The Trial of Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin or Show Trial of 1938

Valentin Stoian

Candidate number:

Word Count: 1967

The Trial of Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin or Show Trial of 1938

Contents

Front cover   1

Contents 2

Plan of investigation 3

Summary of evidence 3

Evaluation of source 4

Analysis 5

Conclusion 5

List of sources 6

Appendix- Bukharin's pictures 8

A. Plan of investigation

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 2^nd 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 12^th 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 14^th 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/

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.