A. Plan of investigation l6d10dc
To what extent did Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin defend himself during his show trial
in 1938?
The purpose of this investigation is to find out how and to what extent did Nikolai
Bukharin defend himself when he was put on trial, accused of a wide range of charges,
during the Purges of 1936-1938.
In order to carry out this investigation, a series of mainly primary sources will
be consulted. These include, first and foremost, the transcripts of Bukharin’s
interrogation during the trial and his last plea, then Bukharin’s last letter
in prison, Stalin’s speech that marked the break with Bukharin, a telegram
from the American ambassador to Moscow, and, as a secondary source, Robert Conquest’s
The Great Terror: a reassessment , a standard book on this period.
The summary of evidence will contain a presentation of Bukharin’s background
and events before the trial and the resume of the trial and of its aftermath.
The analysis will show to what kind of charges Bukharin confessed to, why, and
what defence did he make.
B. Summary of evidence
1. Bukharin’s background and events before the trial
Nikolai Bukharin was born in Moscow 1888 and joined the Bolsheviks in 1906,
being exiled for illegal activities in 1911. After the March revolution of 1917
he returned to Russia and worked alongside Lenin, in order to gain power for
the Bolsheviks. He disagreed with the peace of Brest-Litovsk and supported the
idea of “socialism in one country”. After many disagreements with
Lenin, he recanted and was seen as a member of the “Right” Wing
of the Party. The NEP is seen as his creation.
After Lenin’s death, Bukharin supported Stalin in continuing the NEP and
against Zinoviev and Kamenev, but when Stalin made the”Great Turn”,
Bukharin opposed him. In a speech in 1928, Stalin asked the C.C. to “condemn
the Right opportunist, capitulatory platform of Bukharin, Tomsky and Rykov”,
to “condemn the attempt of Bukharin and his group to form an anti-Party
bloc with the Trotskyites.” Bukharin lost his post in the C.C. and became
editor of the Izvestia until 1937, when he was arrested for treason.
In prison, Bukharin was tortured (an order of “beating permitted”
was recovered) and his wife and infant son were threatened , which made him
confess to a series of charges. Still, he had the power to write to Stalin,
to tell him that he understands why Stalin initiated the Purge and that he has
to die, and to deny the charges, fearing that Stalin believes them.
2. The trial
The trial, in which Bukharin and seventeen others were accused, opened on the
2nd of March 1938. The indictment was comprehensive and included charges such
as planning to assassinate Lenin and Stalin ,assassinating Kirov and Gorky,
spying for foreign powers(Japan, England, Germany), planning to overthrow Soviet
power and to instigate an attack from the outside . Andrei Vyshinsky represented
the prosecution.
When Bukharin was interrogated he began by pleading guilty to belonging to a
“counterrevolutionary bloc of Rights and Trotskyites.", being one
of its leaders, planning to overthrow the Soviet power by force, with the help
of England, Japan and Germany and to give them territory , to weaken the defensive
power by wrecking, planning to assassinate important members of the Soviet government,
planning a coup d’etat and planning to arrest Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov
.However, he then started to deny that he had been in favour of wrecking, that
he had taken part in the assassination of Kirov or that he had wanted to kill
Lenin, that he had spied for Austria, America and Japan, that he had known anything
about negotiations with Whiteguard circles or German fascists, and that he had
planned to give Byelorussia to the Poles. After that, Bukharin admitted that
he had had contacts with Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks abroad, but
refused to admit that he had accepted to open the front to the Germans.
The witnesses brought to confirm the prosecution’s theory about the plan
to assassinate Lenin were Varvara Yakolevka, Mantsev and Ossinky. The first
one confirmed Vyshinsky’s story completely, but Bukharin showed that there
had only been conversations about arresting Lenin for 24 hours, which was known
by everybody. The others made more restricted accounts, omitting the points
against Bukharin. Again, Bukharin denied the charges.
In his last plea, on the 12th of March, Nikolai Bukharin maintained the same
line, accepting that he had planned to overthrow the Soviet power, had planned
kulak uprisings, had collaborated briefly with the “Left” Socialist
Revolutionaries, but continued to deny that he took part in the assassination
of Kirov, had worked with the fascists, that he had given any instructions for
wrecking activities. However, he said that he was an enemy of socialism and
rejected the defence he would get in the West.
Nikolai Bukharin was found guilty on all charges and shot on the 14th of March
1938, only to be rehabilitated in 1988.
C. Evaluation of sources
Two of the sources used were:
The Case of the Anti-Soviet Block of Rights and Trotskyites, Red Star Press,
1973, page 369-439, 767-779. found on https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1938/trial/,
5-03-2004
It is a very valuable primary source as it contains the records of Bukharin’s
trial. The transcription of the trial is a normal procedure, transcripts which
can later be studied by historians. It was published by the Soviet authorities,
which had not yet rehabilitated Bukharin, with the intention of giving veridicity
to the trial and its value is that it shows exactly what happened, what questions
were asked and what answers were given. Its limitations might be that some of
what was said was not published, in order to keep certain things secret (though
unlikely), that during the translation process mistakes might have been made
or that the managers of the site have not put everything on the Internet (again
unlikely). If one wants to investigate the truth behind the trial, this source
should be used with great care, because it shows only what happened in the hall
and says nothing of what happened during the preliminary interrogation.
Conquest, Robert, The great terror, a reassessment, Hutchinson, London, 1990
p 341-398
This is a standard book on this period, assembled from a variety of primary
sources. For the chapter regarding the trial, Conquest obtained his information
mainly by studying the transcripts, but not only. He makes references to other
primary sources also, such as Bukharin’s last letter to his wife, where
he denounced the charges. Its purpose is to provide an evaluation of the whole
period of the Purges and it is valuable by the amount of information and by
Conquest’s analysis, who explains Bukharin’s strategy. However,
its limitations are that it doesn’t bring very much new evidence for one
who has read the transcripts and that Conquest is a well-known “totalitarian”,
tending to put all the blame for the Purges on Stalin.
D. Analysis
First of all, the trial came during the period of the Purges, when Stalin’s
aim was to get rid of former Bolsheviks and obtain power for himself. He had
arranged similar show trials before for Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek and Pyatakov.
Bukharin had seen how they all had confessed to all the charges and when he
was arrested he knew what was happening. He realized that a general Purge was
going on, that it had to include him and that by doing this “the leadership
is bringing about a full guarantee for itself.” By now, most opposition
had been crushed and this last trial was only a “victory parade”
Secondly, it was established that the charges were false. Bukharin wrote two
letters in which he states this. The first was memorized by his wife, Anna Larina,
before he was arrested and was published later in the West. It states that he
is not guilty, that the NKVD can transform everyone into a “terrorist”
or a “spy” that he had loved Kirov and had done nothing against
Stalin . In the second one, the one written to Stalin, Bukharin states: “I
am innocent of those crimes which I admitted to at the investigation.”
Therefore it can only be concluded that he confessed to these crimes after the
prosecutors used both “methods of physical influence” and threats
to his wife and infant son.
Bukharin’s strategy of defence was to give the prosecutors what they wanted,
while demolishing the evidence against him. In order to protect his wife and
son, he admitted general responsibility, but avoided to admit complicity in
any of the overt acts . Acts like these would be the assassination of Kirov
and Gorky, espionage for other countries and planning to open the front for
the Germans. While Bukharin admits the general charges of belonging to a counterrevolutionary
group or planning insurrections and a coup d’etat, planning kulak uprisings
and planning to perform wrecking, he denies the specific charges. About wrecking
he says there had been only one discussion with Khodjayev, but he had spoken
against the acceleration of wrecking. Later, he questions the credibility of
Sharangovich and Ivanov by calling them agent-provocateurs of the Tsarist regime,
knowing that no lower form of life could exist for a Bolshevik audience.
Another strategy was to veer into ideology, when Bukharin explains how the group
became what it was, to engage the prosecutor in discussion by refusing to give
definite answers to some charges (VYSHINSKY: So the answer is neither "Yes"
nor "No"? BUKHARIN: Nothing of the kind, because facts exist regardless
of whether they are in anybody's mind. This is a problem of the reality of the
outer world. I am no solipsist. ) and to constantly refer to logic and philosophy
which Vyshinsky did not understand (“VYSHINSKY: I am not asking you about
conversations in general, but about this conversation. BUKHARIN: In Hegel's
Logic" the word "this" is considered to be the most difficult
word....” ). He enjoys seeing the prosecutor angry and even says once:
“There is nothing for you to gesticulate about.” In his last plea
Bukharin says that “The confession of the accused is a medieval principle
of jurisprudence”, making Vyshinsky flush
Whatever his strategy, Bukharin knew that he would die after the trial, especially
of he acted like this. He was ready for death and died firmly defying his captors.
.
The trials seemed genuine to some, including the American ambassador, Joseph
E. Davies, who sent a telegram to Washington saying that the trials were genuine
. Other observers might not have credited the charges, but for the audience
intended they seemed real. Bukharin’s strategy, of accepting the general
but denying the particular, might have been a little too subtle, as he didn’t
understand, how Stalin did, that political effects do not depend on simple logic.
E. Conclusion
The whole trial was set up in order to get rid of Bukharin and the whole group
of the accused. Whatever he might have done he was already sentenced to death,
so he tried to save his wife and son. His confessions were not voluntary and
had been made under torture and threats.
His main strategy was to accept responsibility for the general charges, like
being member of a counterrevolutionary bloc and instigating kulak revolts, but
to deny specific acts, such as the assassination of Kirov or the plan to kill
Lenin. He constantly engaged the prosecutor in duels, using logic and philosophy
as his defence, areas that were his specialty. For many, the trials seemed genuine,
but their falsity was admitted in 1988 when most of the accused were rehabilitated
due to the new political developments.
Bukharin managed to defend himself to a much greater extent than the accused
in others show trials, who just confessed to all of the charges. One that analyzes
carefully can see that he proclaimed his innocence for the world to see.