In evaluating their actions, one might think that they, the defendants, had an unquenchable desire to die as soon as possible. But that is not the case. They were in fact fighting for survival. Yet. Their approach was different from that of defendants who stand before a truly selfless and impartial tribunal. Instead of proving their innocence, they kept their pact with Stalin as accurately as possible: to smear themselves and blow the whistle on Stalin.
Stalin knew that. The first Moscow trials had aroused suspicion in the West. It was indeed hard to believe that the recent leader of the Soviet people had suddenly become a traitor and murderer. So, naturally, speculations arose that these men had been tortured before agreeing to defile themselves, that Stalin was simply using the proceedings to cover up his indiscriminate crimes. Therefore, Stalin considered it essential to dispel this impression. But how? If they had tried to prove that the old party members had not been tortured, it would have deepened their suspicions and made those who were suspicious even more convinced that torture had taken place. As a result, in the latter two Moscow trials, it was none other than the defendants themselves who came forward to defend themselves. They themselves denied the rumors of torture.
For example, speaking at the third Moscow trial, Bukharin refuted the rumors that he and the other defendants had been tortured, hypnotized, and given intoxicants. He dismissed these rumors as unrealistic myths and actual reactionary fables.
One wonders how Bukharin learned that he was being reported in the foreign press. It is well known that in the Soviet Union no one, not even those with freedom of movement, could get access to foreign newspapers, let alone prisoners!
At the second Moscow trial, the defendant Radek, who was known for his wit, also tried to defend Stalin’s interrogation apparatus, and even seemed to go too far. Speaking in the courtroom, he said.
“For two and a half months, I have been torturing interrogators. Now someone asks me if I was tortured during the interrogation. I must answer him that I was on the contrary: I tortured the interrogator, not he tortured me.”
What a strange statement: the old Bolsheviks were furious that the people of the world did not believe them guilty. They lost their temper because people in other countries continued to regard them as decent people, victims of Stalin’s torture; because they were not regarded as spies, traitors, and murderers. While Stalin was about to blow their brains out, they were still crying out for their mortal enemy, lest the nations of the world should regard him as a shameless liar, a scoundrel who forced them to slander themselves and each other.
One of the features of the Moscow trial was that the defendant, the prosecutor, and the lawyers were all saying the same thing. They all tried to prove that all the disasters that had befallen the people of the Soviet Union – starvation, continuous car accidents on the railroad lines, accidents in the mines that had killed large numbers of workers, riots among the peasants, and the death of large numbers of livestock – were the defendants’ fault. At the same time, they had to prove that only Stalin was the savior of the people, “the hope of the world. The defendants’ statements were identical to the prosecutor’s indictment. The defense attorney’s statement, on the other hand, was purely an attack on the defendant, and was even more harsh than the statements of the state prosecutors.
Despite the fact that Wicinski pointed out that the investigating authorities had not been able to find solid evidence and that the accusation was based only on the defendant’s confession, lawyer Bulfind claimed in court.
“Comrades Judges, all the facts in this case are undisputed. Comrade Prosecutor General’s statement is absolutely correct. He said that all of them have been proven to be true, both from the evidence in the case and from the testimony of the witnesses ……, and therefore the defense side does not intend to make any further objections to the prosecution side on this issue.”
Another defense lawyer, Kaznacheyev, said at the second Moscow trial.
“Not only the defendant’s confession, but also the overwhelming amount of evidence we have, have proven that this case is completely true. The defendant’s heinous crime is really hard to write about!”
Anyone listening to this would think so; the so-called defenders, when they say such things, must be ashamed of themselves and try to avoid the eyes of their clients, who, in turn, must look at them with anger, because they have placed so much trust in the defender, only to find out in the end that they have been despitefully deceived. In reality, however, this is not the case at all! The defense attorneys were not condemned by their conscience, and the defendants were not at all angry about it. Those who attended the Moscow trials knew that each one of them, whether lawyer or client, prosecutor or judge, could not do what he or she wanted, but could only play his or her role according to the prepared lines. None of them could do anything of their own will, but had to play their parts strictly according to the prepared lines. Each of them is faced with a life-or-death decision. For the defendant, the choice is either to play the role of a criminal, or to bring death not only to himself but also to his family. For the prosecutor and the presiding judge, it was either to carry out the farce of the trial as Stalin had instructed, or to lose his life in vain because of the slightest misstep that would cast doubt on the honorable conduct of the case. As for the defense attorney, he must carry out the secret instructions given to him by the Prosecutor General with perfect accuracy, or else he will be as guilty as his client. ……
Recent Comments