THE MOSCOW TRIAL

King Country Chronicle, Volume XXXI, Issue 4956, 16 February 1937, Page 7

THE MOSCOW TRIAL

CONDUCT OF ACCUSED. THEORY OF TROTSKY’S SON. The Moscow trial of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Smirnov, and others was the first of a series of anti-Trotsky trials, wrote L. Sedoff (son of Leon Trotsky) in the Manchester Guardian on January 15. The second of the series, which took place in Novosibirsk on November 19-22, 1936, was in itself of no great importance. Its true aim was to prepare the ground for the coming trial of Piatakov, Sokolnikov, and possibly Radek, on the one hand, and of the military men, Putna, Shmit, on the other, for which public opinion is now being prepared. Some former members of the Right faction of Rykov and Bukharin, no longer in existence, such a Uglanov, may also be brought to trial. The accused industrial managers will be indicted for “sabotage,” the military men for espionage and military plotting. Both groups will be accused of preparing terrorist acts (which, strangely enough, are always unsuccessful), and finally of participation in the assassination of Kirov. In every political trial in Soviet Russia to-day efforts ar* being made to implicate the defendants in that assassination. We are gradually discovering that Kirov was murdered not by Nikolaiev but by a steadily-growing mass of old Bolsheviks. A Definite Plan. The accused (who will be their own accusers) are called “Trotskyists,” in order to bring Trotskyism into discredit. But there is not one real Trotskyist among them. The defendants in the Novosibirsk trial had never had any connection with Trotskyism, while Zinoviev, Kamenev, Piatakov, and Smirnov, broke finally with the Trotskyist Opposition years ago. The same purpose of discrediting Trotskyism is obvious in the swelling of the ranks of the defendants by fictitious or real Gestapo agents (who are, of course, numerous in the Soviet Union). These Gestapo agents often play a double game, being at the same time in the pay of the G.P.U. Such men make serviceable defendants in public trials. The Soviet trials are as a rule an “alloy,” an artful mixture of defendants who have nothing to do with one another. This method is by no means new. During the French Revolution leaders of the political Opposition, in order to discredit them, were tried together with Royalists and common thieves. The defendants actually brought to trial are carefully selected, by means of a long and weary examination, out of a much more numerous host of accused. Those are selected who can be “broken”—induced to plead guilty to crimes they have never committed. The foundation-stone of the legal proceedings is that examination, conducted by the G.P.U. Raform of the G.P.U. Until recently secret G.P.U. tribunals pronounced their sentences, even death sentences, simply on the report of the examining official, without a defending lawyer and even in the absence of the defendant himself. A recent reform of the G.P.U., which appeared to weaken its prerogatives, has in reality strengthened them; it put the whole Ministry of the Interior (the criminal police, the passport department, the prison board, the department for criminal labour) under the control of the G.P.U. This reform restricted the rights of the secret G.P.U. tribunals: the sentences passed by them are limited to five years’ imprisonment. (As there is virtually no control over these tribunals, the limitation is entirely fictitious). Defendants who are intended for more severe sentences are handed on by the G.P.U. to the socalled special popular tribunals. Their procedure is also secret, but at least the defendants themselves are present, and other legal formalities are preserved. But whether the case is dealt with by the G.P.U. tribunal or by the special popular tribunal, the decisive role is played by the G.P.U. examination, which is conducted, in entire secrecy. Here it is that the fate of the accused is decided. When the case is of any political significance the sentences are confirmed by the highest political board, the Politburo. When a public trial is going to be held as a means of political propaganda the examiners of the G.P.U. have only one task—to force a confession from the accused. Usually, though not by any means always, they succeed. Lives “Guaranteed.” As a compensation for the confession the G.P.U. guarantees the life of the prisoner. This guarantee has usually been honoured. In the Zinoviev trial an exception was made because Stalin hoped that the execution of the accused would help to bolster up the defective evidence. There is no doubt that Zinoviev, Kamanev, and the others had been promised their lives. This is evident from the fact that, contrary to the special decree of the Central Executive Committee

of December 1, 1934, ordering the immediate execution of sentences against terrorists, and cancelling the committee’s prerogative of amnesty, accused in the Zinoviev trial were allowed to appeal to it for amnesty. This right of appeal was regarded by the the accused as their guarantee of pardon. But the committee made no use of its power. The defendants had been horribly deceived.

There is no doubt that the same method will be used in the trial of Piatakov, Sokonikov, and the others. The deceit will be the easier as the majority, if not all of them, were already in prison or had been arrested (as, for instance, Piatakov and Radek) before the end of the Zinoviev trial, and in their strict isolation in prison they have even now no idea of the fate of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Smirnoff, and the others. The central role in the coming trial is reserved for Piatakov, one of the most prominent of the old Bolsheviks. After joining the Trotsky Opposition in 1925 Piatakov demonstratively left it in January, 1928—nine years ago. Unlike other former members of the Opposition who took the same course, such as Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Smirnov, Piatokov was soon reinstated by Stalin in a leading position. With Radek and others he has for years been among the bitterest enemies of the Opposition, and he has served Stalin with the utmost fidelity. In 1930 Piatakov was readmitted to the Ceneral Committee of the Communist Party, and he remains a member of it to this day. During the Zinoviev trial Piatakov (as well as Radek) published in the Soviet Press an article demanding the execution of Zinoviev and the others. And this man is now being represented a “Trotskyist.” Piatakov is now, in particular, accused of having participated in a conference which is alleged to have taken place in Berlin (1931) and at which Piatakov, Smirnov (who has already been executed), and the author of this article are alleged to have discussed the plan of an attempt on Stalin’s life. All this is, of course, pure fancy. During the last nine years I have seen Piatakov only once, quite fortuitously, in a street (Unter den Linden) in Berlin—in 1931 or 1932, I do not remember exactly. When he noticed me, Piatakov at once turned away, pretending not to know me. That is my only “meeting” with Piatakov during the last nine years! According to the official commentators, this “conference” took place “under the auspices of the Gestapo,” in spite of the fact that in 1931 no Gestapo yet existed. Such mistakes are characteristic of the Soviet legal machinery.