Most of us are used to reading histories written by anticommunists and trying to piece together truth from it.

Here, I just don't understand, and I don't mean that in a "help! how can I explain this while preserving the axiom that Stalin was a good guy?" way, I mean that I don't understand how it makes sense at all for him to be killed, it seemed to be virtually entirely downside for the Soviets, both from Bukharin historically being a great thinker and from the way that it so damaged the international reputation of the Soviets under Stalin. It's made all the more confusing by the fact that Stalin did seem to not be interested in charging him, and then merely exiling him, before ultimately the Soviets seemed quite set on eventually killing him.

It just doesn't make sense to me from any interpretation presented, like some vital information is missing.