Cycling Plus

How to adjust the handlebar height on your bike

Why and how you should experiment with bar height

Stan Portus / Our Media

One of the key things we do to make our test bikes handle better is adjust the handlebar height. Often, the off-the-shelf bar height doesn't lend itself to optimal handling, nor is it dialled in for fit. With that in mind, here's our guide on how to lower or raise the handlebars on a bike.

Riders will often experiment with adjusting saddle height , changing tyre pressure , bar angle and suspension settings , but few are aware of the benefits of adjusting bar height, despite the handlebar playing a crucial role in the way your bike handles.

Bar height is also known as saddle drop, which is the measurement of how far the top of the saddle sits above (or below) the bars.

Generally speaking, a lower handlebar height reduces your centre of gravity. By placing more weight over the front wheel, you increase traction. Additionally, a lower bar height provides a more centred position between both wheels to improve bike control, especially during climbing. These traits are even more noticeable off-road.

There is a limit; going too low can make the bike difficult to control. A lower handlebar can also negatively affect handling in steep terrain.

On the road, elite riders normally have a significant drop, where their bars sit below the saddle. This is typically done to provide a more aerodynamic position.

Recreational riders are usually best served by a handlebar that is in line with the saddle or above it. This usually gives a very comfortable position and is a good starting point for experimentation.

Luckily, experimenting with bar height is easy and most often free, so you can adjust to your heart's content until you find the right position for you.

The guide below applies to modern threadless-style stems and headsets, and will help you to learn how to lower or raise bike handlebars. If your stem has bolts pinching it onto the steerer tube, it’s most likely threadless.

We also cover how to adjust the height of a quill-style stem below.

• Time : 15 minutes
• Skill rating : Easy
• Cost : Free

Tools you’ll need

• A multi-tool or a set of Allen keys
• A torque wrench or pre-set Torx key is recommended, especially if working with carbon or lighter parts
• Some stems, such as those from Zipp, Ritchey and Syncros, will use Torx keys rather than Allen bolts and so a T20, T25 or T30 Torx key will be required
• Possibly a hammer for some quill stems

How to add or remove headset spacers

The first and easiest way to adjust handlebar height is by moving headset spacers.

Headset spacers sit on the fork's steerer tube and help pre-load the headset bearings during adjustment.

Generally, most bikes have 20 to 30mm of headset spacers that can be moved freely above or below the stem. All bolts in the stem are standard-threaded (i.e. ‘lefty-loosey, righty-tighty’).

It’s easier to perform this task with the bike on the ground rather than on a repair stand . It makes adjusting the preload on the headset bearings as accurate as possible and stops the fork falling out of the frame.

First, equally loosen the clamp bolts on the back of the stem. You don’t need to undo them fully – just enough so the stem is free to move.

Remove the top cap that sits on top of the stem.

This is a good time to add a little fresh grease to the top-cap bolt, which can easily become seized in place.

Slide the stem off the steerer tube.

This is what the top cap and bolt look like when undone. These pieces thread into a star nut on a metal steerer tube or an expander plug on a carbon steerer tube.

Decide how much you’d like to lower or raise your bar and add or remove the appropriately sized spacer(s).

Once you're happy with your position, it’s well worth cutting down the fork steerer tube to prevent any risk of injury from the tube in a crash.

Slide the stem back onto the steerer tube and replace the spacers you just removed into position above the stem.

Ensure there is a 3 to 5mm gap between the steerer tube and the top of your stem/spacer. This will ensure there's enough space for the headset top cap to clamp down and pre-load the headset bearing.

Now replace that top cap and bolt, and tighten until you feel some resistance. This top-cap bolt is used to pre-load the headset bearings.

Next, align the stem with the front wheel, so the bar is at a right angle with the wheel. This may take some patience – it helps to straddle yourself over the top tube of the bike.

Once the wheel and stem are aligned, torque the stem-clamp bolts evenly to the manufacturer's recommended value using a torque wrench . This is often around 5 to 8Nm.

Check your headset adjustment.

An easy trick to get this right is to hold the front brake and put one hand on the headset, then rock the bars gently back and forth. Feel for the steerer rocking back and forth inside the head tube of the bike.

If you feel this, loosen the stem-clamp bolts and tighten the top-cap bolt another quarter-turn, then re-torque the stem-clamp bolts.

Repeat until all signs of bearing movement have disappeared and the handlebars still turn smoothly. If you've tightened the bolts too much, you'll feel a tight spot when turning the handlebars.

If your headset feels rough, it may be time to service or replace your headset bearings .

How to flip the stem on your bike

If spacers aren't enough to achieve the effect you want, you can flip the stem to make a further change to the bar height.

Most mountain bikes will be set up with the stem in a positive position, creating an upward angle, but you can use it the other way round.

This uses all the steps above with the addition of unbolting the handlebar from the front of the stem.

With the bike’s wheels firmly on the ground, make a mental note of the handlebar angle and the brake lever angle.

Matching up a piece of masking tape on the faceplate and bars will make sure you get the angle spot on when refitting.

Evenly undo the bolts that hold the handlebar to the front of the stem. Remove the stem's faceplate and store it somewhere safe.

Let the handlebar gently droop to the side and now follow the procedure for swapping spacers, outlined in steps 1 to 4 above.

While the stem is off the bike, flip it over and then slide it back onto the steerer tube.

Reinstall the handlebar, replicating the previous brake lever and handlebar angle.

Tighten the faceplate to the manufacturer's recommended torque (generally between 4 and 8Nm). Ensure that all bolts are done up evenly, a little at a time, and that there is an even gap top to bottom with the faceplate once they're tight. If the gap isn’t even, the handlebar is being pinched.

While it's usually the case, it's not always suggested that stems should have an even gap at the top of the faceplate. Check your user manual if in any doubt.

Proceed with steps 3 to 7 above to pre-load the headset and tighten the stem.

How to raise handlebars on a bike

You can raise the handlebars on your bike using the steps outlined above by moving the stem so it's above as many headset spacers as possible or flipping the stem.

However, if the handlebar is still not high enough for you, there are other steps you can take.

You can replace your stem with one that has a greater degree of rise (the angle of the stem relative to the steerer tube). Bicycle stems come in different amounts of rise, typically between six and twenty degrees.

You can also install a stem riser. This is an attachment that fits to the fork steerer. Stem risers effectively lengthen your steerer tube allowing you to have stem and handlebar higher.

Stem risers can put greater strain on a fork steerer, particularly if it’s carbon.

What if my bike is integrated?

Many of the latest bikes across riding disciplines feature integrated front ends, with cables and hoses running through the handlebar and stem, and into the frame.

As a result, these bikes often make lowering or raising handlebar height more complicated.

Lowering your handlebar on these bikes generally isn’t too difficult. Many brands have introduced split headset spacers, which can be removed without having to remove the stem entirely.

Raising your handlebar can be trickier. You’ll want to make sure there is sufficient slack in the cables and hydraulic hoses. If they are too short, they will need to be replaced to introduce the required length.

How to adjust the height of a quill stem

Quill stems were the norm before A-head/threadless style stems hit the market. They are still commonly seen on bikes of all styles and disciplines.

Quill stems slide into the steerer tube of the fork and are secured with either an expanding bung or sliding wedge that presses against the inside of the tube.

Adjusting their height is slightly different – but arguably much easier – than a threadless stem.

Begin by loosening the bolt on the top of the stem. Most use a hex head bolt, but some will use an external bolt.

Once loosened, you may be able to move the stem freely.

If the stem hasn't been adjusted in some time, you may need to gently tap the bolt with a hammer to free the wedge or bung.

If the bolt is sitting proud of the stem, strike this directly. If it is flush with the top of the stem, you can use your hex key to gently tap the bolt.

The stem can now be adjusted to your heart's content. Be sure to check for any minimum and maximum insertion marks on the stem and adhere to these.

It is good practice to periodically grease the shaft of a quill stem because they frequently seize if left dry.

Once you have set the height of your stem and lined it up with your front wheel, you can re-tighten the wedge bolt to spec.

You’re now good to hit the trail and/or road to test out the bike's new handling characteristics.

It may take some trial and error along with patience to find that perfect height, but once you've got it, you'll be far closer to realising the bike's true potential.

Share this article

Deputy editor

• Terms & Conditions
• Subscribe to our magazines
• Manage preferences

commuter, culture, touring and style

• My Bicycles
• Bike Overnights
• Tours & Trips

Thursday, February 10, 2022

Trek marlin 7 handlebar update - ritchey kyote.

I've owned the Trek Marlin 7 hardtail for more than a year. After dialing in the perfect seat, the next step was to gain more comfort in the cockpit. Also, it's become apparent that I can no longer tolerate flat bars for prolonged periods. Priorities were: seeking a comfortable hand position, more forward reach (if at all possible), with more rise - all without compromising leverage required to snake through the woods.

There's no question the Kyote bars will be a huge improvement. I'm sure there will be further adjustments once spring mountain biking season rolls around. At least the difficult portion of the project is finished. Currently, we're navigating snowy bike paths on studded tire bikes!

9 comments:

I like reading these posts of yours where you are altering things to get the bike right for you. I did the same with my Koga, though I haven't got your technical abilities! My husband can't understand why I need to adjust things so much; he bought his bike off the internet and off he goes - perfect with barely any adjustments! So annoying!!

Thanks Lizzie! When I was younger, I never needed to alter original setups but age has forced me to, of course. Nowadays I enjoy the research process while trying to keep the cost minimal. Does your husband go on longer adventures or just to the corner grocery?

I like the look of those bars quite a lot and can see how they're addressing some issues in a nice simple way. Tweak away, I love it too as you know :)

Anything for comfort!

I always have to tweek my bikes to get them as comfy as possible, to me thats part of the fun of biking. The What bars site is good and I would have used something like that if I had known about it , although it does have the bars I have bought.. The bike looks good with the new bars.

I've been monitoring for months what I needed to adjust so I feel confident these bars should do the trick. Love the design process but still dislike bike mechanics, unfortunately. I need to be in the right mood with plenty of time. Whatbars is helpful for comparison with current bars, but isnt necessarily good at suggesting alternative bars. There are plenty out there not yet in their database.

Love the looks of those and I bet they are comfortable.

Switching between bikes, this one always felt awkward and uncomfortable, though I could settle in for a 1-2 hour ride. But what if I decide to tour someday on this bike? The improvement should be magical.

For comfort I found a shorter bar with the controls moved to about shoulder width was the best. Thst way when I am riding I can cover the controls and not be tired with my wrists as flat as possible. 25 mile or longer fast rides and my arms and hands feel fine.

Due to increased Spam, I am moderating comments. Thank you for your patience.

• Find Us Store
• My Account My Account
• Subtotal : $ 0.00 Checkout Cart

Availability

• Show More Brands
• Bontrager 2
• ENVE Composites 2
• Show Fewer Brands
• $20 to $49.99 7
• $50 to $124.99 22
• $125 to $199.99 11
• $200 to $499.99 1

• Account Account
• Subtotal : $ 0.00 Checkout Cart
• Bicycling Catalog
• Mountain Bikes
• Hardtail Mountain Bikes
• Marlin 5 Gen 3

Trek Marlin 5 Gen 3

Marlin 5 is a trail-worthy daily rider that's perfectly suited for everyday adventures, on and off the trail. It features a trail-savvy frame with a suspension fork, 9-speed Shimano CUES shifting, and mounts for a rack and kickstand that make it an ideal choice for trail riders or anyone looking for a comfortable, stable commuter with the ruggedness of a real mountain bike. It's right for you if... - You're new to the trail and you’re looking for a real mountain bike that doubles as a commuter — and you want it all at an exceptional value. The tech you get - A lightweight aluminum frame with internal routing to protect your cables and add to the bike's sleek look, an upgraded 9-speed Shimano CUES drivetrain, a wide range of gearing so you always have the right gear for your terrain, powerful hydraulic disc brakes, and a terrain-smoothing suspension fork with a lockout. The final word - Marlin 5 is a great ride for all your adventures. It's also versatile and a popular ride on college campuses because the rack and kickstand mounts make it easy to accessorize and haul a load. Why you'll love it - Marlin Gen 3 gives you serious trail capability, with big tire clearance and slack, confidence-boosting geometry that keeps you stable from singletrack to city - Rack and fender mounts make it easy to accessorize, so your mountain bike can double as a rugged commuter - Its ThruSkew system is safer, simpler, and stronger, plus it makes removing the rear wheel easy for flat fixes in a pinch - Internal routing makes it easy to add a dropper post that lets you lower your saddle on the fly for more confident descending - Marlin models in sizes XXS and XS have a curved top tube and lower standover height that makes it easier for smaller riders to mount and dismount

* Subject to change without notice.

Part Numbers

Hugo Dewar Archive    |    ETOL Main Page

The Moscow Trials

(march 1962).

This article was first published in Survey , No. 41, April 1962, pp. 87–95. Prepared for the MIA by Paul Flewers.

AT the twenty-second congress of the CPSU, N.S. Khrushchev once again raised the question of the “great purge”, this time in open session and with more detailed references to individual instances of Stalin’s persecution of his opponents. Khrushchev did not directly mention the three great Moscow trials, but the whole tenor of his reply to the discussion on the party programme made it clear that these trials were frame-ups. His remarks on the Kirov assassination alone were sufficient to demonstrate this, since the Kirov affair was the king-pin of the entire structure of these trials.

The assassination, 25 years ago, of Sergei Mironovich Kirov – Secretary of the Leningrad party organisation and member of the Politbureau – was the signal for the merciless repression of all Stalin’s known, suspected or potential opponents in the party. The range and thoroughness of this action was matched by the domestic and international propaganda campaign that accompanied it: for the Stalinist objective was not merely the physical destruction of all those who might conceivably constitute a rallying point for opposition within the party; not merely the creation in the USSR of an atmosphere of terror in which self-preservation should become the overriding consideration for each individual; it was also the complete moral annihilation of the leading figures of the Russian Revolution. Only Lenin would remain untouched, a great messianic figure; and by his side would rise the figure of Stalin, his sole true disciple. Consciousness of the past history of the Russian Revolution was to be erased from the mind of man and a new history was to take its place, the Stalin legend.

The campaign launched for this purpose – which may truly be termed a brain-washing campaign – was on a colossal scale. Its highlights were the three great Moscow trials in August 1936, January 1937 and March 1938, when almost the entire Bolshevik “old guard” was found guilty of organising the murder of Kirov, of wrecking, sabotage, treason, plotting the restoration of capitalism, etc. And it was precisely the defendants at these trials who, with their self-accusations, their abject penitence, their acceptance and praise of Stalin’s policies, showed themselves as eager as the Stalinists to support this campaign. Never before in history had there been a conspiracy of such dimensions, conspirators of such former eminence, and at the same time conspirators so uniformly anxious to attest the unrighteousness of their cause and the utter criminality of their actions.

At once sordid and deeply tragic, combining the grim reality of apparently normal juridical procedure with the lack of any evidence against the accused other than their own nightmarishly unreal confessions, these trials shocked the liberal conscience of the entire world. Yet it was, strangely enough, in Great Britain, a country proud of its tradition of liberal thought and action, that the most influential voices were raised in their defence.

Thus A.J. Cummings, then a political columnist of considerable standing, although admitting to some difficulty in accepting the guilt of all the accused, wrote of the first trial that “the evidence and the confessions are so circumstantial that to reject both as hocus-pocus would be to reduce the trial almost to complete unintelligibility”. (News Chronicle , 25 August 1936) The Moscow correspondent of the Observer also wrote (23 August 1936) that: “It is futile to think that the trial was staged and the charges trumped up. The government’s case against the defendants is genuine.” Sir Bernard Pares ( Spectator , 18 September 1936) likewise expressed the view that:

As to the trial generally, I was in Moscow while it was in progress and followed the daily reports in the press. Since then I have made a careful study of the verbatim report. Having done that I must give it as my considered judgement that if the report had been issued in a country (that is, other than the USSR) without any of the antecedents I have referred to, the trial would be regarded as one which could not fail to carry conviction ... The examination of the 16 accused by the State Prosecutor is a close work of dispassionate reasoning, in which, in spite of some denials and more evasions, the guilt of the accused is completely brought home.

These statements were made use of by the Anglo-Russian Parliamentary Committee in presenting to the public its summarised version of the official report (itself not verbatim) of the first Moscow trial. Its account of the second trial (compiled by W.P. and Zelda K. Coates) was introduced by Neil Maclean, MP, with a preface by the Moscow correspondent of the Daily Herald , R.T. Miller, and contained two speeches by Stalin, “in that simple and clear style of which Mr Stalin is such a master”, as Maclean put it. Maclean in his introductory foreword asserted that:

... practically every foreign correspondent present at the trial with the exception, of course, of the Japanese and German – have expressed themselves as very much impressed by the weight of evidence presented by the prosecution and the sincerity of the confessions of the accused.

In the course of his preface Miller wrote that “the prisoners appeared healthy, well-fed, well-dressed and unintimidated”; that “Mr Dudley Collard, the English barrister ... considered it perfectly sound from the legal point of view”; and that the accused “confessed because the state’s collection of evidence forced them to. No other explanation fits the facts.” [1]

Leaving aside Mr Collard, whose well-known political sympathies might explain his easy acceptance of surface appearances, it is clear that none of these commentators had the slightest understanding of the political struggle raging in the Soviet Union; a struggle of which these trials and those that had preceded them from 1928 onwards (which these gentlemen had apparently totally forgotten) were a reflection. Nor could any of them have really made a serious study of the official report. The circumstances of the time made many politically conscious people desire above all to think the best of the Soviet Government, and the views quoted above, deriving in part from this very desire, in part from sheer ignorance, were very welcome to the Stalinists. If they did not wholly convince, they at least helped to lull suspicion.

*  *  *

The most outstanding and the most influential supporter of the Stalinist campaign in the country was D.N. Pritt, an MP, a KC, and formerly president of the enquiry set up to investigate the proceedings of the Reichstag fire trial. Pritt entered the campaign with an article in the News Chronicle (27 August 1936), later reprinted in pamphlet form, The Moscow Trial was Fair (with additional material by Pat Sloan). He then expanded his analysis and argument in a booklet of 39 pages entitled The Zinoviev Trial (Gollancz, 1936). In this he first of all suggests that the bulk of the criticism of the trial emanated from the extreme right-wing opponents of the Soviet government. Still, he admits that much of it was made in good faith and came from “newspapers and individuals of very high reputation for fairness”. However, he goes on to imply that these critics had not, as he had, really studied the whole of the available evidence, but had relied upon incomplete reports. Moreover, they had not his advantage of being an eyewitness of the trial and a lawyer into the bargain. Having established in the reader’s mind that all criticism coming from sources hostile to the Soviet regime is ipso facto baseless, and having made plain his own geographical and professional superiority to the “fair-minded” critics, he argues that:

It should be realised at the outset, of course, that the critics who refuse to believe that Zinoviev and Kamenev could possibly have conspired to murder Kirov, Stalin, Voroshilov and others, even when they say themselves that they did, are in a grave logical difficulty. For if they thus dismiss the whole case for the prosecution as a “frame-up”, it follows inescapably that Stalin and a substantial number of other high officials, including presumably the judges and the prosecutor, were themselves guilty of a foul conspiracy to procure the judicial murder of Zinoviev, Kamenev and a fair number of other persons. (pp. 3–4)

The most general and important criticism of the trial, Pritt says, is that it was impossible to believe that “men should confess openly and fully to crimes of the gravity of those in question here”. (p. 5) In fact, of course, the critics” difficulty was not to believe that “men” should confess to “grave crimes”, but that these particular men should confess in that particular manner to crimes so contrary to everything known of their very public political pasts, so contrary to their known political philosophy, and so manifestly incapable of achieving their alleged objectives. For among those 16 accused there were, as Khrushchev has now obliquely reminded us, “prominent representatives of the old guard who, together with Lenin, founded “the world’s first proletarian state”. ( Report on the Programme of the CPSU , Soviet Booklet No. 81, 1961, p. 108) These were now transformed, in the words of the indictment, into “unprincipled political adventurers and assassins striving at only one thing, namely, to make their way to power even through terrorism”. ( Report of Court Proceedings: The Case of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terrorist Centre , People’s Commissariat of Justice of the USSR, Moscow 1936, p. 18)

Pritt himself, however, does not appear to be wholly at ease about the lack of evidence adduced other than the confessions, for he suggests that the Soviet government would have preferred all or most of the accused to have pleaded not guilty, for then the “full strength of the case” would have been apparent. As it was, “all the available proof did not require to be brought forward”. (p. 9) He assumes the existence of this proof; he writes that we cannot possibly know “what further facts there were in the record that were not adduced at all”. Not, that is, whether further facts were available, but what facts.

Although there is constant mention of facts, Pritt never gets down to a consideration of verifiable factual evidence adduced in alleged corroboration of the confessions. The closest he gets to giving an example of this is when he refers to an alleged conversation between two of the accused in which “a highly incriminating phrase was used”. Each of the accused denied using it, but each said that the other had. Pritt found this highly significant. He does not explain why the accused should have shied at admitting the use of “incriminating phrases” when they had already confessed to capital crimes.

Pritt claims to have reached his conclusion on the basis of a careful study of the official report of the trial. Surely, then, he must have been aware that, when it was not simply a question of “incriminating phrases”, conversations about conversations, but of concrete facts, some very glaring discrepancies were exposed, such as, for example, the flatly contradictory evidence of two of the accused, Olberg and Holtzmann, and the alleged meeting at a non-existent hotel.

It hardly seems possible that a man of Pritt’s professional training could have failed to see that the whole structure of the confessions simply did not hang together. He did not even notice anything strange in the tale of those two desperadoes Fritz David and Bermin-Yurin, who, after spending two and a half years preparing a plan to kill Stalin at the Congress of the Communist International, decided, when it came to the point, that they could not shoot “because there were too many people”!

For Pritt “anything in the nature of forced confessions is intrinsically impossible”; it was “obvious to anyone who watched the proceedings in court that the confessions as made orally in court could not possibly have been concocted or rehearsed”; and not even the keenest critic had been able to find a false note (pp. 12–14). The picture he gives of himself is that of an utterly credulous bumpkin. Any reasonably objective student of Soviet politics must have been aware at the time that this trial and those that followed were frame-ups. It did not require Khrushchev to admit that “thousands of absolutely innocent people perished ... Many party leaders, statesmen and military leaders lost their lives”; that “they were ‘persuaded’, persuaded in certain ways, that they were German, British or some other spies. And some of them ‘confessed’.”

For the Moscow trials were all of a piece with those that had preceded them: the Shakhty trial in 1928; the Industrial Party trial in 1930; the Menshevik trial in 1931; and the Metro-Vickers trial in 1933. [2] No student of these trials would fail to see that they served a definite political purpose and that justice had been perverted to this end. The very occurrence, previous to the Moscow trials, of exactly similar confession trials – with all their “technical” failures (attempted retraction of confessions; an accused going insane; long dead men named as conspirators, etc) – should have been enough to raise doubts in the mind of the most prejudiced. But the supporters of Stalin clearly did not want to see the truth. [3]

Here, as elsewhere, it was the paramount task of the Communist Party to “sell” the trials. For this purpose, in addition to public meetings throughout the country and articles in the Daily Worker and other periodicals, a stream of pamphlets was published. The Moscow correspondent of the Daily Worker , W.D. Shepherd, wrote two pamphlets in 1936: The Truth About the Murder of Kirov (31 pages) and The Moscow Trial (15 pages). In 1937, two leading English communists, Harry Pollitt and R. Palme Dutt, wrote The Truth about Trotskyism: The Moscow Trial (36 pages), and in 1938 R. Page Arnot and Tim Buck dealt with the third trial in Fascist Agents Exposed (22 pages). Supplementing all this there were the so-called verbatim Reports of the Court Proceedings (published in English by the People’s Commissariat of Justice of the USSR), and the abridged version of the official report of the August 1936 trial, published by the Anglo-Russian Parliamentary Committee. This does not, of course, exhaust the list of published matter issued directly or indirectly by the Communist Party in defence at the trials. Party contributors to the Left Book Club publications naturally also supported the campaign. In this respect JR Campbell’s Soviet Policy and its Critics (Gollancz, 1938, 374 pages) and Soviet Democracy (Gollancz, 1937, 288 pages) by Pat Sloan, are notable.

The bulk of this material eschews any attempt at reasoning and concentrates on invective in the verbal knuckleduster style typical of the Stalinist school. Campbell’s book is a much more ambitious effort in that he admits knowledge of the Dewey Commission [4] , quotes from its proceedings, and also uses quotations from Trotsky’s writings, albeit within strict limits. Thus he quotes Trotsky’s words:

Why, then, did the accused, after 25, 30 or more years of revolutionary work, agree to take upon themselves such monstrous and degrading accusations? How did the GPU achieve this? Why did not a single one of the accused cry out openly before the court against the frame-up? Etc, etc. In the nature of the case I am not obliged to answer these questions.

Here Campbell stops and comments: “But if there is no answer then a most important element in the case of the Soviet government is upheld.” (p. 252) He does not follow the quotation further, which runs:

We could not here question Yagoda (he is now being questioned himself by Yezhov), or Yezhov, or Vyshinsky, or Stalin, or, above all, their victims, the majority of whom, indeed, have already been shot. That is why the Commission cannot fully uncover the inquisitorial technique of the Moscow trials. But the mainsprings are already apparent. ( The Case of Leon Trotsky , pp. 482–83)

A very striking illustration of the Stalinist technique – low cunning, contempt for the truth, contempt for the reader’s intelligence – is to be seen on page 213 of Campbell’s book in his quotation from Trotsky’s The Soviet Union and the Fourth International . He begins in the middle of a paragraph:

The first social shock, external or internal, may throw the atomised Soviet society into civil war. The workers, having lost control over the state and economy, may resort to mass strikes as weapons of self-defence. The discipline of the dictatorship would be broken down [5] under the onslaught of the workers and because of the pressure of economic difficulties the trusts would be forced to disrupt the planned beginnings and enter into competition with one another. The dissolution of the regime would naturally be thrown over into the army. The socialist state would collapse, giving place to the capitalist regime, or, more correctly, to capitalist chaos.

And on this, Campbell writes: “This was more than a prophecy. It was the objective of the conspirators.” The very next paragraph in Trotsky’s essay begins: “The Stalinist press, of course, will reprint our warning analysis as a counter-revolutionary prophecy, or even as the expressed ‘desire’ of the Trotskyites.”

Campbell’s book is a long diatribe against “Trotskyism” and of its 374 pages there is hardly one on which the name Trotsky does not appear. Since this was written after the third Moscow trial, he has caught up with the Soviet scenario, successively developed with each trial. The crimes of the accused are now “only a culminating point in the struggle which Trotsky and his followers have been waging against the Bolshevik party since 1903”.

One of the curiosities of this period is the book written by Maurice Edelman from the notes of a Peter Kleist, entitled GPU Justice (1938). [6] According to Edelman, Kleist was “by no means a communist”. Efforts to convey an impression of objectivity are evident. The book dispenses with the usual Stalinist bludgeoning invective and affects a dispassionate, disengaged attitude, but its phraseology and tone are unmistakably pro-Stalinist. The Soviet Union is a classless society; the GPU is simply a police force like any other (only superior, of course); it is a misconception to consider it a secret police; if you are innocent no one can make you guilty; talk of GPU torture is Polish fascist slander; he, Kleist, is treated considerately, without brutality, and, therefore, so is every other suspect. There are many little touches designed to bring out the humanity of Kleist’s captors. The Lubyanka and Butyrki prisons are depicted as rest-homes, where lengthy discussions (reproduced apparently verbatim) permit Stalinists to defend Stalin and Trotskyites to expose themselves as avowed wreckers and saboteurs in collaboration with the White Guards. The book could obviously only have been written by someone with a very clear idea of the party line, and at the same time someone anxious to appear non-partisan. The cloak of non-partisanship is worn pretty thin, however, by the author’s efforts to defend and extol, not merely “GPU justice”, but almost every aspect of Soviet life, including the forced labour camps. Finally, in an appendix, Kleist on the Moscow Trials , all pretence of impartiality is dropped. There one reads: “Why do they confess? was the typical journalistic question, and no one, except the communist papers, supplied the obvious answer: ‘Because they were guilty.’” (p. 211) In this section the stock Stalinist arguments are put forward by Kleist himself and not, as in the main narrative, through the mouths of others.

To these arguments he adds one of his very own. It gives the appearance of having been inserted to show that in spite of his total agreement with the party line, he is nevertheless by no means a communist. For he says that, the GPU having established the guilt of the accused, they were “at this point quite conceivably offered remission of the death sentence”. This, he argues, “would account for the fluency of the confession and for the calm with which the majority of the prisoners heard the sentence of death” (p. 217). Apparently, Kleist regards this kind of double-crossing as a mark of the humanity of GPU justice.

His final sentence is worth noting:

In the years which have passed since this my release , the bursting into flames of the Spanish-Fascist rebellion, the risings and intervention of the Nazis in Austria and the promise of intervention in Czechoslovakia, have convinced me that whatever bewilderment is felt outside the Soviet Union at the unearthing of these Fascist conspirators, Fascist conspiracy in conjunction with Trotskyist conspiracy does exist and that its extirpation, so far from endangering the USSR, marks another peril avoided. (p. 218)

Leaving aside the peculiar logic of this passage, attention is drawn to the words emphasised. The book was published in 1938. Kleist was released in April 1937. Thus, no “years” could have passed since his release. The reader may work out for himself the chronology of the events to which he refers, all of which he says took place after his release.

The verdict of the British press was in general unfavourable to the Moscow trials. Among the dailies the Manchester Guardian stood out as their sharpest critic. In addition to its own editorial comment, it published cables from Trotsky rebutting the evidence and attacking Stalin’s policy, earning what is probably the rarest praise ever bestowed by a revolutionary on a “bourgeois” newspaper. “I know full well”, Trotsky telegraphed from Mexico (25 January 1937), “that the Manchester Guardian will be one of the first to serve the truth and humanity.” Typical of the Manchester Guardian ’s attitude was its statement of 28 August 1936: “He [Stalin] surrounds himself with men of his own making [7] and devotes all the power of the state to removing those who, however remotely, might become rival centres of authority.”

Nothing as bluntly condemnatory as this came, however, from The Times . Indeed, in 1936 and 1937, its attitude might justly be construed as favourable to Stalin. The trials, it thought, reflected the triumph of Stalin’s “nationalist” policy over that of the revolutionary die-hards. The conservative forces, with the overwhelming support of the nation, had now demonstrably gained the day. On this single point it was curiously at one with Trotsky himself, who wrote in an article in the Sunday Express (6 March 1938) that: “From beginning to end his [Stalin’s] programme was that of the formation of a bourgeois republic.” It was only with the 1938 trial that The Times expressed doubts as to the general trend of affairs in the Soviet Union. On balance one cannot say that The Times saw very clearly in this matter. [8]

The labour press was naturally in agreement with the views expressed by the Socialist International and the International Federation of Trade Unions (Louis de Brouckère and F. Adler on behalf of the LSI, and Sir W. Citrine and Walter Schevenels on behalf of the IFTU sent telegrams of protest on the occasion of each of the trials). Writing on the second trial in Reynolds News (7 February 1937), H.N. Brailsford said that it left him “bewildered, doubtful, miserable”; pointed however to the confessions – “If they had been coerced, surely some of them ... would have blurted out the truth”; referred then to the conflict of the evidence with known facts, and concluded: “In one Judas among 12 apostles it is easy to believe. But when there are 11 Judases and only one loyal apostle, the Church is unlikely to thrive.” In the Scottish Forward , Emrys Hughes” witty, ironic articles bluntly exposed the trials as “frame-ups”.

On the other hand, however, it was the communists alone who maintained a campaign consonant with their objectives. There can be little doubt that they did finally succeed in diverting the attention of left-wing opinion and those others whom they courted from the essential issues raised by the trials, and in persuading a very large body of public opinion that Stalin’s policy was right.

In this task they received powerful support from the New Statesman and Nation , which reached an audience not in general susceptible to direct communist approach. This journal gave an exhibition of dithering evasiveness and moral obtuseness rarely displayed by a reputedly responsible publication. The 1936 trial, “if one may trust the available reports, was wholly unconvincing” (28 August 1936). At the same time:

We do not deny ... that the confessions may have contained a substance of truth. We complain because, in the absence of independent witnesses, there is no way of knowing ... When we hear that so close and trusted a friend of Stalin as Radek, is suspected ... we are compelled to wonder that there may not be more serious discontent in the Soviet Union than was generally believed.” (5 September 1936)

An article on the second trial, Will Stalin Explain? (30 January 1937), stated that “the various parts of the plot do not seem to hang together”; but the confessions could not be doubted because that would mean doubting Soviet justice; on the other hand, “to accept them as they stand is to draw a picture of a regime divided against itself”. If there was an escape from this dilemma, would Stalin please tell them what it was?

In the absence of any answer from Stalin to this complaint, the journal had to be, and apparently was, satisfied with matters as they stood. For after the verdict it asserted that: “Few would now maintain that all or any of them were completely innocent.” (6 February 1937) Reference is made to a letter from Mr Dudley Collard (the letter noted earlier in this article) and the comment made: “If he is right, we may hope that the present round-up and the forthcoming trial will mean the final liquidation of ‘Trotskyism’ in the USSR, or at least of the infamous projects to which that word is now applied.”

The third trial again demonstrated the New Statesman and Nation ’s remoteness from reality and indifference to the moral issues raised: “The Soviet trial is undoubtedly very popular in the USSR. The exposure of Yagoda ... pleases everyone and seems to explain a great deal of treachery and inefficiency in the past.” But: “the confessions remain baffling whether we regard them as true or false, and the prisoners as innocent or guilty. There has undoubtedly been much plotting in the USSR.” (12 March 1938)

True or false; innocent or guilty: one could take one’s choice – what was important was that the confessions were baffling. Even more baffling were the mental processes by which an otherwise humane and intelligent man could write in a manner at once so callous and so superficial.

This type of confusion and refusal to face facts dominated the thinking of many left-wing intellectuals and the left wing of the labour movement during the 1930s. The experience of the great Russian purge destroyed no illusions, taught them nothing. And even today it is doubtful if there is a full appreciation of the profound effect those events had on Russian society and the men who lead it.

1. A member of the Fabian Society, Mr Collard performed the same service for the second Moscow trial as Pritt had done for the first (see D. Collard, Soviet Justice and the Trial of Radek , 1937). In 1936 he sent from Moscow a long telegram of protest against the appeal for mercy addressed to the court by Adler and Citrine. Yet in the New Statesman of 6 February 1937 he stated that “English reports of previous trials induced in me certain misgivings as to the genuineness of the charges”.

2. There were 53 accused at the 1928 trial – far too many for its proper staging. Right at the beginning it was announced that one, Nekrasov, had gone mad. Two other accused tried to withdraw their confessions during the course of the trial, giving a sickening glimpse of the preliminary investigation’s “rehearsal” horrors. At the next trial, in 1930, one Osadchy was brought into court under guard to give evidence as a member of the “conspiracy”. Osadchy had been one of the state prosecutors in the 1928 trial. With each trial the staging “improved”, but in the very nature of such trials perfection was impossible. Even at their “best” they could only deceive those suffering from what Ignazio Silone called the disease of juridical cretinism. It is worth noting that at the third Moscow trial the State Prosecutor, Vyshinsky, himself called attention to the connection between all these trials. ( Report of the Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet Bloc of Rights and Trotskyists , Moscow 1938, pp. 636–37)

3. It is worth recording that Moscow University recently conferred on D.N. Pritt the honorary degree of Doctor of Law. During the ceremony Academician Ivan Petrovsky, Rector of the University, praised Pritt as an “outstanding lawyer and selfless defender of the common people”.

4. See The Case of Leon Trotsky and Not Guilty (Secker and Warburg, 1937 and 1938).

5. The original reads: “The discipline of the dictatorship would be broken. Under the ...”, etc.

6. Recommended in Philip Grierson’s Books on Soviet Russia, 1917–1942 (1943) as “sober and matter-of-fact narrative; an admirable corrective to more sensational writings” (p. 125).

7. Among them, of course, N. Khrushchev, who, speaking from the roof of Lenin’s tomb to a parade of 200,000 workers after the 1937 trial, said: “By lifting their hands against Comrade Stalin they lifted them against everything that is best in humanity, because Stalin is the hope, Stalin is the expectation, Stalin is the lighthouse of all progressive humanity. Stalin, our banner! Stalin, our will! Stalin, our victory!” ( Daily Telegraph , 1 February 1937)

8. “Stalin’s policy of nationalism has been amply vindicated. Russia has made much industrial progress, social conditions are improving.” ( The Times , 20 August 1936) “Today the Russian dictatorship stages what is evidently meant to be the most impressive and terrifying of its many exhibitions of despotic power ... The customary overture has already been played by the Soviet press ... howling for the blood of those whom it denounces, in the grimly proleptic phrase, as “this Trotskyist carrion”.” ( The Times , 2 March 1938).

  Top of page

Last updated: 17 February 2023

• May 2, 2024 | Recap/Review: ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Goes On A Spiritual Journey In “Whistlespeak”
• May 1, 2024 | Toronto Stage Used For ‘Discovery’ Renamed “The Star Trek Stage” By Pinewood Studios
• May 1, 2024 | Star Trek Event Coming To ‘World Of Tanks’ Online Game – Watch Mission Preview
• April 30, 2024 | Star Trek Team Was Top Fundraiser For Pancreatic Cancer Action Network 2024 Charity Walk
• April 30, 2024 | See Alexander, Nog, And Jake Deal With Q Jr’s Time Loop Shenanigans In ‘Sons Of Star Trek’ #2 Preview

CelebWatch: Shatner Gets “Weird” + Pine Goes To “Moscow” + Nimoy Wraps “Fringe” + Quinto On The “Margin”

| April 12, 2010 | By: Anthony Pascale 19 comments so far

Shatner pitches "Weird or What" in Cannes

We will find in May if William Shatner’s new sitcom Bleep My Dad Says gets picked up, but one Shatner show that is definitely going on the air is Weird or What , a new documentary series Shatner is co-producing an hosting. The show description press release make it sound a bit like Leonard Nimoy’s In Search Of :

in Weird or What? William Shatner will investigate and analyze all that is weird in the world, including everything from paranormal phenomena to weird and wonderful creatures, from medical oddities to mysterious disappearances, and bizarre natural disasters to mystical monster attacks.  

The show has been sold to Discovery Channel in the US and History Channel in Canada. Today Shatner is at the MIP TV convention in Cannes today selling  the show to the world. Variety reports that production company Cineflix has successfully sold the show to "nearly every territory". At the event Shatner described the show:

We’re looking at weird circumstances but we’re presenting them in a light-hearted, jaunty way. We’re not taking ourselves too seriously.

Chris Pine headed to Moscow as Jack Ryan

Last year Chris Pine, the new Kirk, was tapped as the new Jack Ryan, to head up another big Paramount franchise. New details have emerged on this next film based on the Tom Clancy character. Pajiba reports the following story synopsis for the next Jack Ryan film (now with the working title of "Moscow"):

The movie will pick up with the Jack Ryan not long after his stint in the Marines, before he’s joined the CIA, while he’s a Wall Street stock broker, an occupation that will play heavily into the script. In the Clancy novels, Jack Ryan was a successful financial analyst in Baltimore for Merrill Lynch. In the new movie, he will have transplanted to Moscow to continue his financial advising, not for Merill Lynch (which has been absorbed by Bank of America), but for a billionaire employer. It is that billionaire employer who eventually sets Jack Ryan up to take the fall for terrorist plot designed to collapse the U.S. economy. After that, Ryan must race against time to clear his name, reveal the terrorist plot, and save his wife, who has been taken hostage by the billionaire employer.

No word yet on when "Moscow" will go in front of cameras or be released, but probably following Pine’s work on the next Star Trek .

Nimoy’s last day as an actor? + honored as space inspiration

Spock Prime, Leonard Nimoy has recently stated he is ready to back into acting retirement. This would mean his last job as an actor would be reprising his role as William Bell in the season finale  JJ Abrams’ Fringe . And yesterday, Nimoy tweeted " Finishing work on Fringe today. Really good experience. The two parter will air in May." Today he tweeted that his back home. Speaking of Twitter, in just four days TheRealNimoy has picked up almost 33,000 followers.

But Mr. Nimoy is still out and about. On Thursday Leonard is being honored by the Space Foundation at the National Space Symposium in Colorado. Nimoy is being presented with the Douglas S. Morrow Public Outreach award for being an inspiration to people around the world "to explore the wonders of science, space, and technology." And a reminder, next Friday the original Spock is headed to the Vulcan, Alberta, Canada (the official Star Trek capital of Canada) to unveil a bust of himself, and then he is off to the Calgary Entertainment Expo for the weekend.

Quinto on NYSE floor

Finally we come to the new Mr. Spock, Zachary Quinto. The actor is currently in New York  filling out his resume as a producer an actor in Margin Call , a film set in the world of the stock market. Last week Zach tweeted this pic of himself with his Before the Door production company partners.

While he has been in New York, Quinto has been a frequent Twitterer, sending gems like this one last Thursday:

the t-shirt i was wearing today smelled. so i bought a new t-shirt. now it smells. already. why you got to be so smelly t-shirts?

But no worries, Zach was cleaned up all nice by the next night…

Jeez, that photo of Nimoy is fierce! :D

I cant wait to see nimoy and the shat at vegas will miss them when their gone

Shats new show sounds fun–long as they dont make fun of believers cuz that could be bad n sad–

Like a jaunty “In Search Of…”

If I see one more word with quotes around it I’m going to “scream”.

Has Shatner seen Star Trek 11 yet?

How really cares. I don’t. maybe I did at one point. But I don’t now. Let it go. For crying….out….loud

“We’re not taking ourselves too seriously.”

In contrast to some of today’s Hollywood actor wannabees, Shatner can afford to not take himself too seriously. :)

Nimoy looks like an old, and very wise Spock on that photo. Acting retirement surely would be a waste of material…

#6 No, he’s busy having a life. :))

The two shows should be combined to form a show called “Weird Fringe”, and in the first show William Shatner could focus on mysteries of Mr.Spock’s bowl haircut.

Wow whats up with Quinto’s nerdball galsses….First we see a hobo Spock and now dork Spock.

ZQ’s follow up tweet is hilarious!

Nimoy always look cool…kinda badass…you wish Fringe would throw a evil Spock beard on him! Shat looks kinda pudgy…a jolly old type… I was really hoping Mr Nimoy would make it in the new MI movie as Paris…maybe a evil Paris with a beard!

Jack Ryan before Star Trek or after???

From everything I’ve seen of Ben Affleck, he’s pretty impressed with himself. Chris Pine will be 1000 times better than him.

Quinto needs a fashion adviser.

I think Quinto should do a music video as Bilbo Baggins

Alec Baldwin was a great Jack Ryan. Tough act to follow (and I’m a big Ford fan).

16. Yeah! xD lol

Quinto is always dressed stylish, cool and modern- I love it. Zach, just rub some patchouly on yourself and get back to work please!!!!!!!! And Bleep Jack Ryan!

• Discussions
• Reading Challenge
• Kindle Notes & Highlights
• Favorite genres
• Friends’ recommendations
• Account settings

Winifred Riser’s Followers

Winifred riser, combine editions winifred riser’s books.

Welcome back. Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account.

30-Day Unconditional Guarantee

Ride it and love it, or we'll take it back

• filter controls Items 24 24 48 72 filter controls Sort by Featured Featured A-Z Z-A Price Low-High Price High-Low