Great Purge

Great Purge

NFL SUNDAY TICKET only on DIRECTV

Great Purges
1934-38 stained Russian history with the blood of the millions of individuals, guilty and innocent, that Stalin had slaughtered in his Great Purges. He started with those closest to him, members of his own party, and worked his way down to the ordinary, innocent peasant. Everyone in the USSR was a potential enemy. Everyone was at risk. The Purges started on December 1st, 1934 with the assassination of Sergei Kirov, a popular member of Stalin’s Central Committee, and ended with the last show trial: Trial of the Twenty One in March 1938. This was the last of Stalin’s show-trails, but not the last of Stalin’s terror (his terror continued till his death); those accused and executed included Alexei Rykov, Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin, Nikolai Krestinsky, Christian Rakovsky, and Genrikh Yagoda. Stalin’s Purges started out eliminating the “old Bolsheviks” and replacing them with “yes-men” to obey Stalin’s orders. Those purged, including party members, leaders of the Red Army, peasants and workers, were eliminated by being made to confess their crimes in the show-trials that were so absurd that “To believe such charges one would have to accept the contention that virtually every member of the Leninist leadership, excepting, of course, Stalin, aligned himself with foreign capitalists, counterrevolutionaries, and other enemies of the workers’ state” (Kort 213).

Amidst the terror that encompassed the USSR in 1937 the New York Times published an article, on March 5th of that year, titled “Party Democracy Ordered in Russia.” It praised reform within the communist party and optimistically reported that there would be “direct voting of lower party officials” soon to follow. It praised the “new constitution” that Stalin passed in 1936 and commended it for being the reason for democratic reform. Although Stalin did pass a constitution in 1936, giving his citizens a list of rights, he did not mention how the state was to protect those rights. In addition, he had made laws focusing all the power into his hands so although his citizens were supposed to have rights he had the right to override any of their desires. Within his constitution the only democracy that existed was with regard to lower party officials so even if the people could chose those officials nothing would change in their day-to-day lives. Weighed against Stalin every member of the party was insignificant so even if all other party members could be elected the problem is still untouched at the top.

Nonetheless the New York Times continued to praise soviet reform by claiming that “members of the party received full right to criticism and the privilege of removing any candidate from the list of party officials if they disapproved of him.” Of course as long as the criticism did not involve Stalin or any of his actions then criticism was allowed and the only way to remove a party official was to prove, very easily, to Stalin that this member threatened his power. It is surprising that a newspaper such as the New York Times, which is expected to be a very accurate and reliable source of information, would be fooled into believing that Stalin would even consider allowing true democracy to exist under his reign.

The article continues but now discusses, quite ironically, the expected trial of Bukharin, former member of the politburo and editor of Izvestia, and Rykoff, former member of the Council of People’s Commissars, who were both arrested previously. They were charged with “conspiring for the overthrow of Bolshevism” like many other party members who had been assassinated in recent years. The only way Stalin could have evidence to prove that these men were guilty was by forcing them during show-trials to confess to crimes they hadn’t committed because he had no evidence of treason so he had to create it. As Kort put it in his book, Soviet Colossus, “One can understand why Stalin in wanted confessions since there was no other evidence of any kind to back up the charges. Also, by getting his once-mighty victims to confess and demean themselves, Stalin totally discredited not only them, but any version of “truth” other then his own” (Kort 214).

The last paragraph of the article suggests that the writer is being analytical as he realizes the absurdity of the situation:

“Mr. Kyroff apparently was incriminated in testimony at trials by men convicted and executed. The oft-exiled and stormy Bolshevist was arrested in 1936. Workers’ meetings have demanded that he and Mr. Bukharin--author of “The ABC of communism,” which was virtually the Bolshevist textbook for a decade—be tried and executed.”

It is rather ironic to accuse a man who wrote “the Bolshevist textbook” of trying to overthrow Bolshevisms after being such a firm believer in it and in the party. Also, decisions to convict and execute men were not in the hands of the workers. They were under Stalin’s strict orders. We now this from the very accurate source of the, “Official Verdict Against Y.L. Pyatakov and Associates in the Purge Trial, January 30, 1937,” which earlier that year put to death thirteen people and imprisoned four under false convictions.

In the writings of Bukharin, “To a Future Generation of Party Leaders,” which he wrote shortly before he was executed, Bukharin explains his situation and many others like him by stating that: “Any member of the Central Committee, any member the party can be rubbed out, turned into a traitor, terrorist, diversionist, spy, by these “wonder-working organs.” If Stalin should ever get any doubts himself, confirmation would instantly follow” (Bukharin 63). He describes Stalin’s fear of being challenged, replaced or overthrown very accurately. Although he was put to death for being a traitor in March 1938, to him, he died for the cause and he died knowing that he has done all he could till he could do no more. He ends his essay with optimism that communism will carry on and it will carry with it his sacrifice to its success: “Know comrades, that on the banner, which you will be carrying in the victorious march to communism, is also my drop of blood” (Bukharin 64).

Bukharin’s drop of blood, along with the blood of millions of people, was sacrificed to a cause that Stalin preached but did not practice. He claimed to be Lenin’s successor, although he was not. He claimed to follow Marx’s ideas and principles, although he did not. He claimed to carry out communism although the USSR under Stalin was further away from communism than the Democratic West was. At least in the West workers had trade unions they could go to to have a say in their lives or elections to vote in. Under Stalin, the “Workers’ State” killed and starved more workers than it benefited. Stalin knew that he lacked credibility and respect so he chose fear and terror to keep him in power.

Disclaimer

The above essay was written by Nada Abu-Issa and merely states opinions by a college student. However, if you feel strong about responding to the opinions stated, please write to articles@directorym.com and express your concerns.



Educational Content
Home