Marx-Engels | Lenin | Stalin | Home Page
Transcripts from Soviet Archives
VOLUME X -1930Download PDF
Section IV. Intellectuals and employees
Information from the INFO OGPU on the curvature of the class line in work and on the decomposition of the Soviet and party apparatus and economic agencies in the Prokopyevsky district of the Kuznetsk district of Sibkrai (as of January 23, 1930)
6 February 1930
No. 380700 Top secret
A number of distortions of the class line, distortion of party and government directives, abuses, crimes, suppression of self‐criticism, persecution of public activists, which took place over several months, were revealed in the work of the soviet, party] and khozaparat of the Prokopyevsky district of the Kuznetsk district.
Protection of the kulaks
During the 1929/30 UES campaign, the chairman of the RIK Kanavin (who is also a member of the Bureau of the All‐Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks) and the apparatus of the RIK carried out a mass exemption from individual taxation and under‐taxation of the kulaks and religious ministers; at the same time, the poor and middle peasants were deprived of the benefits provided to them by law.
In with. Chumash three kulak farms and one priest, and in the village of Kostenkovo 39 kulak farms subject to individual taxation, according to the resolution of the chairman of the RIK Kanavin, were taxed only in the usual manner.
In the Cherkasy village council, with 400 householders in the village, not a single kulak was found, and the deliberate kulaks were supplied with official certificates of exemption from individual taxation. ʺThey are not fisting.ʺ As a result, the burden of the tax was shifted to the poor and middle peasants of the village. Fist Makshakov is taxed for 3 rubles. 60 kopecks, and the poor Tuzovsky ‐ 6 rubles, Usov ‐ 8 rubles. etc. It is characteristic that the kulak Makshakov himself appeared at the VIC, declaring: “They didn’t pay much tax on me, I’m afraid that something bad would not come of it afterwards.”
The count of the peasants who improved the sowing was not carried out in the district, and the peasants did not receive the benefits they were entitled to under this line under the unified agricultural tax.
The debt from private traders is not collected and reaches 54,000 rubles in the district.
During the economic procurement campaign by the chairman of the RIK Kanavin, authorized by the RIK Maksatov, the Cherkasy village council and the cell of the All‐Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), the malicious non‐donors of grain surpluses kulaks Kornilov, Lichenko, Muzychenko and others were exempted from fines and seizure of property despite the decisions of the Commission for Assistance and the Meeting of the Poor. In the Cherkassk village council, during the period of household procurement, there is not a single case of bringing a kulak to responsibility for failing to deliver surplus.
The prepared bread by the Cherkassk consumer society was accepted by the kulaks on the spot, and the poor were forced to take the bread to Prokopyevsk.
Drunkenness, mismanagement and abuse in the apparatus of consumer society
Member of the Board of the Cherkassk PO Kozlovsky, a member of the CPSU (b) since 1918, being the head. warehouse rotted 350 poods of buckwheat. Kozlovsky paid the peasants of the village of Korlegash who carried timber to build his own house with cooperative buckwheat. The chairman of the board of Shigulin, members of the board Kozlovsky and Kaplin, non‐partisan (speculators in horses, have a large farm), chairman of the revolutionary committee Gorelov, member of the CPSU (b) since 1928, head. shop Grooms, non‐partisan, arrange systematic collective drinking. They get drunk in the PO shop (the head of the shop and the pre‐revolutionary commission) to the point that they are not able to stand behind the counter.
Decomposition and contamination of the RW apparatus
Policeman Mikhailov spoke out against grain procurement, saying: ʺThe Soviet government is robbing and ruining the peasants.ʺ He also drank together with his kulaks, who were arrested for not handing over surplus bread.
District militiaman Telkonov, a member of the CPSU (b), a merchantʹs son who did not break ties with his father, a drunkard, deliberately detained investigative cases against 5 kulaks, accused by the Cherkasy village council under Art. As a result, the kulaks were not brought to justice.
In RAO, the case on the embezzlement of 2,000 rubles by the chairman of PA Kostenkov has been lying motionless for 1 ʹ/ 2 years; the same with the case of the embezzlement of 2,000 rubles. clerk of the PO of the village Smyshlyaev, which has been lying motionless since August p.
In October last year, by order of the head of the RAO Kuldyrkov, on the basis of a complaint from the chairman of the SelKKOV Vragin (kulak), citizen Govyadin, a poor activist, non‐partisan, was arrested without interrogation for 1 ʹ/ 2 months, for what he (Govyadin) said at a general meeting: ʺWe have kulaks in the apparatus of the SelKKs.ʺ On November 11, 1929, the poor man of the village of Smyshlyaevo, arrested by the head of the RAO due to a misunderstanding, citizen Ivanov, on the instructions of policeman Mitrovanov, was beaten to a pulp by criminals, after which he died in hospital 7 days later.
Detained by the police, citizen Pavlova Ksenia was used for 4 days in turn in sexual relations by the police on duty and the district supervisor: the police on duty Larin, Krivoshein (in the presence of the arrested), the district supervisor Khoroshilov, a member of the VKP (b). After her release, Pavlova was visited quite openly at her apartment (policeman Voshchin).
The 5 Red Army workers sent by the RK VKP (b) at the end of October last year to work in the RAO left their jobs due to the outrages committed in RAO.
Despite the proposals of the RK VKP (b) to the head of the RAO on cleaning the RW apparatus from the decomposed and alien element, no measures were taken in this direction.
On the work on carrying out complete collectivization in the
According to the directives of the district, a complete collectivization should be carried out in the Prokopyevsky district. However, the chairman of the RIK Kanavin, the head of the Raizo Karasev and the agronomist Shaytalin (all members of the All‐Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks), who are entrusted with the practical leadership and implementation of this work, are inactive, giving in to difficulties, expressing disbelief in the success of the collectivization being carried out and making statements of a clearly right‐wing nature.
Head Raizo Karasev at a meeting of the RK VKP (b) on December 31, 1929, said: ʺThere is a lot of work on complete collectivization and we cannot cope with it.ʺ At a meeting of the party cell, he also said: “The party, pursuing a complete collectivization of agriculture, forcibly drives the peasants to collective farms, oppresses the peasantry; the peasants, not wanting to join the collective farms, are trying to reduce their farming, by which we are ruining the farm. Collectivization is being carried out against the wishes of the peasants and nothing good will come of it. In addition, it is very difficult to collectivize peasants: it is possible only when we take a good mother and we parrot them. ʺ
Rayagronom Shaytalin was instructed to draw up a plan for regional collectivization, but he did not make the plan, and when, after 1/2 month, the RK VKP (b) demanded from the chairman of the RIK a report on the work done, the latter stated that “this cannot be done, and if you think that it is possible, then you have hot heads, you do it. ʺ
Mass explanatory work on the issue of complete collectivization in the area was not carried out. Practiced exclusively administrative pressure and methods of threats and intimidation, which led to a negative attitude of the population towards collectivization and, in particular, to the destruction of livestock, even by party members.
In the village of N. Rozhdenstvenka, Prokopyevsky District, on December 28, 1929, after a general meeting that discussed the issue of contracting livestock, where an insignificant number of peasants agreed to contract were revealed, a commission was immediately created (in accordance with the RIK directive on contracting), which went to look for surplus cattle yards. As a result, the peasants began to slaughter all the surplus cattle for meat: the citizen Mechkaev, a middle peasant, non‐party member, immediately killed his cow; Fadeev Filat, a member of the CPSU (b), a middle peasant, killed 2 cows and a pig for meat, and most of the peasants began to slaughter their livestock mercilessly. The kulaks took advantage of this opportunity and began to conduct agitation among the population: “The population already has no livestock, and we are still being led to death. They are ruining, they want to take away the last cattle” (prosperous Pervushkin Peter).
N. The Rozhdestvenskaya cell of the CPSU (b) does not carry out any work on collectivization at all. Some communists oppose collectivization. A member of the CPSU (b) Togaev Karp, a poor man, says: “Although they carry out collectivization, nothing will come of it; here we had a machine partnership and it collapsed, but if you organize a commune, then everyone will quarrel, ruin the economy and disperse. ʺ
The Cherkasy village council, having received a directive from the RIK on collectivization, did not discuss this issue at any meeting.
Poor Khudshaev, a non‐party man, says: “Everyone says that they will gather everyone in a commune, and they write in the newspapers, but in our village they do not hear anything: no one speaks and no one is doing work. Our village is big and there is no collective. ʺ
Clamping self‐criticism, persecution of public activists, the conciliatory attitude of the RK VKP (b) to the right‐wing opportunistic practice in the region
Protests on the part of the Soviet public, speeches of the best workeractivists against the distortion of the party line and the disintegration of Soviet cooperative bodies met with rough opposition or indifferent attitude on the part of local party organizations and leaders of village councils and consumer cooperation bodies.
At one of the general meetings in the village. In Cherkassk, worker Shlyakhov, a non‐party member, began to expose the outrages committed in the village. The chairman of the village council Salogubov and the board member of the PA Kozlovsky said in their speeches: ʺShlyakhov is a boozer, he wants to disrupt the meeting, he is spreading counter‐revolution, we will bring him to justiceʺ, etc.
The teacher Pekunov (from peasants, non‐partisan, has been working as a teacher for 5 years, a social activist) told the secretary of the cell about the distortions of the class line in the work of the village council, pointing out to him that there was a right deviation in the work of the chairman of the village council. On this occasion, the bureau of the cell decides that there are no signs of a right deviation and curvature of the class line in the work of the village council.
When Pekunov began to speak at general meetings and in the press, in the newspaper ʺKuzbassʺ, exposing the shortcomings of the work of the pre‐village council of the cooperative, as well as the head. the school of Peretyazhkin (a non‐partisan who declared during grain procurements that the school should be apolitical in this matter, that there should be no class stratification that creates antagonism between children, and at the same time opposed anti‐religious work at school), the pre‐village council Salogubov and Peretyazhkin began persecuting Pekunov, declaring him a boozer, insane, spreading rumors that he was allegedly sick with syphilis. Salogubov sent Pekunov to Prokopyevsk for a medical examination three times, despite the fact that Pekunov had a certificate from a doctor that he was healthy. Peretyazhkin began to pursue Pekunov along the service line, finding fault with trifles. The workers of the PO did not release the goods from the cooperative to Pekunov.
Under the influence of this harassment, not finding support from the party and Soviet organizations in the village and the region, Pekunov went on a hunger strike protest on February 17, about which he wrote to the secretary of the VKP (b) cell Yakimov (he went on hunger strike for 5 days and was sent to the hospital).
The Prokopyevsky RIK, having learned about the hunger strike on December 20, 1929, did not attach any importance to it, and only on December 22, at the suggestion of the relevant organizations, a commission was created to examine the issue on the spot. RIK chairman Kanavin and RIK deputy chairman Khabarov stated that Pekunov was a bad worker, a boozer, mentally abnormal and that he foolishly went on a hunger strike, and that the next question was to dismiss him from his job.
The commission, on the other hand, established that Pekunov is a teacher‐social activist, an active participant and conductor of all the measures of the Soviet government in the countryside, that he tries to reveal shortcomings and distortions in his work by speaking at general meetings and in the press, and that in Pekunovʹs work at school there are certain achievements. All the shortcomings in the work of the village council, PO, party cells, revealed by Pekunov, were fully confirmed.
The RK VKP (b) of the Prokopyevsk region did not react decisively and firmly enough to the indicated facts of decomposition and right‐wing opportunistic distortions in work, limiting itself to half measures.
So, for example, in relation to the head of the RayZO Karasev of the Bureau of the RK of the CPSU (b), it was limited to reprimanding him on the party line, leaving him at work. Also, in the Pekunov case: we limited ourselves to a reprimand to the chairman of the village council Salogub and the head. school Peretyazhkin.
Assistant to the head of INFO OGPU Zaporozhets Head of the 7th department Agayants
1) Berry; 2) Messing; 3) Evdokimov; 4) Artuzov; 5) Olsky; 6) Prokofiev; 7) Bokiyu; 8) Tovstukha (for Stalin); 9) Molotov; 10) Ordzhonikidze; 11) In business; 12, 13, 14, 15, 16) In the department. INFO OGPU on the progress of work on cleaning and checking the Soviet apparatus for the Central Black Earth Region (based on materials as of May 10, 1930)
May 11, 1930 at the earliest
# 384717 Top secret
Preparatory work for cleaning
Work on cleaning the apparatus began in the context of widespread measures for collectivization, dispossession of kulaks, spring sowing campaign, etc., in connection with which it was accompanied by a number of significant shortcomings and was not provided with the necessary training. In a number of districts, they did not attach due importance to the cleaning work, and in some cases did not even intend to carry it out at all, motivating it by the fact that ʺnow there is no time to deal with this trifle, we must give up everything and deal with collective farms.ʺ The normal approach to the cleansing, lack of mobilization of broad public opinion took place in many areas. The press, in particular the wall newspapers, in some localities did not at all reflect the preparatory work for the cleaning and only in some cases, upon the arrival of those authorized to carry out the cleaning and under their influence, began to take part in the cleaning process itself. Some employees of RECs and village councils, despite the requirements of the commissions on the compilation of characteristics for the staff of the apparatus to be cleaned and the preparation of the necessary materials,
Lgovskiy district. During the period of preparatory work, reports on the tasks of the purge were carried out only at 13 rural gatherings and 8 meetings of collective farmers, while there are more than 1,500 large settlements in the district.
Yeletsky district. In the Lebedyansky district, the characteristics are not compiled for all: there are no characteristics for the employees of the REC, district and village councils, and, despite a number of requirements from the Commission, they have not yet begun to compile them. The compiled characteristics do not reflect the real person of the
In Borinsky district, there were no characteristics for the employees of the village councils by 50%. No survey of the work of the institutions was carried out.
In the Consumer Society with. Borinsky factories did not have any labor lists.
Similar phenomena were noted in Terbunsky, Krasnosorensky, Livensky, Volynsky, Krasnensky and Studenetsky districts.
Borisoglebsk district. There was no preparatory work or cleaning in the Shchuchin district. There is no information in the region: how many employees there are in each institution of the village.
Cleaning work has not yet begun in Talovsky district.
In the Arkhangelsk region, 3 chairmen of the regional commissions were recalled.
Similar facts were noted in Terdevsky, Elan‐Kolenovsky and Rusanovsky districts.
Tambov district. In the Algasovsky, Zametchinsky, Kirsanovsky, Torshansky, Tambov‐Prigorodny and Bondarsky districts, the purge dragged on due to the change of the chairmen of the commissions. The commissions were unable to complete the purges thanks to the sowing that had begun.
In with. K. Saltyki of the Inzhavinsky district, the village council did not carry out any explanatory work during the cleaning of the Soviet apparatus, meetings of the poor were not convened. Meetings were disrupted due to poor publicity. The population of Lokhmatovka was completely unaware of the purge.
Kozlovsky district. In with. Andreevka, Lamsky District, no preparatory work was carried out for the cleaning of the Soviet apparatus. As a result, the population took very little part in the cleansing.
The attitude of party and trade organizations to cleaning
Grassroots party and trade union organizations, both in the field of training and in the very process of cleansing and testing the Soviet apparatus, were clearly insufficient. Certain grassroots organizations limited themselves only to hearing reports on the tasks of cleaning and checking the apparatus.
Lgovskiy district. In the city of Rylsk, the party cells do not take any part in the cleaning of the Soviet apparatus, limiting themselves only to hearing reports on the tasks of the cleaning.
Not a single party member was present at the meetings for the cleaning of the Deryuchinsky rabkoop and post office. Only those to be cleaned and members of the commission came to the cleaning.
Borisoglebsk district. In the Zherdevsky area there are parties, and prof. organizations are passive about the cleaning and do not contribute to the work of the commission.
The same is in the Elan‐Kolenovsky district.
In the Peskovsky district, the secretary of the RK VKP (b) said: ʺIt is not the time to purge,ʺ and recommended that the commission, instead of purging, start checking the implementation of directives on campaigns.
Similar cases were recorded in Novo‐Khopersky, V. Karachansky and Arkhangelsk districts.
Yeletsky district. In the Tarbunsky district, parties and trade‐union organizations did not deal with the purge issue. The RIK chairman said: ʺWe will be cleaning up here, and the kulak in the village is leading an offensive.ʺ
Contamination of commissions with an alien element and shortcomings in their work
There are many cases of penetration into the commission for the cleansing of persons with a compromising past; connection with an alien element, alien in class position, not enjoying authority among the masses. This debris caused serious defects in the cleaning commissions. The facts of glossing over the criminal activities of individual employees who were undergoing cleaning, partiality, settling of personal accounts, etc. were noted.
Tambov district. In with. Kareli of the Morshansk region, the cleansing commission included: convicted of robbery in transport, was sentenced to capital punishment with a replacement for 10 years in prison; a poor man convicted of fraud; prostitute, etc.
In with. Sokolovo, Kirsanovsky district, the commission included: the son of a sergeant, the patron saint of kulaks, etc.
Lgovskiy district. A member of the Mikhailovsky district commission is the head. mill ‐ a member of the CPSU (b), an alcoholic, is engaged in theft of flour from the mill. The population is dissatisfied and declares: ʺBesedin has no right to cleanse anyone, since he himself is a criminal and must be expelled from the institution and from the party.ʺ
Borisoglebsk district. In the Rusanovsky district, the District Commission showed haste in its work and did not sufficiently study the activities of the apparatus and its shortcomings.
Similar phenomena were noted in other regions.
Contamination of the grassroots apparatus
Despite the cleaning carried out, the contamination of the grassroots coapparatus with an alien element continues to be significant. The facts of the presence of former police officers, former large landowners, former landowners, as well as persons who are negligent in their work continue to be noted.
Tambov district. A former employee of the Morshansk police department is serving in the Morshansk State Leather Plant; he was expelled from the ranks of the police for bribes, convicted of theft.
In the Stroykontor of Morshansk, a former contractor of earthworks on the railways, a former large landowner, works for the engineer on the construction of the bathhouse.
In the city of Morshansk, a former general serves in the livestock union.
In the Yursov forestry of the Zemetchinsky district, the deputy. the director is a former landowner.
Kozlovsky district. In with. Vishnevoe of the Staro‐Yuryevsky district, the chairman of the KKOV is a drunkard, he spent 1 OOO rubles. public money. An employee of the Tax Department of the Seslavinsky
Regional Electoral Commission is a drunkard and takes bribes.
Public participation in the purge of the Soviet apparatus
In some areas, where the preparatory work to involve the masses in taking part in the purge went relatively satisfactorily, the poor and middle peasants took an active part in checking and purging the grassroots apparatus. The speeches at the meetings emphasized the need to cleanse the village councils and improve their work. There were facts of the distortion of the class line by individual workers of the village councils, distortions in the work of the village councils in the field of dispossession, etc. In some cases, proposals were made for the immediate re‐election of village councils (Novo‐Oskolsky, NizhneDevitsky and other districts of the Staro‐Oskol district).
Staro‐Oskol district. In with. Glinovskoe, Novo‐Oskolsky district, the middle peasant at a general meeting said: “Such a village council, which we have, is not needed at all, such a village council fictitiously covers up an obvious counter‐revolution with the Soviet flag, which we see in practice: the middle peasants and the poor were dispossessed, and the kulaks were left, apparently, to the tribe ... During collectivization, the chairman of the village council himself was the first to take his horse from the socialized yard. ʺ
In with. Blue Lipyagi of Nizhne‐Devitsky district, a poor man said at a general meeting: “If our council stays on, then not that there will be mass unrest, but simply, probably, there will be a counter‐revolution, after all, take what is being done: peasants are beaten in the face, ordered to fly to the moon, if you donʹt join a collective farm, they take the seeds at night with lanterns, they took all the junk to their homes, there is no accounting, they dispossessed all the good middle peasants and got to the poor peasants. And what is being done in RIK?! There, too, the same thing, since the Chairman of the RIK himself condones all this, it is necessary to insist on re‐election of the entire council”.
Kozlovsky district. In with. Andreevka, Lamsky district, the middle peasant said: ʺWell, they cleaned it up, otherwise these advisers tortured usʺ.
In total, on April 1, 8849 people were purged in the region, of which 4848 people were in regional and district institutions and 4001 people were in the lower state apparatus.
Of the total number of those who underwent cleaning, 2,171 people were cleaned and subjected to penalties.
Cleared from regional and district institutions: In the 1st category ‐ 102 people. For the 2nd ‐ 393 people. On the 3rd ‐ 256 people. Other penalties ‐ 444. Cleared from the grassroots co‐apparatus: In the 1st category ‐ 150 people. On the 2nd ‐ 296 people. For the 3rd ‐ 254 people. Other penalties ‐ 325 people.
Of the above 2,171 people, as of April 15 this year. d. by way of appeal considered by the regional commission at the RCP ‐ 189, of which are:
1st category ‐ 60; to the 2nd ‐ 67; to the 3rd —28.
Other penalties ‐ 28.
When revising, the decisions of the District Commissions were rejected in the direction of mitigation ‐ 73 people, of which:
1st category ‐ 46 people; 14 canceled altogether, the rest were reduced in the 2nd
2nd category ‐ 22 people; 9 canceled altogether
3rd category ‐ 10 people; 9 canceled altogether. Other penalties ‐ 5.
Head of INFO OGPU Zaporozhets Head 1 INFO OGPU Agayants
1) Menzhinsky; 2) Berry; 3) Messing; 4) Evdokimov; 5) Ordzhonikidze; 6) Peters; 7) Kaminsky; 8‐10) OGPU; 11) In business; 12.13) In the department.
Materials of the 3rd branch of the SO OGPU on the political state of the intelligentsia and its anti‐Soviet activities. No later than the end of May 1930
No later than the end of May 1930
about the political state of the intelligentsia
I. Processes of differentiation of the intelligentsia
The unprecedented exacerbation of the class struggle in the country, which we have had over the past two years, has also largely affected the intelligentsia.
This finds its expression in the sharp processes of its differentiation.
The creativity of the working class in the gigantic construction of the reconstruction period was inevitably bound to lead the best elements of the intelligentsia, which itself is directly involved in this construction, in the wake of the Party and Soviet power. This link between the working class and the working intelligentsia has been especially pronounced recently (socialist competition), when we have an indisputable attraction to the party of the technical intelligentsia in the form of both single and collective, demonstrative applications for membership in the party.
The process of increasing Sovietization of the bulk of the intelligentsia is largely due to the following reasons: 1) the obvious successes of socialist construction are most understandable to that part of the (technical) intelligentsia that participates in this construction; 2) the strengthening of the international position of the USSR in connection with the growth of the revolutionary movement abroad and with crises in the largest capitalist countries; 3) the defeat of counterrevolutionary organizations in the USSR over the past two years and an open identification of the real sabotage nature of the majority of such organizations.
However, along with the indisputable fact of Sovietization of the broad masses of the intelligentsia, we also have phenomena of a different order, which are expressed in the steady growth of anti‐Soviet activity of elements of the intelligentsia hostile to Soviet power. This is explained by the fact that, practically carrying out the broad offensive against the capitalist elements of the countryside and the city, proclaimed by the 15th Party Congress, we touched with our policy layers of that intelligentsia that has not yet been digested in the cauldron of the proletarian revolution and which has not broken blood and ideological ties with the capitalist elements of the country. We have further infringed on the relatively large cadres of the new bourgeoisie, whose ideological influence on some elements of the intelligentsia is still being felt. An important factor stimulating the activation of antiSoviet layers of the intelligentsia, it was the general aggression of the imperialists who openly threaten us with war. This circumstance also played a certain role in activating the most irreconcilable elements of the intelligentsia, since the proximity of war knocks them off balance and pushes them into various political adventures.
The successes of the socialist reconstruction of the country, which strengthen the processes of Sovietization of the elements of the intelligentsia closest to us, also stimulate the growth of the activity of irreconcilable elements of the intelligentsia, who perfectly understand that the further implementation of the plan of great works will nullify all their dreams of restoring the old economic and political system.
Hence the quite clear desire of the counter‐revolutionary intelligentsia to frustrate our five‐year plan by direct and hidden sabotage.
This is basically the reason for the growing activation of anti‐Soviet elements of the intelligentsia.
The anti‐Soviet activity of the intelligentsia proceeds mainly along the following three lines:
1). Struggle against Soviet power on the ideological front through the use of legal opportunities.
2). Open anti‐Soviet speeches on the ideological front and the struggle for personnel.
3). Active struggle in such forms, when the anti‐Soviet intelligentsia directly wedges itself into the general channel of the counterrevolution, trying to play the role of organizers in it.
II. The use of legal opportunities by the anti‐Soviet intelligentsia as a method of combating Soviet power
This use is reduced to attempts to oppose Marxism with the theories hostile to it (Ustryalovism, Kondratyevism, neo‐populism,
Eurasianism, idealism, Tolstoyism, etc.).
AND). Such a method of struggle along various lines is being built:
Intelligent associations in the form of so‐called ʺsocieties not pursuing commercial goalsʺ often serve as an excellent cover for anti‐Soviet work. These societies are, first of all, an extremely convenient type of rallying and selection of elements of the intelligentsia of homogeneous political sentiments, who, without any or with a purely formal communist influence, are organized for outwardly completely apolitical work.
In fact, they are often hidden centers of anti‐Soviet sentiments (see Appendix No. 1 ‐ Memorandum on Societies).
B). Disputes, literary evenings and the so‐called public courts were often used with clearly anti‐Soviet purposes and turned into a kind of anti‐Soviet demonstrations (see Appendix No. 2 ‐ ʺMemorandum on the Tolstoyan eveningʺ, about the evening press ʺ, about the party of the Napostovites, about the disputeʺ Idealism and materialism ʺand about theʺ Trial of the theatrical season ʺ),
AT). Departments of educational institutions and the press, especially departmental publications (Narkomfin, Narkomzem, etc.), are also used by the anti‐Soviet intelligentsia, and especially by its most qualified part, for a ʺpeacefulʺ struggle against Soviet power, that is, to undermine it from within and for the open opposition of the party line to hostile attitudes and concepts of a clearly bourgeois nature (see Appendix No. 3).
Particularly noteworthy is the section of this struggle on the ideological front, which boils down to attempts by the anti‐Soviet intelligentsia to disrupt our struggle for cadres, to prevent the reform of higher education, its proletarianization, etc.
This struggle is most clearly manifested within the walls of higher educational institutions, which is characterized by at least the following example:
At the end of 1929, at a wide meeting of professors of the Institute of National Economy named after Plekhanov in Moscow with the participation of representatives of the electrical industry, Professor Bovin made a keynote speech. He ʺscientifically, with numbers in handʺ proved the inadmissibility of the decision to speed up the training of personnel. After his figures were refuted, he made a declaration on behalf of a group of professors. Bovin demanded a reconsideration of the decision and stated that the professorship, in case of refusal to listen to her voice, would be forced to give up work, or, in any case, to absolve themselves of responsibility for the results of the ʺpurely forced pace.ʺ Despite the fact that as a result of subsequent negotiations an agreement was reached, the new methods of work were sabotaged by a group of professors, which includes Bovin.
The sabotage of new programs and methods is observed in a number of other educational institutions. Demonstrative refusals of individual professors to carry out work or attempts to absolve themselves of responsibility for it are not uncommon.
The struggle for command heights is waged mainly in universities and especially in research institutes, where there is almost no party stratum, and the left, Soviet‐minded part of scientists is very small.
A fairly large number of research institutes have been seized thanks to this by reactionary scientists.
In scientific research institutes, seized by reactionary scientists, ʺtheirʺ (anti‐Soviet, socially alien) graduate students are selected, ʺscientific workʺ is conducted there against dialectical materialism, and new ʺscientificʺ theories are created, such as the theory of ʺracial pathologyʺ, etc. etc. Not only communists, but even just Soviet‐minded scientific workers are not allowed to these institutes.
A particularly striking example in this regard is the USSR Academy of Sciences, where all not only command, but even just technical positions have also been captured
were people completely alien to the Soviet regime, where cadres of scientific workers were trained from a socially alien element and an anti‐Marxist trend.
The anti‐Soviet intelligentsia also captured the State Academy of Art Sciences (GAKhN), local history organizations (museums, where a significant number of former people, former merchants, officials, etc., are still working as scientific workers).
As a characteristic document defining the political sentiments of a certain part of the technical intelligentsia, we quote the letter GrumGrumzhailo (see Appendix No. ...).
D). Literature is also used in every possible way by the anti‐Soviet intelligentsia for their own purposes.
It is characteristic that in recent years we have seen a clear improvement in that part of the fellow travelers who had previously openly declared their full recognition of Soviet power. Moreover, we have recently open attempts by writers with bourgeois ideology to oppose themselves to communist literature (the Pereval group).
We also have facts of direct transfer of our fellow travelers to the White emigre literary and political circles (Pilnyakovshchina). We have finally identified (in 1930) a group of prominent writers, who in 1927 published their notorious “letter from Russian writers” in the foreign press (see Appendix No. ...).
These facts undoubtedly testify to the moments of trouble on the literary sector of the ideological front.
D). To this day, theaters are also used by the anti‐Soviet intelligentsia for their struggle against the Soviet regime on the ideological front. We have in this sector a number of serious breakthroughs, which to a certain extent are explained by the dulling of the class instinct of the party members working in the field of theater and art and, in particular, in the Glavreportkom. It is characteristic that the staging of such plays (in particular, Bulgakov), where there is an overt or skillfully veiled idealization of our class enemies and the pre‐revolutionary system, are a kind of holidays for the bourgeois and philistine public and for the new bourgeoisie, which can be noticed even by the composition of the audience at the performances of such kind.
One of the most prominent representatives of such a theatrical art, which is clearly hostile to us, is the notorious Bulgakov, for the characterization of which we quote his open protest statement.
It is not superfluous to note that in connection with this letter in
Moscow at the present time, among the anti‐Soviet intelligentsia, in particular, in writers and literary circles, money is being collected in favor of Bulgakov.
III. The open struggle of the anti‐Soviet intelligentsia with the Soviet government in the form of building various underground organizations and groups
Above, we indicated that in addition to using legal opportunities to oppose the communist influence of hostile political concepts (Ustryalovism, Kondratyevism, neo‐populism, Eurasianism, idealism, Tolstoyism, etc.) and in addition to open speeches on the ideological front, in particular, with the aim of disrupting our struggle for cadres, perversions of the class line in agriculture, disruption of the pace of the five‐year plan, etc., etc. from the pulpit and in the press and in other ways and techniques, the anti‐Soviet intelligentsia also takes part in the direct struggle against the Soviet power, in the form of their direct participation in various counter‐revolutionary organizations.
When classifying counterrevolutionary organizations that were created with the participation and under the leadership of the intelligentsia, sabotage organizations should be ranked first in terms of importance.
Over the past two years we have liquidated counter‐revolutionary organizations in almost all areas of the national economy ‐ coal, transport, heavy metallurgy, gold industry, military industry, etc. All this was an attractive force for the counter‐revolutionary intelligentsia, which set as its direct task the disruption of our national economy by means of various, often extremely sophisticated, methods of sabotage work.
Directly connected with the organizations of world capitalism and therefore, as a general rule, being engaged in addition to sabotage and espionage, the sabotage intelligentsia was stubbornly preparing for the internal possibilities of intervention.
The countryside is a no less serious area of anti‐Soviet work for the counter‐revolutionary intelligentsia. Under the sign of betting on the kulak, a number of large and small counterrevolutionary organizations were formed, created with the direct participation of the intelligentsia.
Regarding the fierce resistance of the kulak to our attack on it as the beginning of the ʺgeneral anti‐Soviet movement in the countryside,ʺ the anti‐Soviet intelligentsia, which is oriented towards the countryside in its struggle against the Soviet regime, is becoming more active. This is reflected in the formation by her of various counterrevolutionary organizations, which pursue one goal: to ideologically arm and organizationally formalize the ʺvillage anti‐Soviet movementʺ (i.e., the kulak movement, in order to prepare an armed ʺpeasant uprising, which will powerʺ).
As the mouthpiece of the kulak top of the village, that part of the antiSoviet intelligentsia that builds its practical anti‐Soviet work with a rural orientation, in those cases when it succeeds in establishing its direct connection with the village, exerts a strong influence on the kulak. It really organizes it and lends an organized character to its vague anti‐Soviet sentiments. Therein lies the main danger of establishing a bond between the counter‐revolution of town and country. To confirm the fact that the city is organizing the kulak influence of the counter‐revolution, it is enough to give at least the following examples. Appearance in the villages of the Smolensk province. and in the villages of the Khopersky District in 1928, at the time when grain procurements were being carried out and when, as a result of this, the kulaks were strongly opposed to the Soviet regime, rebel proclamations (Moscow) of the counterrevolutionary organization ʺUnion of Peasant Self‐Defenseʺ here aroused insurrectionary sentiments, which we managed to dissipate only with the help of a brutal operational strike against the kulak activated by these proclamations. Exactly the same impression was made in 1929 on the embittered kulak and the proclamations of another urban counterrevolutionary organization ‐ ʺSunʺ, which, like the Union of Peasant Self‐Defense, was oriented towards the countryside, making it its specific task to organize a ʺpeasantʺ uprising against the Soviet authorities.
There are similar examples in the practice of our work over the past two years in a number of other regions. They quite accurately confirm the fact of the strongest organizing influence of the counter‐revolution of the city on the kulak elite of the village. Considering this circumstance, the counter‐revolution of the city, we repeat, sets as its direct task the establishment of a link with the countryside, or rather, with the kulak.
Extremely characteristic is the new tactical device of the anti‐Soviet intelligentsia, which consists in speculating with the attitudes of the Right with the same ultimate goal, that is, in order to rouse the countryside to insurrection.
Facts of this kind are noted by us both in the form of oral and printed propaganda (leaflets, proclamations, etc.), and in the form of the creation of insurgent organizations that mask their real counterrevolutionary essence by their ʺsolidarityʺ with the Right deviation. Organizations such as the Bureau of Right Deviationists (November 1929, Stavropol okr.), The Yeletsk organization of Goncharov (December 1929), the Union of Grain Growers (May 1928, Rostov‐on‐Don), the Peopleʹs Revolutionary socialist party ʺ(May 1930, Ukrainian SSR and the North Caucasus) andʺ Russian Socialist Peasant Party ʺ(May 1930, Buguruslan okr.) were created either under the direct (see Appendix) organizing influence of urban and rural intelligentsia, or under the influence of corresponding agitation emanating from the same circles, from the same third force,
Young people should be especially noted as another basic attitude of the anti‐Soviet intelligentsia.
In a special memorandum on the youth counter‐revolutionary organizations that we have liquidated in the past two years, we note the reasons for this gravitation of irreconcilable elements of the intelligentsia towards young people, both urban and rural, therefore, here we restrict ourselves to simply stating this fact, which finds confirmation in a number of counter‐revolutionary youth organizations created under the direct influence of the ʺold peopleʺ (one of the most striking facts of this order is the youth branch of the Union of Redemption of Ukraine, created under the direct leadership of academician Efremov and his associates).
In conclusion, we note that the rural intelligentsia as such, and especially the rural teachers, in the counter‐revolutionary movement plays a far from significant role. This applies, in particular, to the new fresh cadres of rural intelligentsia who have grown up during the years of the revolution. As for that part of the rural intelligentsia, which consists of former people and, in particular, of the SocialistRevolutionaries, it stands out significantly precisely as the initiator and organizer of various rural counter‐revolutionary formations.
Appendix ‐ a memorandum on the counter‐revolutionary organizations we liquidated.
Head of the 3rd department of the SO OGPU Slavatinsky
ʺʺ May 1930
APPENDIX No. 3
about open anti‐Soviet speeches of professors from the department and in print
The last year has been marked by an ever‐increasing growth of open anti‐Soviet statements among the hostile part of the professors. Using legal opportunities (departments and the press), the anti‐Soviet professors are waging an open struggle with us on the ideological front, making it their task to educate and indoctrinate students in an antiSoviet direction. The struggle between currents and groupings among the professors is becoming more and more acute.
In the following memorandum on the anti‐Soviet speeches of professors from the department and in the press, we indicate only the most striking facts of open speeches, bypassing less significant ones.
Using the Chair for Anti‐Soviet Speeches
Cases of anti‐Soviet speeches during lectures and seminars have become more frequent. For example, Professor Lyubishchev (Samara Agricultural Institute) said at a lecture: “Everyone knows, of course, what hydra is ‐ this word is often used in our country when they talk about counter‐revolution; this hydra has characteristic properties ‐ no matter how you cut its head, it will grow again. ʺ
Uspensky, professor at Central Asian University, says: “Ideology is a classless concept, just like science. The intrusion of politics into law is inappropriate. ʺ Recommends for students anti‐Marxist literature
Professor Lyubishchev, already mentioned above, said at one of his lectures: ʺThe revolutionary theory of Marx is out of date, the Marxists are already squabbling among themselves.ʺ
Hauke, a professor at the Goretsk Agricultural Academy, when asked to give advice to students leaving to work in the countryside, replied: “What advice we can give is not our business at all. In addition, we can give advice that will completely contradict the line of the state authorities. Our business is to teach classes at the academy. It does not concern us at all what they will do among the peasants. ʺ
Professor of the same academy Perekhov says: “Our collective farms are weak and you cannot rely on them. We need to pay more attention to raising the yield of individual farms. ʺ
Kharkiv professor Sidtsov answered the question about his opinion on the work on the topic ʺDialectics in Mathematicsʺ at the lecture: ʺI will not deal with such an absurdity.ʺ
Kryzhanovsky, a professor at the Kiev Construction College, says: ʺI would never have dared to ride on a bridge built by an engineer from workers.ʺ Regarding the studentsʹ request for clarification on one technical issue, he said: ʺLet your Soviet government teach you, but I do not intend to teach you and explain such elementary things.ʺ
Professor of Tiflis University Amirajivi argued that the Soviet government had done nothing in the field of electrifying Georgia.
A professor at the same university, Gogichashvili, in his lectures constantly carries the idea that there is neither freedom of speech, nor freedom of opinion.
The teacher Kukavadze, explaining one of the laws of physics, said: ʺDo not think that this is a Soviet law that changes every minute, this is a law of physics that remains unchanged.ʺ
Far Eastern University professor Rudakov said: ʺThe poor development of technology in China is due to racial characteristics.ʺ
A professor at the same university Grebenshchikov, referring to the issue of Japanʹs invasion of China, explained this by racial kinship and geographical proximity.
Gassovsky, a lecturer at the same university, says: ʺDarwinism must be given up on, since this theory turned out to be pseudoscientific.ʺ
Professor of the Kiev Construction College Kovalevsky, explaining the meaning of algebraic brackets, said: “Brackets are the Bolsheviks who violated the general order. If it were not for these Bolshevik brackets, the problem would have been solved. ʺ To the studentsʹ remark that the Bolsheviks did not violate, but established order, Kovalevsky objected: “The Bolsheviks abolished the old one and established a new system of domination. The hierarchy of subordination began earlier with the general and ended with the lower rank, while among the Bolsheviks everything is subordinate to the lower ranks. ʺ
Professor of the Odessa Institute of National Economy Pokrovsky said about the problem of building socialism in his lecture: “We will never build socialism. You shouldnʹt even think about it, this is the purest utopia. We used to call about her, but, colleagues, all these stories about industrialization, the rise of agriculture and other things, all this is utopia. ʺ
The analytical chemistry laboratory of the Donetsk Polytechnic Institute was insufficiently equipped due to the fault of its head, Professor Slavsky. There were several cases of gas poisoning of employees working there. A meeting was called on this matter. At the meeting, after several speeches by the laboratory staff and representatives of student organizations, Slavsky said: “Our laboratory will continue to work poorly, since abnormalities are embedded in the very structure of Soviet power. When these abnormalities are not there, then the laboratory will work well. You communist gentlemen need to know this better than anyone else. ʺ After this statement, Slavsky defiantly left the meeting.
At a lecture on engineering art, Gulyshev, an assistant at the Siberian Institute of Agriculture and Forestry, said: “Masonry work is an important matter, they must be strictly monitored, otherwise the workers will put such a pig on you that there will immediately be a place in Tobolskaya (correctional house). I work at the Krasny Pakhar plant, and what do you think? If I work there for another three years, I will be completely insane. Do you think the workers understand that we are building socialism? No matter how it is. They understand that it is more important for them to earn more than to build socialism halfstarved. Until then, they will do the right thing, as long as you stand above their souls, but as soon as they turn their backs on them, socialism has gone down the drain, they will immediately do something wrong. From the workerʹs point of view, they are certainly right. It is more important for them to earn more, but you understand that all these outrages, which are created by the workers, are placed on the responsibility of engineers and technicians, so it will be for you too. Or recently there was such a case: bricklayers went on strike, letʹs say, 50% increase in salary. We are in the Okrispolkom, they say: do not add. We do not add, and the workers do not go to work: the work is stopped, the materials are being taken away. In the end, the Okrug Executive Committee decided to add 50%. According to the deadline, this was not necessary. You mention the word ʺcapitalismʺ at your meetings, but American capitalism is not the same as European capitalism; in America, more and more achievements are being introduced into production, while, for example, in Germany this is not. Why is there a strike in Germany? Because Germany believes that better wages will raise prices, whereas in America, higher wages will lower prices. Such innovators of this business as Ford, through caring for the worker, achieved perfection in production, achieved cheap prices and, frankly, achieved the complete well‐being of the workers. So, I say that American capitalism is new in capitalism, it is an achievement of the working class that improves its position, but European capitalism does not understand this innovation, and therefore strikes occur in its sphere of influence. As you can see, every innovation, having obviously good results, is not applied by everyone at the same time. It is necessary not only to understand and explain this innovation, but also to be able to organize”. Speaking further about the policy of the Soviet government in the field of agriculture, he said: “The class policy is good and appropriate in the seizure of power, and when power is seized, then it is necessary to conduct such a policy so that everyone would be well. Look what is happening in the village! The devil knows what is done there and all because of this policy. They talk about socialism, a classless society, while they themselves inflate class contradictions, create classes. There are no incentives in the countryside to improve the economy. ʺ Speaking about building socialism, he said: “Do we have a class building socialism, in my opinion, no. The worker himself is fraught with two contradictions that hinder the building of socialism: 1) if you put a good worker in place of a bad worker, he strives to kill him; and 2) workers are always the rationalization of production. After all, there was a case in Leningrad in 1926 when workers ruined the machines supplied at the factory, and the leaders had to travel, persuade the workers and even pay their salaries six months in advance.
Struggle against university reform
The reform of the universities is meeting with fierce resistance from the reactionary professors. Apart from the hidden struggle of groups against reforms, we cite several cases of open protests.
Professor at the Institute of National Economy named after Plekhanov in Moscow, Bovin spoke quite recently at a meeting of students, professors and representatives of the electrical industry with a sharp speech against the acceleration of the training of scientific personnel.
Professor of the Moscow Mining Academy Ternigorev refused to participate in the preparation of new curricula, revised on the basis of the resolution of the plenum of the Central Committee of the All‐Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on personnel training.
MVTU professors Rodionov and Charnovsky also refused to draw up new curricula.
Professor of Tomsk University Vvedensky at a crowded meeting said:
ʺThe reform of universities is nothing but childish pampering.ʺ Professors of Tomsk University Lebedev, Ponomarev and Gelberg refused to use the money allocated for the development of laboratory military‐chemical work.
Professor of Tomsk University Galakhov at a meeting of the subject committee at the Siberian Institute of Technology on the new methods of study said: “The time for methodological experimentation is long gone. Returning back to the illnesses of childhood is harmful. Irresponsible projection. If our leaders were concerned about raising the earnings of the teaching staff, relieving them of overload and part‐time jobs, abolishing restrictions on the release of foreign literature and freely allowing foreign business trips, we would say that this is a positive factor, this is what we need. We do not need methodological speculation and reshaping of the Trishka caftan. We must say bluntly: ʺComrades, leave us alone and do not interfere with our work.ʺ
Professor Lavrsky said at the same meeting: ʺIt is necessary to create a special commission, which in figures will prove the absolute unacceptability of continuous production practice.ʺ
Dean of the Faculty of Mechanics of the Siberian Technological Institute, Professor Tikhonov, regarding the contracting of students, said: ʺI myself will distribute, to hell with all the colors of political paint.ʺ As a result, 50% of those contracted turned out to be an antiSoviet element.
Professor Mostovich on the implementation of the reform of universities said: ʺNon‐partisan students should have their own path in this work, different from the path of the communist students.ʺ
Professor of the Odessa Medical Institute Rubinstein: ʺMedical universities have nothing to do with social sciences, so there is absolutely no need to introduce the cycleʺ Marxism and Leninism ʺ.ʺ
Professor of the same university, Pokotilo, said on the same occasion: ʺHigher education should be separated from politics.ʺ
Professor Kashin said: ʺThere is no need to stuff the heads of students with petty political questions.ʺ
Fight against new scientific personnel
Taking into account the very serious importance that the problem of cadres has during the period of socialist reconstruction, the reactionary professors use various legal possibilities and offer active resistance to the advancement of a new scientific and technical change.
Realizing that for the party and the working class in the period of gigantic socialist construction in certain sectors [...] it is not material opportunities, but cadres of a technically literate intelligentsia truly devoted to the cause of the working class, anti‐Soviet professors are trying to disrupt the solution of cadre problems.
This is confirmed at least by the following specific data: Professor of Tomsk University Nebolyubov failed at the state examination of a member of the CPSU (b) Degtyarev, who was scheduled for him as a graduate student. Nebolyubov said that he would fail Degtyarev even before the exams. Nebolyubov, who brilliantly passed the exam, did not let Feinstein into his department, saying that he was a very young and inexperienced doctor. A professor at the same university, Levashev, said that he would create such an atmosphere for student Zalessky, a member of the CPSU (b), who goes to him as a graduate student, that in a couple of months he would run away himself.
At the same time, he persistently promoted the student Korolenko, a decidedly anti‐Soviet personality.
Professor Lobanov openly declared to the student Sapozhnikov, who was nominated to him by the resident: “Tell your student organizations that I will not protest against you if they will allow a student Starkovsky to be accepted as a resident. Otherwise, I will not let you into the clinic” (Starkovsky is a clearly anti‐Soviet type).
Professors Mirotvotsev and Mikhailov repeatedly tried to persuade candidates from student organizations unwanted by them to give up scientific work ʺof their own free will,ʺ otherwise threatening ʺall sorts of complications.ʺ
Professor of the Far Eastern University Georgievsky at a meeting of the subject committee said: ʺLet our nominees through, and we will let yours through.ʺ
Professors of the Odessa Chemical‐Pharmaceutical Institute Fisher and Kovalev are systematically persecuting the scientist Gnesin, nominated by public organizations. Fischer does not give him work, leaves his scientific works without movement, cynically declaring: ʺSince the matter has taken on a political character, then I will fight you to the end.ʺ
Central Asian University professors Uspensky and Fioletov, not wishing to run the candidacy of Professor Elistratov, nominated by the Soviet public, sent out anonymous letters denigrating Elistratov (ʺa first‐class scoundrel, traitor, cynical chameleonʺ); Elistratovʹs candidacy was opposed to the candidacy of the brightly right‐wing professor Karadzhi‐Iskrov.
Professors Zakharchenko and Sitkovsky said: “We teach and we will choose our assistants and deputies. Nobody can force us to take intellectually undeveloped people as assistants. We will not let them enter the clinics. ʺ
Professor Ivanov says that ʺscientific work requires a corresponding hereditary predispositionʺ and brings to his chair exclusively children of the anti‐Soviet intelligentsia.
Professor of the Samara Agricultural Institute, Gilyarovsky, wrote to him as an assistant to a member of the CPSU (b) Isaakov, not suspecting that she was a communist. Within two or three months he treated her very well and expected to be a senior assistant. When he learned that she was a member of the CPSU (b), he sharply changed his attitude. In fact, he deprived her of the opportunity to engage in scientific work, began to take the keys to the laboratory and offices with him, so as not to give her the opportunity to work in the evenings. When Isaakova was nominated as a graduate student at the Academy of Sciences, Gilyarovsky, having given her a brilliant review, at the same time sent by mail information that falsely defamed her.
Using the press to fight Soviet power on the ideological front
A number of our departmental press organs were systematically used by the anti‐Soviet intelligentsia to openly oppose the theories and attitudes hostile to the partyʹs line. In particular, this often took place on the pages of the departmental press organs of the Peopleʹs Commissariat for Finance, where the ʺgalaxyʺ of Kondratyevʹs young students openly preached the concept of Kondratyevism. In addition, in the past two years, we have repeatedly had cases of publication of individual books of an obviously alien and hostile direction to us. In particular, the well‐known representative of the ideological school of philosophy A.F. Losev published a number of books in the authorʹs edition in which he openly reveals himself as an opponent of Marxism.
In his books Dialectics of Artistic Form, Music as a Subject of Logic, Philosophy of the Name, Ancient Cosmos and Modern Science, Dialectics of Platoʹs Number, Critique of Platonism in Aristotle, Essays on Serious Symbolism and Mythology (1930) Losev often manifests his clearly anti‐Soviet direction. Here he complains about ʺthe conditions of the wild countryʺ in which he has to work, and calls on European scientists to pay attention to the position of philosophy in the USSR. Moreover, he openly mocks the Soviet regime, comparing our political system with the medieval one. In 1930 he published entire political pamphlets against the Soviet regime, ʺProletarian Stateʺ.
Losev defines Marxism as ʺthe degenerate fruit of classical Judaismʺ, reaching in this ʺscientific definitionʺ of Marxism to the obvious Black Hundreds.
In a whole series of other public appearances in the press, in particular, on questions of our work in the countryside and on the building of collective farms, we had the same open oppositions to the party line of clearly hostile and purely bourgeois attitudes.
All these facts in their total sum should undoubtedly be regarded as a serious indicator of the anti‐Soviet activation of elements of the intelligentsia hostile to us.
Head of the 3rd department of the SO OGPU Slavatinsky LIST
the most noteworthy associations of intellectuals liquidated at the suggestion of the OGPU in 1928‐1929.
VAI (Moscow and local branches) ‐ All‐Russian Association of Engineers. It was liquidated in 1929. Uniting a significant cadre of old engineers (formerly members of the ʺPolytechnic Societyʺ and the ʺSociety of Russian Engineersʺ), the VAI instead of scientific and technical work was clearly anti‐Soviet, which was expressed in the rally of anti‐Soviet elements from the technical intelligentsia. The VAI proceeded from the tendencies towards organizing the struggle against the reforms of the higher educational institutions, against the differentiation of engineers, etc. In the backstage conversations in their circle, the members of the VAI talked about universal suffrage, parliament, freedom of speech, etc. A number of large pests were members of the VAI, among them the notorious engineer Palchinsky (shot). The society was headed by engineers Grum‐Grumzhailo, Khudyakov, Britsko, Dikoreva and others.
ʺRussian Society of Agricultural Poultry, Small Livestock and Village Farms.ʺ Society held a course towards individual farming and existed virtually without any signs of the Soviet public.
In addition to the obvious general line of the party on agricultural issues, society has compromised itself and criminality. The society was headed by Brothers, Titov, Domashenko and Shestakov. Liquidated in 1929
Moscow Society of Agriculture. The society was formed in the same way as the first two, before the revolution. It united around itself anti‐Soviet agronomists. Members of the society were such persons as Chayanov, ND Kondratyev, Ugryumov and others. It was liquidated in 1928‐29.
ʺAll‐Russian Union of Poetsʺ. It was liquidated in 1929 for a number of clearly anti‐Soviet statements by its members, in particular, at workersʹ meetings. As an indicator of the specialty of the selection of its members, one can point to the fact that during its existence under Soviet rule, about 40 of its members were repressed by the OGPU.
ʺCircle of Friends of Art and Culture” (artist Lenin, artist Alekseev and other prominent members). A legalized anti‐Soviet salon, a gathering place for representatives of the anti‐Soviet sector of art, literature, former people, foreigners, etc. In the ʺcircleʺ foreign correspondents drew information for the bourgeois press. International counterintelligence agent Vermil organized his agents there. Head of the 3rd department of the SO OGPU Slavatinsky
ʺʺ May 1930
As a result of our work among the Ukrainian, both urban and rural, intelligentsia, over the past two years, the OGPU bodies uncovered and liquidated a number of counter‐revolutionary organizations and groups in which the intelligentsia took the most active part, and often led such organizations and groups.
The most noteworthy are:
1) ʺSplit of the Exemption of Ukraineʺ ‐ a counter‐revolutionary organization of Ukrainian intellectuals‐chauvinists, headed by Academician VUAN S.A. Efremov. The organization included and actively worked professors, teachers, writers, co‐operators, other scientists and students.
The organization of the IED was essentially an all‐Ukrainian counterrevolutionary organization and combined all the elements of the Ukrainian counter‐revolution and set the overthrow of Soviet power and the creation of a bourgeois Ukrainian peopleʹs democratic republic as its main and final goal.
The organization was divided into circles: literary, cooperative, medical, etc., which were headed by members of the presidium of the SVU. For example, the medical circle was headed by a professor at the Kiev Medical Institute Chernyakhovsky, the cooperative circle was headed by Bolozovich, a lecturer at the Kiev Cooperative Institute.
The SVU had its branches in all large centers of Ukraine (Kharkov, Poltava, Odessa, etc.), also headed by intellectuals. So, for example, the branch of the SVU in Poltava was headed by Professor Shchepotev, the Dnepropetrovsk branch was headed by Professor P.A. Efremov (brother of Academician S.A. Efremov), the Odessa branch was headed by Professor Slabchenko, etc.
A number of organizations previously liquidated by us (Dolenkoʹs peasant party, Bolozovichʹs organization, etc.) turned out to be branches of the SVU.
Its influence on the nationalist elements of the Ukrainian intelligentsia was extremely great. She was the guiding and ideological center of these elements.
2) The group of Ukrainian Democratic grain growers headed by Professor Didusenko. As her main task, she set the overthrow of Soviet power and was guided by the Ukrainian Peopleʹs Republic, headed by the Hetman.
3) Anti‐Soviet group of Professor Schepotʹev in Poltava. The group included right‐wing Ukrainian scientists. The main task of the group was to seize the cultural institutions of Poltava and their own hands. The ultimate goal is the overthrow of Soviet power and the establishment of a bourgeois democratic republic. As it turned out later, the Shchepotʹev group was the Poltava branch of the SVU.
4) A chauvinist youth group in the Lokhvitsky district of the Romensky district called the ʺYoung Brotherhood of Ukraineʺ. The organizer and leader of the group is a local labor schoolteacher. The members of the group carried on chauvinist agitation, guided in their practical activities by the slogan: ʺThere are no classes and class struggle.ʺ
5) A chauvinistic group of students from the Kamenets‐Podolsk Chemical Technical School. The organization set itself the main task of preparing and organizing an armed uprising against Soviet power. Its members met regularly, discussed program issues, acquired weapons, and were guided by individual terror against individual Soviet and party workers and members of the government.
6) Counter‐revolutionary group ʺAction Committeeʺ in the Shevchenko district, headed by former teachers, members of the USDLP. The organization aimed to overthrow the Soviet regime and create the UPR, headed by a democratic central council. It was supposed to involve all Ukrainian parties in cooperation, including the hetmans.
7) The grouping of the chauvinist intelligentsia in the village. Gladossy of the Zinovievsky District. The members of the group were guided by the kulaks and their main task was to challenge the discontent of the peasantry against the Soviet regime and an armed uprising.
8) Counter‐revolutionary group of cooperators ʺDneprosoyuzʺ in the Shevchenko district. The organization carried out work to disrupt the measures of the Soviet government and campaigns (grain procurement, land management, etc.). A cooperative apparatus was used in their work.
9) Grouping of teachers with. Crooked Lake Pervomaisky env. Its participants regularly gathered at parties, where they discussed issues of the struggle against the Soviet regime, conducted anti‐Soviet agitation.
10) A grouping of teachers, former officers, in the Nikolaev district, headed by the former second lieutenant Lisovsky. They regularly organized illegal meetings, conducted systematic anti‐Soviet agitation, and opposed campaigns in the countryside.
11) The counter‐revolutionary organization of youth in the village. Camel Zinovievsky env. under the name ʺVilna Ukraineʺ. The organization included children of kulaks, priests, and former merchants. The organization set itself the goal of fighting the Soviet regime for an ʺindependent Ukraineʺ by organizing kulak‐bandit elements and by terror.
12) Anti‐Soviet group of teachers ‐ Galicians, led by teachers ‐ former officers, Petliurites. This group among teachers carried out anti‐Soviet work and chauvinistic education of students. They regularly gathered for illegal gatherings. Its ultimate goal was an armed uprising against the Soviet regime.
13) Counter‐revolutionary chauvinist group in the village. Dunaevtsy Kamyanets‐Podilsky okr. headed by the scientist Butovsky. The groupʹs task was to fight against Soviet power under the banner of the UPR and the creation of Ukrainian peopleʹs democracy.
14) In the Neronovichi Pedagogical College of the Lubensky Okr. liquidated a group of anti‐Soviet students, who aimed to overthrow the Soviet regime through an armed uprising. The group was headed by a student of the same technical school Lutai Panteleimon Andreevich (who was hiding from the investigation).
The means to achieve this goal were the following program items:
1). To create, through intensive anti‐Soviet training of young people, counter‐revolutionary cadres of young people.
2). Take measures to disintegrate the Komsomol by promoting the ideas of a counter‐revolutionary organization among the Komsomol members.
3). To compromise members of the Komsomol and the party, using their erroneous actions.
4). Carry out counterrevolutionary propaganda among the peasantry, arousing dissatisfaction with the measures of the Soviet government and undermining these measures. five). Distribute chauvinistic literature among the peasantries.
6). To survive from the composition of the village councils and public organizations an active Soviet element.
7). Contact existing counter‐revolutionary organizations.
8). Get yourself a weapon.
15) Organization of youth in the Voskresensky district of the Mariupol okr., Called the ʺUkrainian Peopleʹs Democratic Associationʺ, headed by students and former Petliurists.
The organization was preparing an armed action for the spring of 1930 under the slogans ʺFor the independence of Ukraineʺ, ʺUkraine for the Ukrainians.ʺ
16) Organization in the Pavlograd region of the Dnepropetrovsk district, headed by the captain of the Denikin army. The organization consisted of chauvinistic teachers. The main task of the organization was to prepare an uprising for the armed overthrow of Soviet power.
17) An insurgent organization of 204 people in the Kharkov region, headed by doctor Postyka. The organization extended its influence over 3 districts and was built on the principle of rural and cluster cells. The organizationʹs ultimate goal was to put an armed uprising and the seizure of power into its own hands. On the mood of the intelligentsia
In connection with the aggravation of the class struggle in the
countryside, the elimination of the kulaks as a class and collectivization in the circles of the Ukrainian chauvinist intelligentsia, a significant improvement is observed. This part of the Ukrainian intelligentsia, on the question of liquidating the kulaks as a class, speaks out in such a spirit that in the countryside more than half of the peasants are against Soviet power, that one push is enough and there will be an explosion, which, of course, will lead to war.
An anti‐Soviet part of the intelligentsia is showing dissatisfaction with the partyʹs current course towards the kulaks. In the conversations of representatives of the intelligentsia, defeatist tendencies slip through.
ʺOur peasant has not yet matured to the principles of collectivization; he must first be enlightened ... In the spring they will give such collectivization that the smoke will go ...ʺ (engineer Borovsky).
“Everywhere they rob a peasant, an employee and a worker, there is nowhere to complain further. All this is due to the law. Abroad they are afraid of us like the plague, and, indeed, we look bad ... Soon all the confessions of the Soviet government will fly upside down” (chief engineer Bashnin).
Some representatives of Ukrainian circles see in the elimination of the kulak, as they always do and on every occasion, the proximity of the death of the Soviet regime, linking this proximity with international complications.
We have recorded such judgments in connection with this issue. Researcher N. Panchenko says: “The Soviet Union is now in a very difficult, even threatening situation. This situation was created by the partyʹs policy, but under the pressure of the foreign situation. The foreign bourgeoisie is preparing something unheard of for the Soviet Union, about which we do not know, but that is how it must be understood. And so, the Communist Party, in order to destroy the remnants of capitalism, so that there was no support for the foreign bourgeoisie, carried out this policy. That is why the first is destroyed ...
The teacher of the Ukrainian language Gorban also speaks about this: “The Soviet power is going through an acute crisis and the destruction of the kulaks is the last stake. As they say, ʺall‐inʺ ... ʺ.
Right‐wing Ukrainian circles sympathize with the kulak ʺin his troubleʺ and are outraged by the fact that the Soviet regime is ʺcracking down on hungry people.ʺ One of the teachers of the right‐wing Ukrainian circles, Shirenko, says: ʺFists in the countryside are dying of hunger and eliminating them means finishing off hungry people who have long been not fists, but poorer than those who are not chewed.ʺ
Teacher Soroka describes the “terrible” position of the kulaks in the following way: “The peasants are all unhappy, something terrible is happening in the countryside. Imagine: there are only benches in the hut, seven children, out of malice they call them a fist and take everything away. ʺ
Some circles of the Ukrainian right‐wing public fear that after the liquidation of the kulaks, the city will be left without food products. Professor of the Art Institute Prokhorov says in this regard: “What are we going to do if the kulak is eliminated, which, together with the middle peasant, supplies us, city dwellers, with food products, and the collective farms fail to organize the correct supply? Let us die of hunger. ʺ
Some representatives of the Ukrainian intelligentsia link the elimination of the kulaks as a class with the IED.
The above‐mentioned Gorban says: ʺIf they had not had time to liquidate the IED, then it is not known what would have happened next, since the new policy is pushing the entire peasantry, and not just the kulaks, to counter‐revolution.ʺ
In general, among the right‐wing Ukrainian circles, the latest measures of the government are regarded as a campaign against ʺthe best part of the nationally conscious peasantryʺ and a blow to the fist is perceived by them as a blow to the Ukrainian national movement, to Ukrainian culture. Finally, the blow to the kulak is regarded by them as a blow to the still free area of trade: ʺYou cannot get anything in the bazaar, they have completely robbed.ʺ
Right Ukrainian circles link the liquidation of IEDs with ʺthe general policy of clamping down on the Ukrainians pursued by the Soviet regime.ʺ
Ukrainian professors (Plevako, Vasilkovsky, etc.) say: “The Ukrainian intelligentsia is under the threat of physical destruction. It is necessary to leave for the RSFSR or other republics and settle there, forgetting for a while about the Ukrainian question. ʺ
“It is absolutely impossible to carry out work related to the Ukrainian cultural or other areas related to Ukrainian autonomy.”
A number of prominent Ukrainian figures (Balanin, Plevako,
Vodolazhchenko, etc.) are of the opinion that the current policy of the Soviet government (dispossession) repels the Ukrainian intelligentsia, already accustomed to Soviet power, makes it hostile and forces them to find a way out to liberation from the Bolsheviks: “ As a temporary measure, the tactic of a complete withdrawal from political and public works and complete conspiracy even in harmless matters, for example: you need to speak Russian, are recommended ‐ to divert your eyes. It is necessary to retain the cadres of the Ukrainian intelligentsia and act extremely carefully. ʺ
“We need to develop measures of national self‐defense. Do not give in to provocation and fishing alone or in small groups. Not to emphasize national issues either in politics, or in literature, or in public life, but to act through other forces, in particular, through Ukrainian party members or through other nationalities. ʺ
In these circles, hopes for intervention have increased markedly. It is hoped that pressure on the Soviet Union beyond the cordon should soften a little the attitude towards the counter‐revolutionary Ukrainian intelligentsia here in Ukraine.
“Of course, this oppression and oppression, especially in recent times, is reflected in foreign circles. Ukrainian (circles) and those wake up the question of the impact and diplomatic intervention in various foreign states (Poland, Czech Republic, France) in favor of softening the position of the Ukrainian intelligentsia in the Soviet Union. ʺ Taburyansky, a former member of the UKP and CP (b) U, who was expelled from the party during the 1929 purge, says: “The arrests of Ukrainians are carried out with the aim of paralyzing the Ukrainian movement, but these arrests will not help deter the Ukrainian movement, because beyond the cordon, in Galicia, organized by 300,000 Ukrainian troops, where the Ukrainian movement is led by UNDO ... ʺ.
ʺIn Volyn, everything is already prepared for the liberation of Ukraine from the Bolsheviks ...ʺ.
Part of the Ukrainian intelligentsia is trying to popularize the ʺdemocratic natureʺ of Western Ukraine and at the same time emphasize the ʺnational oppression and Moscowʹs clampdown on Ukraine.ʺ
The conversations are also noted: “The general direction of politics and public life in Ukraine is moving towards “one and indivisible”. General political conditions are being created for the transformation of Ukraine into a region and a province. There is an open line in Moscow ‐ to curb Ukrainians and destroy all national differences. The last Peopleʹs Commissariats of Union significance, like the Peopleʹs Commissariat for Land, are being created in order to finally destroy even the appearance of constitutional autonomy.
The representative office of the Ukrainian SSR in Moscow has become a bureau for arranging Ukrainian concerts. ʺ
Head of the 3rd department of the SO OGPU Slavatinsky
ʺʺ May 1930
3 branch of the SO OGPU
MEMORANDUM on the liquidation of the most serious counterrevolutionary organizations over the past two years
Among such counterrevolutionary organizations, which were created with the direct participation of the intelligentsia or under its direct leadership, the following attract particular attention:
1. A group of sabotage organizations (the Shakhty case, the case of the NKPS employees, the case of the workers in the military industry and a number of smaller organizations similar in nature).
2. ʺUnion of restoration of law and order and legalityʺ. This organization, which we discovered in Leningrad in 1930, was headed by Academician Platonov and was hidden in the depths of the Academy of Sciences. It arose from 1927‐28. and was organized by the Black Hundred professors together with the active figures of the German ʺSteel Helmetʺ and German intelligence. These organizations also financed SVPZ.
The task of the organization was to restore a constitutional monarchy in the USSR, headed by the former prince Andrei as a monarch.
The overthrow of Soviet power, according to the leaders of SVPZ, was possible with the help of intervention, but the leaders of SVPZ believed that by the time foreign troops invaded the USSR they would be able to organize an uprising in Leningrad and other cities. SVPZ tried to organize its branches in Moscow, Odessa and the Volga cities.
In Leningrad, ʺSVPZʺ had a number of circles of anti‐Soviet youth, mainly children of former nobles. Systematic work was carried out with this youth. The youth trained cadres who were supposed to develop the cause of the ʺliberation of Russia.ʺ
ʺSVPZʺ widely used the apparatus and authority of the Academy of Sciences for its work.
In 1929, SVPZ outlined a government that was to take power into its own hands after the fall of the Soviet regime.
In addition to Germany, with which it was supposed to conclude a military‐political alliance, ʺSVPZʺ tried to find support in the reactionary circles of France and through BN Benishevich was connected with the Vatican.
From the émigré organizations ʺSVPZʺ was associated with the Supreme Monarchist Council.
In addition, through individual members, ʺSVPZʺ had connections with large counter‐revolutionary organizations that were liquidated in Leningrad in 1928‐29. ‐ ʺResurrectionʺ and ʺBrotherhood of Seraphim of Sarovʺ (religious and monarchical organizations, which included mainly former nobles).
3. The counter‐revolutionary organization ʺSunʺ. In December 1928 in the city of Rostov‐on‐Don the counter‐revolutionary insurgent organization ʺSunʺ was liquidated. Its leader was the head. department of regional information of the editorial office of the newspaper ʺSovetsky pakharʺ. In addition to him, the organization included two employees of the same publishing house (journalists) and others. The organization used the office of the publishing house, sent out numerous appeals, manifestos, orders and leaflets. In total, she prepared up to 10,000 copies of illegal leaflets.
The ultimate goal of the organization was the overthrow of Soviet power through an armed uprising and the creation of a peasant republic.
The organization established small connections among peasants and Cossacks. Organization documents ‐ see Appendix 4.
4. ʺUnion of grain growersʺ. In mid‐September 1929 in Rostov‐on‐Don, in a number of settlements of the Don env. the counter‐revolutionary insurgent organization ʺUnion of grain growersʺ was opened. The organization set as its main task the overthrow of Soviet power through an armed uprising, the preparation of which was conceived through planting among the peasants and in the army cells of the ʺUnion of Grain Growersʺ, and subsequently establishing a ʺdemocraticʺ government with an overwhelming representation of the peasantry (90% of the peasants and 10% of the workers and employees).
An organization arose in Rostov‐on‐Don, in the publishing house of the journal ʺThe Way of the Grain Growerʺ, which has a very close connection with the countryside and a huge periphery extending beyond the North Caucasus (Central Black Earth Region, NizhneVolzhsky Krai and Crimea).
The organization planned to develop extensive work among the peasantry and the Cossacks, using the technical and material means [of the publishing house] ʺThe Way of the Grain Growerʺ, as well as the broad ties of the editorial board with the grain growers. To the work of the organization, its head is the head. Publishing House ʺThe Way of the Grain Growerʺ Kravchenko P.Ya. the entire main staff of the publishing house was involved, especially the distribution department.
The so‐called Organizational Bureau of the ʺUnion of Grain Growersʺ managed in a short time to organize and adjust the technique of organization: in the Azov region, a reproducing apparatus of renotim was installed, and printing was also organized.
In July with. The organization managed to print 1000 copies. program and manifest. In Rostov‐on‐Don, 7000 signed envelopes were prepared, which, with the attachment of the program and manifesto, were supposed to be distributed among the village subscribers of the magazine, whose addresses were subscribed by members of the organization during their work in the publishing house.
In its practical activities, the organization planned the creation of a wide network of cells of the ʺUnion of grain growersʺ, the creation of its own peasant ʺGreenʺ army, the issuance of anti‐Soviet leaflets and appeals, the issuance of a special manifesto of the ʺUnion of grain growersʺ in order to mobilize public opinion, fundraising for the work of the organization, etc. etc.
The organizational structure was conceived in the form of the creation of a leading center (the Organizing Bureau of the Union), small cells on the periphery, with which the members of the Organizing Bureau assumed the connection.
The organization had its own program with the following slogans:
ʺThe grain growers will free themselves from the yoke of the dictatorship of the proletariat and their enslavement by the landowners and capitalists only by uniting in their production‐political union under the protection of the peasant army, creating their own peasant government.ʺ Requirements were set:
ʺRestoration of all grain growers (peasants and Cossacks) in civil rights.ʺ
ʺEqualization of the political rights of grain growers with workers and employees.ʺ
ʺThe unification of all grain growers in their own production and political union of grain growers.ʺ
ʺComplete freedom of religion.ʺ
ʺFreedom of speech, press and assembly.ʺ
ʺFree use of allotment land for grain growers.ʺ
ʺAn increase in land allotments due to the liquidation of state farms and due to the broad organization of resettlement and resettlement at state expense on the lands of the state fund.ʺ
ʺAbolition of Forced Collectivizationʺ.
ʺAbolition of forced grain procurement and free sale of agricultural products.ʺ
ʺFull assistance to the restoration, development and improvement of all individual farms by issuing bonds, peasant loans, long‐term crediting, bonuses to the best cultural farms, business trips of cultural farmers abroad at the state expense, etc.ʺ
ʺAbolition of the state monopoly of foreign trade.ʺ
ʺOpening the borders of free import of foreign goods.ʺ
ʺBroad development of concession construction.ʺ
ʺBroad development of private trade and industry.ʺ
The organizationʹs ʺmanifestoʺ had the following basic guidelines:
“After the death of Comrade. Leninʹs full power in the party and in the state gradually passed into the hands of a group of individuals headed by Stalin ... The Stalin group, relying on the forces of the OGPU, destroyed the bequest comrade. Lenin had a workers ʹand peasantsʹ labor union and declared its dictatorship instead ... At the 16th Party Conference, Stalin categorically declared to the opposition that there was no hope for individual farms either now or in the future. All of them should disappear within the next few years, giving way to state and collective farms. In an effort to accomplish this, the Stalinist group will continue to wage a merciless political, economic and armed struggle against individual farms until complete ruin and destruction. Having begun a struggle against individual farms, the Stalinist group, having ruined agriculture, thereby undermined the other branches of the national economy and threw hundreds of thousands of workers, handicraftsmen and office employees into the streets to starve. Terrorizing not only the grain growers, but also the rest of the working population, the Stalinist group turned the Soviet regime into a soulless, bureaucratic apparatus of continuous savage violence and bureaucracy ... What is the way out of this situation? All peaceful means have been exhausted, many honored workers ʹand peasantsʹ leaders, who raised their voices of protest, were dismissed from their jobs, exiled from the state or exiled to remote places. Arbitrariness triumphs in victory, the last system remains, for free peaceful labor and for the fraternal alliance of the entire working population. In order to win victory, all grain growers must immediately stop hostility among themselves, unite in a genuine production union, declare an economic and armed struggle to their oppressors everywhere and immediately begin on the ground to organize their Green Peasant Army. In each military unit, committees of the ʺUnion of grain growersʺ should be immediately created. In each enterprise and institution, a group of members of the ʺUnion of grain growersʺ or a group of sympathizers should be formed. Boldly to fight the oppressors, all to support the right deviation! Long live the Union of grain growers! Long live the peasant government! Long live the democratic Soviet system! ʺ
According to the testimony of the arrested head of the organization, Kravchenko, the idea of creating an organization arose not only on the basis of dissatisfaction of the upper strata of the peasantry with the measures of the Soviet government (grain procurement, collectivization, loans, etc.), but mainly on the basis of the latest internal party disagreements in the CPSU (b):
“Observing agricultural life, I saw that everything that was rebuilt in the years 1925, 1926, 1927 began to collapse again. Instead of improving the material conditions of the grain growers (I mean the middle peasants and the poor), the new course of agricultural policy creates even greater poverty for them. The incentive for grain growers is lagging behind. A complete apathy was created for economic improvement. Agriculture is going bankrupt. The population is becoming impoverished. The repressive measures carried out to carry out various campaigns gave rise to a lack of legality on the ground and deprived grain growers of those political rights that were declared by the Communist Party and the Soviet government. This situation has created the most fertile soil on the ground in order to commit various crimes and not consider grain growers as equal members of the family of a workers ʹand peasantsʹ country. I saw confirmation of my observations and conclusions in the differences that arose on this issue in the ranks of the Communist Party, both in the center and in the localities. I think that no later than the end of 1930 the leaders of the current course of agricultural policy will be convinced of the erroneousness of their calculations and will create conditions for a normal life in the countryside, corresponding to the cultural and technical level of the peasant economy, as well as the economy of our country.
Further support of the existing course, in my deep conviction, entails a complete rupture of the working peasants with the leaders of the Communist Party, threatens the possibility of counter‐revolution and the loss of all those gains for which the grain growers fought on an equal basis with the working class. Symptoms for this possibility already exist in the form of organizing counterrevolutionary gangs on the Soviet borders.
I considered it my duty to fight against the new enslavement of the farmer, regardless of where it might come from. Hence my sympathy and full support for those views that defend the CPSU (b) in the person of the right deviation; being outside the ranks of the Communist Party, I could not fully understand all the points of disagreement between the opposition and the current leadership of the Central Committee. I drew information from the press, conversations. Based on the information that reached me, I have created a program of issues on which there are disagreements. I made this program and organized its distribution among grain growers. ʺ
5. ʺThe Central Committee of the Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Peasants.ʺ
In June 1929 in the Donskoy okr. the distribution of counterrevolutionary leaflets was established, signed by the ʺCentral Committee of the Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Peasants.ʺ
Leaflets with the same signature were distributed in September 1929 in the Lugansk district of the Ukrainian SSR.
By the measures taken, it was established that in the city of Novocherkassk there was a counter‐revolutionary group, which was a Novocherkassk cell and the center of the Union. Unregistered groups of the union were also in Taganrog and sl. Nikolskaya Donskoy okr.
Soyuz was liquidated promptly. 15 people were arrested. The accused of belonging to the Soyuz confessed. During the arrests, leaflets, 30 pounds of typography, a revolver and encrypted correspondence from the organization were seized.
It was established that the leaders of the organization were Petrovsky, a former member of the Komsomol, an employee (Novocherkassk) and Usanov (Taganrog), an employee, a former member of the CPSU (b), an employee of the UGRO. The organization consists almost exclusively of employees.
The organization was built according to a system of small conspiratorial groups and its goal was to organize an uprising of peasants and Cossacks. The leaflets distributed by the organization also had a brightly insurgent character.
6. ʺAll‐Russian Central Peopleʹs Socialist Partyʺ.
In 1930, in the Buguruslan env. the counter‐revolutionary organization called the All‐Russian Central Peopleʹs Socialist Party was promptly liquidated. Among the 122 members of the organization there are 66 kulaks, 15 middle peasants, 29 former people, 2 priests and 10 employees of local rural and regional institutions who played an active role in the organization.
The main provisions of the organizationʹs program:
1) the unification of all political parties, from the Cadets to the SocialistRevolutionaries, without communists and monarchists;
2) the overthrow of the Soviet regime and its replacement by the peopleʹs government headed by the Senate and the President of the Republic;
3) denationalization and free trade.
The organization covered with its influence a number of settlements in two districts, had its own cells, distributed leaflets, prepared for an open speech.
Organizationʹs documents ‐ see Appendix No. 7.
In 1930, in Rostov‐on‐Don, a group of employees purged from the Soviet apparatus in the 1st category was liquidated. The group was working to create a counter‐revolutionary insurgent organization, the purpose of which was to take leadership over the kulaks who had fled from dispossession and organize them into fighting detachments for the armed overthrow of Soviet power.
1) down with collectivization;
2) granting all electoral rights;
3) free trade;
4) freedom of religion;
5) for the Constituent Assembly. The issue of leaflets was being prepared.
7. In the Samara environs. arrested 2 teachers and a school clerk who were working to create an illegal ʺAll‐Russian Peasant Socialist Partyʺ.
Group leader Bobykin, a former member of the Komsomol, developed the text of the leaflet and the main provisions of the program (see Appendix 8‐e). Individual peasants were involved in the creation of the cells, who were given directives on recruiting, conducting agitation against collectivization, etc. The main aim of the organization is to create a ʺpeasant republicʺ.
8. Organization of the Engineer Broad.
From January 1929 in Moscow and other cities, various anti‐Soviet leaflets began to be distributed, calling on citizens to fight the Soviet regime, refuse to participate in elections to the Soviets, decompose the Red Army, disrupt grain procurements, etc.
Since September 1929, a provocative leaflet was sent to the addresses of the responsible workers of the Red Army, under which there was a fake signature of Comrade Rykov.
In April, the OGPU established that one of the distributors of a provocative leaflet signed by com. Rykova is the draftsman of Vodokanalstroy Vladimir Aleksandrovich Svitalsky (born in 1904, son of a former state councilor, currently working as the head of the Financial Directorate of the USSR Naval Forces), who received this leaflet from a young engineer.
On April 30, Svitalskiy was arrested and showed that the leaflet signed by com. He did disseminate Rykov, but he did it on behalf of the engineer of Gidrotekhstroy and a researcher at the Moscow Institute of Transport Engineers, the son of a professor, Shirokikh Sergei Petrovich, born in 1905.
In March with. gr. Shirokikh recruited Svitalskiy into some anti‐Soviet organization and at the same time handed over the aforementioned leaflet for distribution and a shapirograph for storage in the Alabino summer cottage; He was also interested in Svitalskiʹs connections among the military and the possibility of acquiring weapons through Svitalski.
On April 30, we arrested the engineer Shirokikh and seized the chapirograph and the recorder from the apartment of Svitalskyʹs wife Bezsonova, in the dacha area of Alabino.
During a search of Shirokiyeʹs, 2 loaded revolvers of the Browning system were confiscated, 1560 rubles. money and correspondence with abroad (Shirokikhʹs brother fled abroad with the whites during the civil war and now lives in Czecho‐Slovakia).
Shirokikh confirmed the testimony of gr. Svitalsky and confessed that in addition to the provocative leaflet signed by Comrade. Rykov, he printed and distributed eight more different leaflets. Shirokikh categorically refused to name his accomplices and indicate the ways of distributing the leaflets, showing that the group included four more people besides him.
The total number of leaflets issued is about 2000 pieces.
9. The OGPU liquidated a counterrevolutionary organization discovered in Moscow, which was called the Russian National Union.
The composition of the first groups of those arrested is extremely indicative. So, out of 43 arrested, 31 are representatives of the scientific and technical intelligentsia.
Teachers, chemists, etc. 14
The emergence of the organization. The materials of the investigation available so far paint the following picture of the origin and activities of the organization:
In 1926‐1927. A group of people (mainly technical intelligentsia), on the basis of general dissatisfaction with the policy of the Soviet government, as a result of repeated meetings to jointly discuss topical political issues, came to the idea of the need to create an underground organization to actively fight the Soviet regime.
Describing the period preceding the creation of the organization, the arrested Barnashveilev (engineer) shows:
“We all believed that the Soviet regime would not last long and would be overthrown. Discussing the issue of overthrowing the Soviet regime, different points of view on this issue emerged. Some believed that the Soviet government would be overthrown through internal uprisings of the peasantry, which could and should have occurred as a result of the measures of the Soviet government in the field of tax policy, persecution of the church, etc. Others of us pinned their hopes on the overthrow of the Soviet regime with the active intervention of foreign states, taking into account also the possibility of a combined overthrow of the Soviet regime — with the simultaneous unrest of the peasantry and the participation of foreign powers.
Anticipating the imminent overthrow of the Soviet regime, some of us, such as: Savin A.A., Kiselev P.N. felt it necessary to prepare for this moment by creating cells of suitable people in various institutions. These people must be Russian, Orthodox, firm monarchical and generally right‐wing convictions, hardened and completely reliable. ʺ
RNS political platform. For the purpose of organizing the groupʹs activist sentiments, it developed a program and charter of the ʺRussian National Unionʺ, adopted and approved at the organizational meeting of the RNS.
The organization pursued the goals: ʺthe unification of national Russia by overthrowing the Soviet regime.ʺ
The main calculations were led by the ʺpeasant uprising, led by the city.ʺ
The image of the future government should be decided by the ʺRussian National Zemsky Soborʺ.
In particular, the program of the organization included the following provisions.
Testimony of the accused V.R. Zakharov:
ʺThe organization pursues the goal of creating a ʹunited Russiaʹ, and Great Russia should be the main nucleus.ʺ
ʺAfter the overthrow of the Soviet regime, private ownership of land and real estate (factories, factories, etc.) should be declared.ʺ
The main stake of the organization in counter‐revolutionary activity itself should be on the peasants.
Testimony of the accused A.M. Vinogradov:
“According to the program, the overthrow of the Soviet regime and the establishment of a constitutional monarchy in Russia were persecuted. After the overthrow of the Soviet regime, private property, freedom of the individual and freedom of religion, except for the Jewish, should be established, the protection of the Orthodox Church. ʺ
It is characteristic that the initiators of the creation of the RNS Vinogradov, Chachin and Zakharov, taking into account the history of the activities of counterrevolutionary organizations in previous years and, in particular, the activities of the National Center, tried to ensure the continuity of tactical issues and even names from them.
In this regard, the accused V.R. Zakharov shows:
“When discussing further issues of creating a counterrevolutionary organization, we recalled the theory of past counterrevolutionary organizations, and, in particular, the history of the National Center, and came to the conclusion to adhere to continuity in the name of the organization, and the word “national” was emphasized by Savin Apollo. As a result, it was decided to name the organization ʺRussian National Unionʺ.
Referring to the political views of the members of the organization, the accused V.R. Zakharov says:
ʺAmong the members of the organization, the majority spoke in favor of establishing a constitutional monarchy in Russia, it is possible that some of us stood for an absolute monarchy.ʺ
From the testimony of the arrested Savin, Zakharov, Kostin, Vinogradov and others, the statutory provisions of the organization read (we quote extracts from the testimony):
ʺOnly Russian people can be members of the organization.ʺ
ʺMembers of the organization contribute monthly one percent of their earnings to the needs of the organization.ʺ
ʺAmong the members of the organization, a specification of activities is carried out along the lines: organizational, economic and financial, propaganda, liaison and combat.ʺ
ʺMembers of the organization obey their leaders implicitly.ʺ
ʺThe organization is headed by a leading five.ʺ
ʺThe organization is built on the principle of creatingʺ twos ʺandʺ threes
ʺEach new member of the organization gives a signature:ʺ I ask you not to blame anyone for my death ʺ(in order to legalize the murder of a member of the organization in case of his betrayal).ʺ
The leading core and active of the organization consisted almost exclusively of representatives of the scientific and technical intelligentsia:
1) V. Zakharov ‐ Researcher at the University of Sverdlov;
2) Chachin N. P. ‐ head of the bacteriological laboratory in Alatyr;
3) Iliya N.I. ‐ Engineer of MOGES;
4) A. Vinogradov ‐ chemical engineer of Tsentrohydrostroy;
5) A. Savin ‐ engineer of MOGES;
6) Kudryavtsev I.A. ‐ collector of the Vsekompromsoyuz;
7) Kostin A.D. ‐ teacher;
8) Tsvetnoe K. P. ‐ teacher;
9) Semiganovsky N.N. ‐ chemist;
10) Gartiev A.N. ‐ engineer of MOGES;
11) N. N. Kolesnitsky ‐ geologist;
12) Kiselev P.N. ‐ engineer (works at Turksib and has not yet been arrested);
13) Petrov I.A. ‐ engineer;
14) VV Kudryashov ‐ Researcher at the Central Peat Station of the Peopleʹs Commissariat for Land;
15) Zubarev S. B. ‐ Pomzav. analytical laboratory of the Central Peat Station NKZ;
16) Barnashveilev V.A. ‐ Art. engineer of the Track Department of the
Moscow [ovsko] ‐Kaz [railway] etc.] and others.
The intensification of the class struggle in the country was regarded by the members of the organization as ʺthe closeness of the death of Soviet power at the hands of the revolting peasantry.ʺ
The role of the organized urban counter‐revolution was regarded as the role of the ʺHeadquarters of the struggle against the Bolsheviksʺ, which should give the peasantry ʺleaders and organizers.ʺ
The activities of the organization were expressed in the recruitment of new members, agitation, the development of plans for activist actions (in particular terror and peasant uprisings), the establishment of observation of the members of the organization, ensuring solid discipline, cohesion and mutual support in their ranks and finding ways to acquire weapons.
The members of the organization, as the accused A. Vinogradov shows, “had to conduct propaganda against the Soviet regime and the party and against certain government measures, like state loans, etc., causing the peasantry to unrest. They also considered it necessary to carry out counter‐revolutionary work through the members of the organization and among the workers. Much attention was paid to ensuring that all this was combined with propaganda among peasants and workers aimed at protecting Orthodoxy and the Church. When unrest arose among the peasants, it was necessary to support and direct them in every possible way. Mainly the intelligentsia was considered to be involved in the organization. ʺ
“Conduct work on the recruitment of new members of the organization (according to the system ofʺ twos ʺandʺ triples ʺ), using mainly personal long‐term contacts (peers in secondary and higher educational institutions, childhood friends, fellow countrymen, etc.).
Testimonies of a number of defendants: ʺTo provide material assistance to the members of the RNS organization, it was decided to provide assistance to the unemployed RNS members by placing them in government service, and, in addition, to replenish the organizationʹs fund, it was decided to open a network of stalls.ʺ
“On more than one occasion, the members of the organization talked about the need for the deepest possible penetration into the Soviet and economic apparatus by recruiting people with certain political attitudes through the members of the organization. The question was raised about the need to distribute anti‐Soviet leaflets. Specifically, in this regard, the following was done: I personally wrote several leaflets on various political topics. Some of these leaflets were given to Savin by me for further distribution, and I meant their reproduction through the purchase of a steklograph or a chapirograph. ʺ
The organization strenuously sought connections with the periphery, proceeding from the programmatic need to develop work in the countryside.
Considering terror, both individual and mass, one of the most radical and effective methods of organizational struggle against Soviet power, the organization paid special attention to the preparation of terror.
Thus, a number of the accused show: “Discussing the functions of the combat unit of the organization, Zakharov, Chachin and I talked about the need to blow up the Bolshoi Theater at the moment when a congress or a meeting at which the government is present will take place there. The question was raised about how to commit a terrorist attack by throwing a bomb. Zakharov developed before us a plan for performing a ter‐performance with the help of highly acting bacterial bacilli. I was entrusted with the combat activities of the organization under the leadership of Zakharov. ʺ
Testimony of the accused Vinogradov: ʺIt was said about the need to commit acts of terrorism against representatives of the Soviet government and the party.ʺ
Testimony of the accused Kostin: “Between me, Chachin, Vinogradov and other members of the organization, there was a number of talks about terrorist attacks against representatives of the party and the Soviet government. They talked about the desirability of simultaneously destroying the entire Soviet government by blowing up the building of the Bolshoi Theater. ʺ
ʺIn addition, there was talk about the need to commit a terrorist act against Stalin.ʺ ʺIn addition to the crude methods of terror and other methods of terrorist attacks, and, in particular, the use of poisonous substances and the use of bacteriological cultures were mentioned.ʺ “Seeking out and thinking over measures and possibilities of committing terrorist acts, I expressed the idea that it would be possible to put any poisonous substances, bacterial wiring, for example, plague into the Kremlinʹs water supply system, and thus destroy almost all representatives of the Soviet government and the party living in Kremlin ʺ. “I also pointed out, as a more or less simple method of committing terrorist acts, that it would be possible to pour a liquid containing bacteria on the floor of an institution. At the same time, it was taken into account that when using this method, it is possible to harm undesirable persons who have nothing to do with the Soviet regime.
“The organization was instructed to procure weapons for the members of the organization Vinogradov A. M. Once there was a conversation that it would be necessary to rent an apartment near the Bolshoi Theater and dig under this theater in order to blow it up during some either a meeting or a congress”.
Testimony of the accused Zakharov: “A conversation arose in connection with Savinʹs statement about the need to destroy the Lubyanka, which is the center of all calamities in the country. I understood this phrase by Savin as his desire to physically destroy the GPU by terror. Then Savin began to develop the idea of the possibility of using gas bombs from airplanes and bacteria as means of fighting. ʺ
Testimony of the accused Popov: “The commission of terrorist acts with the help of toxic substances and bacterial cultures RNS expected to be carried out by using members of the organization ‐ doctors (Zakharov and others), pharmacists (Chachin N. P.). The organization also sought to acquire weapons in various ways; for this purpose, they also used the funds available to the leaders of the ʺfiveʺ of the ʺRussian National Unionʺ.
Note: the operations carried out so far in the RNS case have seized 15 barrels of illegally stored weapons (revolvers, rifles, shotguns) with the
corresponding number of live cartridges.
Considering the danger of quantitative growth of the main nucleus of the organization, and, on the other hand, setting itself the task of reaching the largest possible circle of people with its influence, the Russian National Union strove to establish ties with ideologically related groups and organizations that could be used in the interests of “ Russian National Union ʺ, considering them as theirʺ branches ʺ, where ideological processing and final verification of the necessary persons were carried out for their subsequent transfer to the ranks of theʺ Russian National Union ʺ.
One of these ʺbranchesʺ of the ʺRussian National Unionʺ was the monarchist organization that we liquidated (at the same time with the RNS), headed by a member of the ʺRussian National Unionʺ engineer Barnashveilev. This organization arose among the engineers of the Management Board of the Moscow‐Kazan Railway. etc.
It consisted of engineers Savin, Semyonov, Ilyin, Zelyakov, Petrov, Leonov, Luchinsky, Lodanov, architect Syunenberg and others.
The organization had connections with foreign missions in Moscow, in particular, systematic meetings at Barnashveilevʹs apartment were repeatedly visited by the naval attaché of the Japanese embassy Massaki‐san, introduced there by professor of the Military Academy and the Institute of Oriental Studies M.G. Popov, American Collens ‐ a representative of Ford.
The most striking characteristic of Barnashveilevʹs organization and its political essence is determined by the testimony of Popov given below:
“Meeting‐parties took place systematically at Barnashveilevʹs. The society gathering at Barnashweilevʹs was clearly reactionary. The audience gathered there was exclusively monarchist. Usually, it began with conversations on common everyday topics, and then the conversation took on a pronounced counter‐revolutionary character. ʺ
ʺAll those present pinned great hopes on Nikolai Nikolayevichʹs early coming to power, which would facilitate the conditions for the existence of modernity.ʺ
“If we sum up all conversations of the Barnashveilev group, they boiled down to the following: a monarchy headed by Nikolai Nikolayevich reigns in Russia, Moscow becomes a Russian center, Jews are evicted to Palestine, complete freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press in the bourgeois sense of the word are introduced ʺ.
“These conversations ended with the general singing of the royal hymn. After the death of Nikolai Nikolaevich, whom they prophesied to the Russian throne, Cyril was a contender for the throne, and after Cyril a new figure emerged ‐ Tsar Nikita.
Barnashveilev himself, referring to the connection and relationship of his organization with the Russian National Union, says: “I note that all this happened in my environment along two branches. One branch was: Savin A. A., Kiselev P. N., Petrov I. A. and others; the other is me, A. Safontsev and others.
On the line of my offshoot, a kind of staff work was carried out to develop theoretical, programmatic and economic justifications for all this activity. ʺ
At the same time, as revealed by the investigation, foreign monarchical literature was circulating in Barnashveilevʹs organization. This circumstance confirms the existence of links between the organization and foreign monarchical associations, however, the channels through which this connection was carried out have not yet been fully established. On this occasion, Barnashveilev shows: “Around 1926, I had a manifesto of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich with his portrait, printed on thin glossy cardboard folded in half, in the format of a playing card. This manifesto promised various benefits to the population, and especially to the peasants; there was some point of appeal to the Red Army. I showed this manifesto to Petrov, Ivan Arsentievich and Konstantin Andreevich, Kiselev P.N., Savin A.A., Popov M.G. and perhaps a few others. This manifesto was printed abroad. ʺ
RNS connections with scientific circles and attempts to create a socalled ʺsupra‐party blocʺ.
In the process of deepening investigation into the ʺRussian National Unionʺ case, it became clear that the organization had deep connections in the circles of the largest Moscow bourgeois professors.
From the indications available to this day, it is established that in 19281929. a number of prominent counter‐revolutionary figures (professors Ozerov ‐ economist, Snesarev ‐ Military Academy, Petrov ‐ orientalist, Popov ‐ Military Academy, engineer Kruglikov ‐ Mosmashtrest; all were arrested, etc.) as a result of joint discussions on the political and economic state of the country came to the conclusion that the inevitable the fall of Soviet power ʺin view of the rapid growth of the peasant antiSoviet movement, which should result in an all‐Russian peasant uprising.ʺ
Worried about the fate of “future Russia”, this group of professors set itself the task of uniting and leading the growing counter‐revolutionary activity of separate scattered groups, correspondingly formalizing it and bringing it into ideological and programmatic basis by creating a “supra‐party bloc”.
To this end, Popov, Snesarev, Ozerov, Kruglikov organized joint meetings at which they discussed the forms of the future form of government, slogans that could be thrown into the masses, etc.
Popov says in his testimony: “In any case, we have raised the issue of slogans that can be thrown into the masses by new contenders for power. As a result of the exchange of views on this issue, we came to the conclusion that the most realistic and acceptable slogans will be the following: 1) ʺAll the land to the peasantsʺ; 2) ʺPrivate ownership of landʺ; 3) ʺConstituent Assembly based on the four‐wayʺ; 4) ʺRedemption by the former owners of their enterprisesʺ. The transitional moment to the Constituent Assembly was conceived in the form of the establishment of a military dictatorship, established as a result of external military intervention. The latter was conceived by us with the indispensable entry into the composition of the enemy troops ‐ units of the White Army, which can dictate their candidacy for the post of military dictator. In discussing this issue, we were at a dead end. I and Kruglikov expressed themselves in the spirit that the coming to power of such a dictator as Kutepov would be for Russia and, in particular, for us, unacceptable, based on the experience of ʺbig and smallʺ dictators of former Russian reality. Developing this idea further, we agreed on a common opinion on the need to prepare the core of the Russian intelligentsia to oppose those measures of the military dictatorship that will inevitably harm the general course of development and pacification of Russia ... by people who for many years have been torn away from the conditions of modern Russian reality ʺ.
“This opposition to the circles of the military dictatorship was conceived by us in the form of entering the cabinet and public and state organizations of persons invariably staying on the territory of the Union. Concerning this issue, I expressed the point of view of the need to enter the cabinet as Minister of Finance Ozerov, as a person who is a well‐known financial authority, both here and abroad. ʺ
“Regardless of the difference in our political convictions, we considered it necessary to create a common supra‐party platform that could unite us all in order to oppose a united front to the harassment of the future military dictatorship. The question of the inevitability of the fall of Soviet power was predetermined for us and we did not touch it, proceeding from the fact that power no longer exists. ʺ
Developing his testimony regarding the assumptions of the possible arrival of a ʺdictatorʺ and ʺrulersʺ from abroad, Popov says: ʺOnce I met with Kruglikov, I asked him if he had heard of a tendency among scientific circles about the need to rally in case of coming to the power of emigrants.
When I asked Kruglikov this question, I had in mind my conversation with Arkady Nikolayevich Petrov, who informed me about the tendency in the circles of scientists to unite the latter in the event of emigration coming to power in order to counteract the undesirable policy that emigration, having come to power, can story ʺ.
Another arrested person, F.I. Kruglikov, the former chairman of the Astrakhan City Duma (under Kerensky), now an engineer at
Mashinotrest and a teacher at the Mendeleevsky and IndustrialEconomic Institute, referring to the issues discussed at the meetings of the aforementioned group of professors, shows: “Political power was formed in future based on the Constituent Assembly. Before the
Constituent Assembly, there was a dictatorship and a military one. I remember that once in a conversation about people who would have to take important posts after the coup, Popov mentioned the name of Professor Kondratyev. It was said that the above‐named Ozerov could be used as a major financial specialist at the head of the financial business. By attracting me to the organization, Popov, obviously, meant to gradually establish contacts in the circles of engineers (in the future), The role of Freemasonry
The investigation establishes that a number of members of the ʺRussian National Unionʺ were Masons, entering into the illegal Masonic lodge ʺHarmonyʺ that existed in Moscow (the lodge was liquidated simultaneously with the RNS).
The initial materials of the investigation indicate the connection of the Harmony Lodge with foreign Masonic centers, in particular, through a certain American Freemason Lumis, who came to the USSR in 1929 and met with a member of the Lodge Popov. According to our information (the investigation has not yet been fully confirmed), Popov, together with Professor Petrov, negotiated with Lumis about the connection between the Harmony Lodge and the American Masons and about receiving funds from them to work in the USSR.
According to the arrested Mason Keizer‐Yasman (head of the Moscow lodge ʺHarmonyʺ), the goal of the Masonic organizations at this time is:
ʺCreation of a cadre of strong, staunch leaders who help each other, who at the right time will take the countryʹs political power into their own hands.ʺ
The data available about Popov indicate that his stay in the ʺHarmonyʺ lodge was aimed at disguising and uniting counterrevolutionary elements and various counterrevolutionary groups in Moscow.
This case very clearly reflects the positions that the counterrevolutionary elements of the city (in particular, certain categories of the bourgeois, scientific and technical intelligentsia) have taken in the last period of time against the general background of the intensification of the class struggle.
The investigation into this case is ongoing.
Head of Section 3] SO OGPU Slavatinsky
May 21, 1930
3rd department of SO OGPU
on liquidated counter‐revolutionary youth organizations
Materials on the development of anti‐Soviet groups and youth organizations indicate that the curve of anti‐Soviet activity among young people is going up. A number of counterrevolutionary youth organizations liquidated over the past 2 years with absolute clarity confirm the fact that anti‐Soviet elements of youth have become more active.
The main cadres of members of youth counterrevolutionary organizations and groups are provided by technical colleges and universities, mainly in the periphery, since despite a number of preventive measures, socially alien and hostile elements still penetrate into universities.
Part, and the professional mobilizations gave the universities a socially healthy backbone, but they did not sufficiently provide the universities with proletarian cadres.
This circumstance is one of the reasons for the significant growth in anti‐Soviet sentiments of certain groups of students, who quite often find a way out of their activity in the creation of various groups and organizations. However, the main reason for the open activation of the anti‐Soviet elements of the youth is the general reasons: the activation of all anti‐Soviet elements in the country in connection with our offensive against the capitalist elements of town and country. This activation inevitably should have affected the student youth, especially since in its composition we have representatives of the social categories of the population that are infringed upon by us. A serious reason for the emergence of anti‐Soviet sentiments among students, especially in universities, is the fact that these young people are under the constant ideological influence of the reactionary elements of the professors,
The stake on youth is one of the key points in the direction of the counter‐revolutionary wave in the country. This, to a large extent, explains the increased activity of hostile elements of youth who, remaining outside the sphere of influence of party and Komsomol organizations, the more easily fall under the influence of anti‐Soviet ʺold menʺ who often push them to the path of an underground struggle against Soviet power.
The growth of anti‐Soviet sentiments among those expelled from the party and the Komsomol ‐ young people who also easily falls under the influence of counter‐revolutionary elements ‐ deserves special attention.
The main contingents from which youth anti‐Soviet groups are formed are the following categories of youth:
A. Children of specialists
Equating the children of specialists with the children of workers made it possible for a significant number of socially alien and hostile elements of the bourgeois intelligentsia to enter universities and technical colleges. These are the former ʺwhite podkladochnikiʺ who received the nickname ʺzhorzhikiʺ from the proletarian students. Young people in this category are closest to the reactionary professors and teachers, enjoy their support and supply candidates for the ʺscientific shift.ʺ
In higher educational institutions they keep apart, avoid contact with proletarian students and enjoy the special patronage of reactionary professors and teachers.
B. Children of Nepmen, kulaks, clergy, merchants and ʺothersʺ
Free admission, having replenished the ranks of the white‐lodgers, revived the former significance of this group, inspiring it with the hope of eliminating the class character of universities.
True, only isolated cases confirm this position: in any case, all semilegal circles dealing with literature, bourgeois philosophy, foxtrot, etc., are the first cells of active counter‐revolutionary organizations and consist exclusively of the above category of students. B. Youth left behind by the Komsomol and the party
Young people are politically active, striving to find a way out for their activity, but for various reasons they do not find it. These include: overgrown Komsomol members who face the problem of being nonpartisan; expelled from the Komsomol and the party and left for various reasons from the party and the Komsomol; those who are not satisfied with the forms and content of social work and who are excluded from social activities due to their social origin, etc.
D. Youth with peasant sentiments
Among the anti‐Soviet sentiments of young people, peasant sentiments play a particularly noticeable role; the forced attack on the kulak and the rise in this connection of anti‐Soviet activity, both in the city and in the countryside, cause anti‐Soviet activity among the corresponding elements of the youth. A special group stands out from its midst, ideologically connected with the countryside and infected with kulak ideology. From the methods of individual agitation and propaganda, such young people go over to organized forms of anti‐Soviet activity and go on to methods of underground anti‐Soviet work.
The nature of underground organizations and youth circles
The most characteristic feature of almost all emerging youth circles and organizations is the absence of any definite orientation towards antiSoviet political parties.
Most often, anti‐Soviet youth organizations are a conglomeration of people of different political convictions, united by a common hatred of the Soviet regime and the search for new ways to fight it. It is characteristic that in recent years we have noted a certain increase in terrorist sentiments among the members of certain underground youth organizations.
In recent years, we have liquidated dozens of various formalized anti‐
Soviet counter‐revolutionary groups and student organizations.
The goals and objectives of these groups, their methods of work, the past of the participants, etc. indicate that the roots of the anti‐Soviet activities of young people, and in particular students, must be sought in the socio‐economic contradictions accompanying the current stage of socialist construction, and in the social composition of universities.
National chauvinist youth organizations
The growth of chauvinistic sentiments among national youth deserves special attention, which we will talk about in a special section on the nationalist intelligentsia.
The most typical organizations we liquidated in the last two years
Among the illegal youth organizations that we liquidated during this time; the following deserve special attention:
1. ʺCorporation of the peoplesʹ desireʺ was liquidated at the end of 1927, existed in Vladikavkaz. Consisted of 7 people, mainly students of the State Agricultural Institute.
The main task of the organization was to restore the power of the bourgeois‐landlord bloc. The funds necessary for the organizationʹs work were supposed to be obtained through communication with foreign White Guards and the expropriation of state institutions; counterrevolutionary leaflets were prepared for the October anniversary. During the liquidation of the organization, a large number of leaflets, membership cards, the program and charter of the ʺpartyʺ and weapons were found.
2. The All‐Russian Initiative Committee for National Revival and the Fighting Student Squad, liquidated in Rostov‐on‐Don; the organization consisted of 11 people, mainly students of NKSU, children of former people.
The organization set itself the task of restoring the bourgeois‐landlord system, convening a National Assembly and expelling Jews from Russia. The organization intended to start sabotage and terrorist work: it was planned to blow up the Kremlin, the Don Executive Committee and a conference of individual terrorist acts.
3. The group of Kocheguro et al., Liquidated at the end of 1927, existed in Rostov‐on‐Don, consisting of 6 people, of whom 3 were former officers and 3 came from a petty bourgeois environment. The task of the organization is to overthrow the Soviet regime and establish a fascist system similar to Italy.
The organization tried to create cells among the Cossacks.
4. ʺMay Day Organizationʺ and ʺAnti‐Party Committeeʺ.
Both organizations were liquidated in 1928 in the city of Krasnodar, they united about 25 people, students of the Kuban universities and students of the 2nd stage. By social origin ‐ children of the intelligentsia and wealthy peasantry. The organization set itself the goal of the armed overthrow of the Soviet regime and the restoration of the bourgeois republic.
In its practical work, the organization proposed, in addition to issuing and distributing anti‐Soviet leaflets and brochures, to supply members of the organization with weapons, for which to use any means, without stopping to disarm the militia, and also to commit terrorist acts.
The members of the organization were bound by an ʺironʺ charter, according to which murder was supposed to be done for disrupting the work of the organization. In November 1928, 8 people left this organization and created another organization ‐ the ʺAnti‐Party Committeeʺ. Over the period of its existence, Antipartkom has issued 6 different types of leaflets in the amount of several hundred copies. Two members of the organization left for Novorossiysk, took 70 pieces there. leaflets and founded a branch of the ʺAntipartkomʺ. By the beginning of 1929, one of the members of the organization met the daughter of the communist Krylova and told her about the existence of the organization.
Krylova told some of her friends about the organization. Fearing failure, the organizationʹs presidium killed Krylova. On the same evening they were arrested.
The members of the ʺAntipartkomʺ who remained at large raised the organization of a protest among the masses of student youth, scattered leaflets, sent out signature sheets of protest. The movement threatened to take on a mass character, almost spilling over into a general student demonstration.
5. Secret organization of youth ʺEagletʹs cryʺ.
It was liquidated at the beginning of 1928 in Batalpashinsk. It consisted of 17 people, students of the pedagogical college and secondary schools. Among them are many children of former whites. The organizer is a student, the son of a priest, a former counterintelligence officer.
The organization produced and distributed anti‐Soviet leaflets. The main task of the organization was to unite the Cossack youth with the aim of overthrowing Soviet power in the Kuban. An armed uprising, prepared by oral and written agitation, was viewed as a path to the liberation of the Kuban. The immediate task of the organization is to ʺfight the Komsomol and influence the youth.ʺ A total of 8 different leaflets were issued in the amount of several hundred copies. Shortly before the liquidation, the organization planned to destroy the monument to Lenin.
6. ʺDon Committee of Social Democracyʺ, liquidated in the city of Novocherkassk, consisting of ‐ 7 students of the Don Industrial Land College ‐ all the sons of officials and former people.
The organization drew up and scattered anti‐Soviet leaflets signed “D.K.S.D.”.
7. ʺKornilovtsyʺ, liquidated in 1928 in the city of Taganrog. The organization consisted of 16 people, mainly students of the Taganrog Industrial College. In 1927‐28. the organization started distributing leaflets. The organization was headed by a committee, membership fees were established, the members of the organization were given nicknames, a program and charter were developed. The organization focused on the monarchy. During the search, weapons and leaflets were found on many members of the organization.
8. The Council of Four. The organization was liquidated in 1929. It existed at mine No. 3 ʺInternationaleʺ in the Shakhtinsko‐Donetsk env. consisting of three people.
At the head of the group was a student of the 2nd stage, expelled from the Komsomol. The group set itself the task of eliminating class distinctions, the ʺprivilegesʺ of the party and the struggle to change the composition of the government.
For this purpose, it was supposed to contact Shakhty pests and abroad. At the meeting, organizational issues were sorted out, a special code for correspondence was developed.
9. ʺKonstantinovskaya groupʺ, liquidated in June 1929. The group consisted of 10 members, the sons of the White Guards and former people ‐ students of the 2nd grade schools. The main task of the group was to outline the assassinations of communists and mass terror. The explosion of the Kochetov collective farm was planned. At the meetings of the group, issues were discussed about the need to create a gang for the explosions of party committees and government agencies.
10. ʺDemocratic Unionʺ ‐ a student counter‐revolutionary organization, liquidated in the Ukrainian SSR in 1928, 70 people went to the organization. There were branches in a number of cities. The goals of the organization are to achieve ʺgreater democratization of the state systemʺ, changes in the partyʹs policy towards the countryside, as well as the entire economic policy.
This organization is characterized by the fact that it was a bloc of various forces: Ukrainian extreme chauvinists, Menshevik intellectuals, scientific workers, a moderate chauvinist ‐ Komsomol member and a non‐party ʺoppositionistʺ.
To achieve its goals, the organization tried to create separate groups of peasant youth in the villages, to the processing of which measures were taken by sending members of the organization to the places, distributing leaflets, etc.
11. At the end of 1926 in the Shakhtinsko‐Donetsk env. a counterrevolutionary group of 10 children of former whites was liquidated. Most of the group members are students and learners. The group set itself the goal of sabotage and terrorist activities.
12. ʺFashinoʺ ‐ a counter‐revolutionary organization of students ‐ children of specialists. 8 people went to the organization. Targets ‐ terrorist and sabotage activities. A charter and program were drawn up. During the search, cold weapons and firearms were seized, which were intended to commit terrorist acts.
13. Odessa env. In October 1928, a terrorist group of kulak youth, which aimed at committing terrorist acts against the rural party activists, was liquidated.
They attempted the murder of a Komsomol activist and a number of other Soviet workers.
14. Zaporozhye env. The counter‐revolutionary terrorist organization of youth, led by the secretary of the local Komsomol cell, was liquidated. The organization consisted of 5 people, of which 3 were Komsomol members. One of the main goals of the organization was to terrorize the communists and prepare for an armed uprising with the aim of overthrowing Soviet power. Back in 1928, members of the organization raided a cooperative store to raise funds for work.
15. In p. Dovgolevka liquidated Petliura youth organization, which was led by the son of a kulak ‐ the secretary of the autocephalous Rada. The goal of the organization is to disrupt the campaigns carried out in the countryside, the extraction of weapons and an armed uprising. Kulak youth were grouped around this organization. During the search, a significant number of leaflets and weapons were found.
16. In the Glukhovsky environs. the terrorist organization of kulak youth, which was engaged in the commission of terrorist acts against the party activists of the village, was liquidated. The members of the organization planned to assassinate the commander of the forest area, for this purpose they set fire to the house in which he lived.
During a search, weapons were found on members of the organization.
17. Kremenchug env. In September 1929. the Ukrainian counterrevolutionary youth organization, led by a demobilized Red Army soldier, was liquidated. The composition of the organization is predominantly kulak. The main goal is the creation of an independent Ukraine, and the question of an armed struggle against Soviet power was specifically raised. A special program was developed in the Ukrainian‐chauvinist spirit. A significant number of weapons were found during searches.
18. Kiev environs. The counter‐revolutionary group of kulak youth, which had committed the murder of the secretary of the village council, was liquidated. The group had wires to influence the youth through the secretary of the Komsomol organization associated with the group. The ideologist of the group was the Petliura officer, the former head of the hetmanʹs Warta.
19. In the Lubensky environs. liquidated Petliura youth organization created by a local teacher ‐ Petliura and priest. The organization was divided into cells and built on a system of triplets. The task of the organization is to train young people for armed action. Combat cells were created in different villages of the Luben region. During the search, many weapons and Petliura literature were found.
20. Odessa env. An underground group of student youth has been liquidated. The groupʹs objectives are to campaign against Jewish domination; struggle against Jewish domination by beating and intimidating Jewish youth, distribution of Black Hundred leaflets. In addition to the listed organizations, about 30 youth organizations of a similar nature were liquidated.
21. Novosibirsk env. At the beginning of 1928, a group of anti‐Soviet students was liquidated, which issued several leaflets with an appeal to fight against the dominance of the Komsomol in public organizations of universities.
The All‐Russian Organization of Workers and Peasants, the Novosibirsk counterrevolutionary student organization, which consisted of 4 people, issued a leaflet, conducted counterrevolutionary agitation and recruited student youth into its ranks.
22. ʺPeopleʹs Partyʺ. Omsk. In March 1930, a large counterrevolutionary organization of student youth was liquidated in Omsk. The organization consisted of up to 70 people, contacts were established with a number of cities besides Siberia. The purpose of the organization is the armed overthrow of the Soviet regime and the establishment of a democratic system. In addition to the students ‐ children of the clergy, former white officials, etc., the organization included kulak elements of the village, professors, and so on.
In total, about 2,000 leaflets were issued, terrorist acts and expropriations were planned, for which weapons were purchased. There was a program and party charter. All members of the organization were encrypted.
23. In Moscow, in March 1930, a counter‐revolutionary student organization was liquidated, which aimed at the armed overthrow of Soviet power. Communication was established with Moscow and other cities.
The organization consisted of about 20 people ‐ children of former people, people from the nobility and landowners.
24. At the end of 1928 in Moscow, a counter‐revolutionary student organization was liquidated, calling itself the ʺSocialist Struggle Groupʺ, which aimed to actively fight the Bolsheviks and establish ʺthe true dictatorship of the proletariat.ʺ The organization included 15 people from a socially alien environment. The group published the underground magazine ʺStruggleʺ. The organization was looking for independent ways to fight the Soviet regime, in its views it came close enough to the Mensheviks.
25. All‐Russian Republican‐Democratic Party ʺVRDPʺ. The counterrevolutionary grouping of pupils of the second‐grade schools united 10 children of former officials and employees. The group issued an underground magazine, had membership cards, a program and party charter.
The group set itself the goal of developing scoutism and looked for connections with counter‐revolutionary organizations. To this end, the members of the group turned to the monks and drew up an appeal to the White émigré circles in the party.
26. In the city of Leningrad in 1928, a terrorist sabotage organization was liquidated, which included up to 5 people ‐ children of former prominent Menshevik leaders and the highest intelligentsia.
The organization set itself the goal of committing terrorist acts and conducting sabotage work.
27. In 1928, a student group was liquidated, which distributed among students of Leningrad universities counter‐revolutionary leaflets with an appeal to fight by all means with the existing system in order to establish a democratic order; This group called itself the ʺUnion of Liberationʺ.
28. In January with. We have liquidated the counter‐revolutionary organization of student youth. The following persons were arrested:
1. Katin‐Yartsev Alexander Viktorovich, born in 1907, student of the Agricultural Institute, son of a doctor.
2. Haag Evgeny Eduardovich, born in 1907, student of the Veterinary Institute, son of a doctor.
3. Arskiy Yuri Mikhailovich, born in 1908, student of the Medical Institute, son of a former colonel.
4. Azeev Petr Pavlovich, born in 1906, a student at the Polytechnic Institute, the son of a teacher.
5. Sinyagin Kirill Arkadievich, born in 1907, the son of a former millionaire.
6. Afanasyev Konstantin Aleksandrovich, born in 1908, student of Leningrad University, son of a doctor.
7. Sergiev Konstantin Grigorievich, born in 1907, student of the Polytechnic Institute, the son of a teacher.
8. Pekarsky Nikolay Eduardovich, born in 1895, student of the Institute of Living Oriental Languages, the son of a professor.
9. Kuvaldin Alexander Akimovich, born in 1903, student of the Technical School of Fine Mechanics, member of the All‐Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks since 1925.
10. Vorontsov Serafim Ivanovich, born in 1904, mechanic by profession, member of the All‐Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks since 1925.
The inquiry confirms the existence of a counter‐revolutionary organization, which set itself the task of anti‐Soviet agitation among students and working youth, the distribution of anti‐Soviet leaflets, the recruitment of new members, communication with abroad, and, as the most active actions, terrorist and sabotage acts were planned.
One of such acts was the discussion of the arson of the Radium Institute on the day of the October celebrations of 1927. The plan of arson was designed to create a grandiose fire in order to disrupt the celebration of the celebration. The implementation of this plan did not take place due to disagreement and lack of determination.
The organization worked out a charter and a program, established a system of membership fees and assigned the name ʺUnion of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class in Russia.ʺ
During the investigation, it was established that the main reason for the emergence of counter‐revolutionary activities on the part of some members of the organization was the influence of the teaching staff of the 157th Soviet school, in which active members of the organization studied, as well as the counter‐revolutionary mood of relatives and close friends.
From the testimony of the arrested Katina‐Yartsev it is clear that in 1924, at the 157th Soviet school, with the active assistance of the teacher Plaksin (now in exile), a literary circle was organized, which included children of a socially alien element. This circle served as the basis for the emergence of underground anti‐Soviet activities. At the beginning, the members of the circle organized an underground group for political self‐education, which included Katin‐Yartsev, Takhtarev, Azeev and Sergiev. There were political disputes and Chizhevsky B.A. (at that time a Komsomol member, now a member of the CPSU (b)) and Khanyuta Vera, a Komsomol member were used as opponents. The latter had no participation in the work of the group. In 1925, with Takhtarevʹs departure to Moscow, the work of the group stopped for a while. In 1926, in the summer, when Takhtarev came to Leningrad, in a conversation with Katin‐Yartsev he said,
Basically, Takhtarevʹs testimony is true.
Subsequently, under the influence of the environment, the activities of individual members of the group took on a more active character and took the form of a counter‐revolutionary organization. For characterization, we present the testimony of the accused, setting out their political sentiments:
Katin‐Yartsev: “I was arrested in 1925, when I didn’t have any firm political views. In his spirit he was close to the socialist revolutionaries. This was influenced by the influence of my close friends, the former Socialist‐Revolutionary Pankratov, Mainov, Lyudmila Ionova, who were anti‐Soviet. Back in 1924, Ionova gave me counter‐revolutionary leaflets for distribution. The atmosphere at School 157 had an even greater impact, and I decided to create a group of young students to study economics and politics. I tried to create this circle, but nothing came of it. In 1927, it was possible to restore the group in the following composition: me, Azeev, Kuvaldin, Arsky, Afanasyev and The Hague. ʺ
Azeev: “I felt temporarily offended by the Soviet regime. I thought that the Soviet government did not give rights to the intelligentsia, in my opinion, such rights should have been given,” etc., etc.
Sergiev: “My political convictions are social‐democratic. My views on some measures carried out by the Soviet government boiled down to the fact that the question of the intelligentsia, or rather, the resolution of this issue, I think of myself not as pressure on individuals and their representatives, but the destruction of conditions that give rise to the ʺswingʺ of the intelligentsia.
With regard to organizational and practical actions, members of the organization show:
Katin‐Yartsev: “We decided to unite, regardless of political views. Organizationally, the program of the Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class in Russia was developed. A resolution was passed on the payment of membership fees. The meetings discussed issues of current politics, all kinds of organizational issues about methods of struggle, political platform, etc. They planned to set fire to the Radium Institute for the October celebrations of 1927. Arskiy adhered to the need not only for terrorist activities, but also to communicate with abroad, which was supposed to be done through his comrade, a Finnish citizen Taipale. The Hague offered his help unrestrictedly, to the extent that, if necessary, arrange for him an explosives laboratory or hide illegal literature.
Azeev was in favor of propaganda, mainly among the workers, and was fundamentally opposed to working with the right. He had a negative attitude to the issue of arson, in particular of the Radium Institute. Azeev considered it necessary to develop a group of theoretically well‐versed people who could subsequently work among workers and students, considered it necessary to publish an illegal magazine; I considered it obligatory to issue leaflets and proclamations”.
Azeev: “The idea of creating such a circle came about as a result of political disputes in my apartment; attended by: I, Katin‐Yartsev, Sergiev, Kuvaldin and Vorontsov. At the next meeting, it was proposed to call our group ʺThe Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class in Russiaʺ, it was said about the establishment of a system of membership fees and the program of the organization. Kuvaldin and Vorontsova asked about the mood of the workers, said that it would be necessary to conduct agitation among the workers and distribute leaflets. At one of the meetings, a conversation arose about the arson of the Radium Institute for the purpose of antiSoviet action. They generally talked about arson. I argued desperately, arguing that this would‐be terror against science. He said that I think the best way to campaign is by distributing leaflets. ʺ
Afanasyev: “... The meetings took place at Katin‐Yartsevʹs apartment, where I saw Arsky and The Hague, they seemed to represent the right side of the group, since they were in a monarchist mood. Azeev, Kuvaldin, Vorontsov were much more to the left. They talked about the establishment of a system of membership fees, about agitation among the workers, for which it was planned to use Kuvaldin and Vorontsov. It was assigned to call our group ʺThe Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class in Russia.ʺ When the question of the groupʹs practical actions was discussed ‐ the issuance of leaflets, agitation, etc., the question arose about more extreme measures. They talked about the arson of the Radium Institute and about arson in general. The right side supported these questions, while the left side protested. Disagreements led to the fact that the circle fell apart. ʺ
The activities of Kuvaldin, Vorontsov and Sergiev were of a secondary nature, they represented in the group, as it were, the left side. They did not take part in the issue of arson and other sabotage actions, but defended the need to involve new members, issue and distribute leaflets and agitation among students and working youth.
Kuvaldin and Vorontsov represented the working part of the group, through them it was planned to conduct agitation and distribute leaflets among the working youth. So, for example, the accused Afanasyev shows: ʺ... They talked about agitation among the workers, for which it was planned to use Kuvaldin and Vorontsov.ʺ
On the same issue, the accused Azeev testified:
“... At one of the meetings, Katin‐Yartsev asked Kuvaldin and Vorontsov about the mood among the workers, he said that it would be necessary to conduct agitation among the workers and distribute leaflets. Kuvaldin told me that opposition leaflets were distributed at their optical plant. ʺ
Kuvaldin and Vorontsov, without denying their participation in the work of the organization, showed:
“I came to Azeev’s apartment with my friend Vorontsov. Political conversations arose, Katin‐Yartsev spoke on the topic: ʺThe Bolsheviks and the intelligentsia.ʺ It was said that it would be necessary to conduct agitation among the workers, and that our organization would have to distribute leaflets. ʺ
Regarding the participation of members of the CPSU (b) Kuvaldin and Vorontsov in the work of an underground anti‐Soviet organization, it is clear from the materials of the inquiry that these members of the party, according to the social past of their parents, are not children of workers (Kuvaldinʹs father was previously an employee in the hospital, is now a stoker, Vorontsovʹs father in the past ‐ artel worker). While in production, Kuvaldin and Vorontsov were cut off from party influence, the situation in which they were, contributed to their decay. Kuvaldin worked at an optical plant, Vorontsov ‐ in a workshop for nautical instruments, where anti‐Soviet sentiments were most clearly noted.
It should be pointed out that tactical discrepancies and being busy with studies have not made it possible in recent years to be more active, however, individual members of the organization did not stop communicating with each other, shared their anti‐Soviet sentiments and even outlined a plan of active action. So, for example, Kuvaldin, when meeting with members of the organization, talked about the bad mood of the workers and that it would not hurt to issue leaflets by May
Sinyagin maintained a written contact with the former teacher Plaksin, and being abroad, saw him personally.
The common point that characterizes this organization is that almost all members of the organization come from a socially alien environment (children of the bourgeois intelligentsia, etc.). The main reason for the anti‐Soviet activity was the influence of the environment and counterrevolutionary relatives. The aggravation of the class struggle, the desire to oppose the party and public organizations of higher educational institutions led to the path of an active struggle against the Soviet regime. The investigation in this case was completed and the following social protection measure was imposed on the accused by the decision of the OGPU troika in the LPO: The Hague, Arsky, Sinyagin were imprisoned in a concentration camp for a period of five years each. Azeev, Afanasyev, Kuvaldin and Sergiev were sent to a concentration camp for a period of three years. Vorontsov and Pekarsky were exiled to the Northern Territory for three years; As for Katina‐Yartsev, taking into account his voluntary surrender to the PP, sincere repentance for his actions and assistance to the investigation, a decision was made to put him in a concentration camp conditionally for five years. May 1930 [year] Signature
A summary of the INFO OGPU materials on the attitude of workers and engineering and technical personnel to the appeal of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) of September 3, 1930.
October 10, 1930
No. 387055 Top secret
The appeal of the Central Committee of the All‐Union Communist Party of September 3 on the fulfillment of the industrial financial plan caused a great enthusiasm and labor enthusiasm among the working masses of the Union.
The wave of labor upsurge of workers at a number of enterprises is consolidated by the advancement of a counter industrial financial plan, the organization of new shock brigades, group entry into already existing brigades, the adoption of resolutions on checking the work of shock brigades, on strengthening the fight against truancy, slackness, the creation of revolutionary tribunals to combat the culprits of the failure of the industrial financial plan and flyers, etc.
It is characteristic to note, as a result of the elaboration and implementation of the Central Committeeʹs appeal, a rise in labor productivity, a decrease in rejects and absenteeism in some enterprises.
The movement to consolidate individual groups of workers at work, and at a number of enterprises, entire shops until the end of the fiveyear plan, took on a wide scale. At meetings devoted to discussing the appeal of the Central Committee, workers submit individual and group applications to join the party and the Komsomol.
It should be noted that meetings to work out the Central Committeeʹs appeal at enterprises in a number of districts were held with the participation of the majority of workers at enterprises and with significant activity of meeting participants (enterprises in Moscow and Moscow Region, Leningrad, Nizhny Krai, Ukraine and other industrial regions).
Despite the rise in the mood of the bulk of the workers, caused by the appeal of the Central Committee, among the workers of a number of large enterprises, unhealthy moods continue to be recorded to a noticeable extent, as a result of the activities of anti‐Soviet elements, as well as in connection with the lack of sufficient work of public organizations.
Shortcomings of mass work in connection with the elaboration of the Central Committeeʹs appeal
The trade union and party organizations in a number of enterprises did not carry out sufficient mass propaganda, explanatory and organizational and preparatory work to ensure the participation of the majority of workers in meetings and their active participation in working out the Central Committeeʹs appeal.
In some cases, the Central Committeeʹs appeal was either not worked out at all, or it was worked out with a considerable delay, which actually disrupted the implementation of the industrial financial plan by the end of the economic year.
In the first period after the publication of the Central Committeeʹs appeal at some enterprises, the elaboration of the appeal was purely informational. No practical measures were taken to fulfill production targets and eliminate the breakthrough. Only later, after the relevant instructions from the district and regional party organizations, the Central Committeeʹs appeal began to be worked out from the point of view of developing practical measures that would stimulate the implementation of the industrial financial plan at this enterprise.
IPO. As a result of insufficient preparatory work by public organizations (late notification of workers about meetings, appointment of speakers an hour and a half before the meeting, and other shortcomings), meetings on the appeal of the Central Committee at a number of large textile factories in the Ivanovo region were disrupted.
At the Krasnaya Talka factory, 11 out of 24 meetings assigned to the workshops did not take place. The meeting of the workers of the austere tent and bleaching drums was disrupted due to the failure of the reporter, the head of the club, to appear in time. When the workers came to the meeting, the club was locked up. The head of the club showed up for the meeting after the workers had dispersed.
At the enterprises of the Melange Plant, 12 out of 32 assemblies were disrupted.
Sosnevskaya manufactory. At the citywide conference of shock workers (in the city of Ivanovo), convened to work out the appeal of the Central
Committee, no one was delegated from the Sosnevskaya manufactory. The chairman of the FZK Monakhov, who was holding a plenum of the factory committee that day, said: ʺIt is not necessary to send our people to this conference, they will hold it without us.ʺ Several shop meetings were disrupted.
Yakovlevsky factories. Until September 19, the study of the decisions of the Central Committee was not started. The same is at the Shuya factories.
Factory them. Zinoviev. The Central Committeeʹs appeal was not elaborated. The workers were given circulation leaflets, which they used mostly as wrapping paper. The secretary of one of the shop party members, Turlanova, answered the workersʹ questions about the appeal: “I myself don’t know anything, but they don’t tell me in the team.”
In some factories, the Central Committeeʹs appeal was not worked out until the end of September (factories ʺRed Marxistʺ, F. Engels, ʺLightʺ, etc.). At the factory. Liebknechtʹs appeal to the Central Committee was not worked out until recently, even by party members. At the ʺBednotaʺ factory, the appeal was worked out only at a closed party meeting.
Nizhny. At a number of enterprises, the Central Committeeʹs appeal was worked out with a 10‐15‐day delay against the dates set out in the plan.
In the electromechanical workshop of Avtostroy, the appeal was worked out on September 19; in the paint shop of the Radiotelephone Plant named after Lenin and in the construction shop [of the plant] ʺKrasnaya Etnaʺ ‐ September 18.
On the construction of an aircraft factory, out of 12,000 workers, about 4,000 people attended the meetings that discussed the appeal of the Central Committee. In 33 barracks of the Western settlement the workers know nothing about the Central Committeeʹs appeal. In Vostochny settlement, due to poor publicity, few attended the meetings.
At the Krasnoe Sormovo plant, the Balakhna paper mill and other major enterprises, meetings were held with little participation of workers. In the machine shop ʺKrasnoe Sormovoʺ the meeting was disrupted 5 times. Out of 180 party members, no more than 40 people attended the meeting. No more than 50‐60 out of 400 non‐party workers attended the meeting. At a number of enterprises, the Central Committeeʹs appeal was not worked out at all until the end of September.
At the Izhevsk factories, the processing of the appeal was carried out in a hurry, during lunch breaks. There were no specific measures to improve production work. The appeal among female workers was especially poorly worked out. It was only at the end of September that special womenʹs meetings began to be convened (Balakhninsky workersʹ region, Krasno‐Bekovsky chemical plant, etc.).
In the Mari region at the glass factories named after Lenin and Krasny Steklovar did not elaborate on the Central Committeeʹs appeal. There is no socialist competition or shock work.
Plant them. Kalinin, Moscow. Instead of the 400 expected delegates, 70 attended the working conference to work out the appeal of the Central Committee.
Weaving Factory No. 1, Orekhovo‐Zuevo. The open party meeting scheduled for September 14 to work out the appeal of the Central Committee did not take place. Of the 250 party members, 97 attended the meeting.
Derbenevsky chemical plant, Moscow. On September 25, the meeting on the appeal of the Central Committee was disrupted. Instead of 800 people, 50 attended the meeting. Factory desks and trade‐union organizations did little preparatory work for the meeting.
Glukhovskaya manufactory. The Central Committeeʹs appeal was worked out for the first time without practical conclusions, so the party organization in Glukhovka was asked to work out the appeal again. Gossantekhstroy, Moscow. Mass work was not launched until midSeptember. No meetings were called. The workers were given leaflets with the Central Committeeʹs appeal.
At a number of the largest enterprises in the Shchelkovsky and Noginsky districts (Moscow region), the discussion of the appeal of the Central Committee of the All‐Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks at shop meetings was purely informational. Practical measures for the implementation of the industrial financial plan were not planned (N [ovo‐] Noginsk, Istomkinsky, Sklyansky, Rudzutak textile factories, Elektrostal plant),
Factory ʺRed threadʺ. Most of the workers do not know about the significance of the counter industrial financial plan. The factory committee did not carry out any work on the counter industrial financial plan until the end of September.
Mechanical plant No. 7. Until recently, the factory committee did not even work out a plan to advance a counter industrial financial plan.
Optical and mechanical plant. The collective of the CPSU did not discuss the appeal of the Central Committee of the CPSU either at the bureau or at the plenum until September 14.
Factory ʺRed Triangleʺ. The conference on the quality of galoshes scheduled for September 26 did not take place, 40 out of 200 delegates turned up. On September 18, 195 out of 400 people attended the meeting of the galosh shop workers on the Central Committeeʹs appeal, 26 of them were drunk, the meeting was disrupted.
Electrosila plant. At shop meetings, the report on the Central Committeeʹs appeal was presented as informational. The resolutions adopted at the meetings were of a general nature. No practical measures were planned to fulfill the production targets. As a result of insufficient preparation of public organizations in several shops, meetings were disrupted (department of normal machines, 151, 152, and other departments).
Negative worker sentiment
Due to the lack of sufficient preliminary preparation and the poor study of the Central Committeeʹs appeal at some enterprises (Nizhkrai, NVK, Moscow Region), especially among the backward groups of workers (seasonal workers, etc.), workersʹ refusals to secure themselves adoption of a counter industrial financial plan. Cases of disruption of meetings and rejection of proposals from public organizations aimed at eliminating a breakthrough in the implementation of the industrial financial plan, in particular, proposals on the introduction of a 10‐hour working day (sawmills, construction ‐ in NEC, Siberia) were noted. In most cases, this attitude is motivated by insufficient supply of workers and low wages. Refusal to contract is motivated by the fear of losing the opportunity to seek better earnings.
Factory ʺRed Banner”, Ramensky district. The proposal to increase the production rate (from 1650 rounds per shift according to the control figures of the trust to 1680 rounds at the suggestion of the brigade to develop a counter industrial financial plan) at a meeting of the weaving department was failed. The proposal was voted three times. Of the 100 who attended the meeting, only 10 people voted for this proposal.
Textile factory ʺRabochiy”, Ozersk district. On September 13, a production meeting of the finishing department on the development of a counter industrial financial plan was disrupted. With the departure of the brigadier from the meeting, who said: ʺAnd without us they will work out the industrial financial plan,ʺ the workers left the meeting.
Printing house them. Vorovsky. Out of 180 workers of the typesetting shop, only 3 Komsomol members were entrenched at the enterprise. Public organizations do not carry out any work in this direction.
Tver Carriage Works. In the spring shop, none of the workers agreed to gain a foothold in the enterprise.
Textile factory. ʺJanuary 9”, Voskresensky district. The workers of the machine shop rejected the resolution of the factory committee and the workersʹ conference to give three factory workers who left the factory without permission a three‐day period to return to the factory and expel them from the union if they refuse to return to the factory. The meeting decided to ask the Textile Oblotdel to cancel the said resolution.
Some of the workers who spoke at the meeting objected to the consolidation of workers at the enterprise: “Securing the workforce at the enterprise is fascism. We are not in a capitalist country. Wherever we want, we work there, but we donʹt care about the plan and the socialist competition. ʺ
Factory ʺRed Textileʺ. The meeting on the question of securing workers in the 5th set of the weaving department was disrupted. The workers refused to make contracts.
Tula Arms Factory. In the pattern workshop, the workers rejected the proposal of public organizations to exclude from the union two patternmakers ‐ grabber who had left production. Shouts were heard from the seats: ʺWe shouldnʹt exclude everyone, so everyone can be excluded, we are all grabbers, everyone wants to live.ʺ The same sentiments are recorded in the speeches of individuals and groups of workers at meetings and in conversations in the shops.
“You wonʹt keep us with this subscription. Give us bread, meat and clothes, we will not leave without a subscription ʺ(ʺ Hammer and Sickle ʺ, Moscow).
“Subscription is a trap for us. The business executives will do whatever they want with us. Now the prices are being reduced and then they will be. And when we want to leave, they wonʹt let us in. We must wait until the new collective agreement is signed” (Moskvoshvey factory, Moscow).
“We are all looking for where they pay more, because everyone is interested in their best material security” (printing house of “Krestyanskaya Gazeta”, Moscow).
Dorogomilovskiy chemical plant, Moscow. ʺThis subscription is the same serfdom as it once wasʺ (locksmith).
13 Printing house of Mospoligraf. “This can only be done with slaves, but we do not have slavery. Let those who need it fix themselves” (cutter).
Saratov. The appeal of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) at a number of Saratov enterprises was discussed exclusively from the point of view of the prom. and industrial difficulties, especially aggravated in recent times.
Speeches against the accelerated pace of work, against competition, shock work, against the fight against labor turnover, and a great deal of attention to supply issues are characteristic of a number of Saratov enterprises.
At the plant them. Lenin, in the machine shop, where the issue of labor force turnover was especially acute, a meeting to discuss the appeal of the Central Committee was disrupted. The workers said: ʺThere is no need to go to the meeting, there will be resolved issues of an enslaving nature.ʺ At the re‐convened meeting there were sharp statements: ʺThis is the enslavement of the workers, serfdom.ʺ Proposals to combat truancy drew sharp opposition from the workers. The proposal to fire hard‐core truants (after 3 days of absenteeism) was greeted with shouts: “We will not allow strict measures against truants”, “why don’t you think of imprisoning workers, since you thought of excluding them from the union?” than torture like that. ʺ The offer was rejected.
At the Boiler Plant, speeches on the report on the Central Committeeʹs appeal were limited exclusively to a discussion of supply issues. The meeting was disrupted.
At the construction of a tractor parts plant, part of the workers supported the resolution proposed by a group of seasonal workers: ʺWe undertake to complete the work on time if we have the supply of shoes, clothing and food, and only in this case we will switch to a 10‐hour working day.ʺ The meeting rejected the resolution only after the speech of the members of the CPSU (b).
Construction of a saddlery factory. As a result of the agitation of a group of anti‐Soviet people (headed by a worker, a former merchant), a meeting to discuss the Central Committeeʹs appeal was disrupted.
Stalingrad. At plant No. 2 of Elektrolesa, the meeting to work out the Central Committeeʹs appeal was disrupted twice due to the absence of workers. A shift of young workers refused to attend the meeting. At the third meeting, a resolution was passed on the transition to a 10‐hour working day, but despite this, most workers refused to work more than 8 hours. Oppositions against the introduction of a 10‐hour working day (due to the need to fulfill the industrial financial plan by the end of the financial year) were also noted at other enterprises of the ON.
At the Electroles plant No. b, one of the workers spoke out against the 10hour working day: “We will not work until we fully satisfy our requirements. Give us shoes, clothes, food. ʺ ʺIt is good for the Zavkomovites to spend a 10‐hour working day, they are shod and dressed.ʺ The performance was greeted by workersʹ shouts: ʺThatʹs right.ʺ The meeting was disrupted.
Stalingrad Tractor Plant. “The worker is being deceived. Securing in production is a new bondage, wages will be cut, they will not be allowed to quit. ʺ
Mountains. Astrakhan. At a meeting of the trade union of the Union of Food Industry, two workers of the 2nd State Refrigerator introduced a resolution stipulating the implementation of the industrial financial plan by increasing the supply norms: ʺMaximum provision of workers with food, manufactured goods and housing.ʺ
On the issue of combating labor turnover, the resolution says: “We categorically reject the shameful nickname “flyer” for workers, since turnover is a consequence of the decline in real wages, worsening housing conditions, administrative pressure on workers, and abnormal supplies. Fluidity is one of the forms of protest of the working class against its political lawlessness and economic oppression. ʺ
After a series of speeches, the resolution was rejected.
Factory ʺKrasnaya Etna”, Kanavino. The workers of the machine shop at the meeting decided to mobilize themselves until the end of the fiveyear plan, but when the next day they began to draw up the mobilization, they categorically refused, saying: ʺWe are already working, and if you need to, subscribe for at least 10 years.ʺ
Match factory ʺAnchorʺ. Socialist competition, shock work and all social life at the factory froze. The workers are led by a group of businessminded individuals. The influence of the VKP cell is not felt. Not only non‐party workers, but also party members and Komsomol members refused to compete and work off the industrialization day, declaring: ʺLet the one who eats meat compete, and we will not compete on herring.ʺ
Leningrad. Plant them. Marty. At a meeting on September 4 on the issue of organizing a subbotnik to eliminate the breakthrough, the proposal of the factory committee was rejected. 40 people voted for the subbotnik, against ‐ 120 out of 400 present at the meeting.
Pesochensky iron foundry. At a meeting convened to work out the Central Committeeʹs appeal of September 3, the workers rejected the proposal of public organizations to work off days off to eliminate the breakthrough that had been created at the enterprise in the implementation of the industrial financial plan. No preliminary work was done. It was not even explained to the workers that they would be paid for work on weekends. The factory committee does not enjoy authority among the workers (one of the members of the factory committee took a ticket to a sanatorium, another appropriated a bicycle intended for awarding shock workers). Evangelicals and former disenfranchised were opposed to the proposal of the factory committee, while the secretary of the party cell at the meeting did not advocate the proposal.
Construction of residential buildings at st. Kolchugino, Leninskaya construction office ʺSib‐coalʺ. At a production meeting on the transition to a 10‐hour working day (1000 workers are not enough for the construction of the industrial financial plan, in connection with which the question of increasing the working day arose), two bricklayers opposed the introduction of a 10‐hour working day. “You must first satisfy our requirements: to put on shoes, to dress, to increase the salary, then we will work, and if you don’t give us everything, we will find another place.” ʺThere is no mention of a 10‐hour working day in the labor code either.ʺ
It should be noted that these workers have repeatedly been the initiators of the bagpipes.
After the meeting, they tried to beat the trade union representative.
Even at those enterprises where an obviously unhealthy situation was created in relation to the fulfillment of production targets (a breakthrough in the implementation of the industrial financial plan, a sharp decrease in the pace of socialist competition and shock work, a high percentage of absenteeism, marriage, increased costs, high turnover of the labor force, etc.), preparatory work was carried out so weakly that meetings to work out the Central Committeeʹs appeal were disrupted due to the insufficient participation of workers in them, the lack of working out the Central Committeeʹs appeal even among the party workers.
As a result, proposals to take measures to fulfill the industrial financial plan at meetings and rallies devoted to the discussion of the Central Committeeʹs appeal were rejected, meetings were disrupted (Tambov Carriage Repair Plant, Tver Carriage Works, Dnepropetrovsk Plant named after Petrovsky and [named after] Lenin ‐ see Appendix No. 1).
Negative sentiments among members of the CPSU
In connection with the publication of the Central Committeeʹs appeal, unhealthy sentiments are also noted among individual party workers and among some leading workers in the factory triangle.
Among the latter, there are mainly tendencies to oppose the counterindustrial plans put forward by workers against the control figures of the Trustʹs enterprise (a number of enterprises in Nizhny Krai, Moscow Region).
Certain party workers oppose the appeal of the Central Committee and the counter‐industrial financial plan, refusing to make contracts at the enterprise until the end of the five‐year plan (Moscow, IPO, Nizhny Krai).
Machine‐building plant them. May 1, Vyatka. Director Sukhonosov has repeatedly stated that the planned program will not be fulfilled by the plant. The workersʹ proposals to rationalize production were ignored. Several party members and Komsomol members said in the shops that they would refuse to participate in shock brigades and socialist competitions.
Match factory ʺKrasnaya Zvezda”, Vyatka. The director of the factory Anisimov (member of the All‐Union Communist Party), technorist Gakin (member of the All‐Union Communist Party) and the secretary of the Komarovskysʹ party cell systematically proved at all meetings and sessions that the industrial financial plan could not be fulfilled by the enterprise. Until September 3, 497 out of 1,700 workers took part in the socialist competition. After the Central Committeeʹs appeal was worked out, the number of competitors increased by only 6%. Downtime of cars in September has doubled in comparison with August. The director and secretary of the party cell were dismissed.
Krasnoe Sormovo plant. In the blacksmith shop, the party secretary Alekseev, the chairman of the trade union bureau and the engineerparty member Vasiliev repeatedly told the party workers about the impossibility of completing the task according to the industrial financial plan. As a result, the work of the shop has systematically deteriorated.
All of these persons have been removed from leadership positions.
Sawmill ʺRed Turnerʺ. When the workers at the meeting proposed to work out a counter industrial financial plan, the representative of the trust made the following statement: ʺWhy do you need to draw up a counter industrial financial plan when we have already proposed control figures.ʺ
Murom steam locomotive repair plant. The director of Rodin and the secretary of the party committee Goryunov, in response to the demand of the brigade of the Nizhny Kraykom of the All‐Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, to mobilize forces to eliminate the breakthrough, said: ʺDonʹt be nervous, it will shut itself off.ʺ
Reshetikhinskaya net knitting factory. Until recently, the Party organization did not manage at all the socialist competition and shock work. The decisions of the 16th Party Congress have not yet been worked out. A group of party members and Komsomol members states that ʺthe party has taken an unbearable pace.ʺ This statement does not meet with any resistance from the party organizations. Of the 2,600 workers, 47 are union members.
Factory ʺIskra Octoberʺ. The director of the paper association Ukhlov, a member of the CPSU, spoke at the meeting against the counter industrial financial plan put forward by the workers. Ukhlov was removed from work.
Glassworks named after Sverdlov, Gusevsky district. On September 22 (during the period when the Central Committeeʹs appeal was being worked out), a group of workers came to work drunk, including 16 members of the CPSU. The next day, several communists were again drunk. Party members do not take part in shock work and socialist competition.
Remizo‐reed plant, Ivanovo. 4 foremen, members of the All‐Union
Communist Party, refuse to contract at the enterprise.
Factory number 3 Moskvoshvey. At a meeting of workers of the 2nd shift, the secretary of the shop cell of the CPSU opposed the increase in the production rate from 160 to 175 units, saying that it would be difficult for the workers to cope with the increased rate. Aligning with it, the workers voted against the new production standards.
13 Printing house of Mospoligraf. Not a single party member out of 12 members of the CPSU in the zinc department wished to contract for the printing house.
Aviapribor plant. A worker in a revolving workshop, a member of the All‐Union Communist Party, Rabkevich, spoke at a meeting on the issue of a counter industrial financial plan: “The counter industrial financial plan falls even more on the workerʹs neck. It is no longer possible to increase the intensity of the worker, as this will be pressure on the worker. ʺ
Shoe factory ʺBurevestnikʺ. From a speech at a meeting about the appeal of the Central Committee of a worker, a member of the CPSU, Chupor: “The workers go to work hungry. They need to be fed first. In this situation, they will not be able to fulfill the industrial financial plan. ʺ
The Krasny Putilovets plant. Unhealthy sentiments have been revealed among individual party workers. Speeches against self‐consolidation and shock pace of work are noted. Locksmith Mikhailov said to the workers: ʺI refuse to be assigned to the plant, and if they defame me in the newspaper, I will throw away my membership card, I will not let anyone rape myself.ʺ Two workers, party members of the sawmill, spoke at a meeting of the shop committee: ʺWe will not go into bondage, before we fix the worker, we need to interest him, that is, pay well.ʺ
The activity of anti‐Soviet elements in enterprises, exploiting the unhealthy sentiments of some of the backward groups of workers who have not yet severed ties with agriculture, is reduced mainly to agitation against contracting, shock work, and socialist competition. Contracting is regarded as ʺbondageʺ, ʺslaveryʺ, ʺa new method of exploitationʺ, ʺeyewashʺ, etc., and in accordance with this, active agitation is being conducted against the self‐consolidation of workers at the enterprise.
Krasnovolzhskaya manufactory. A weaving apprentice, a former member of the All‐Union Communist Party, spoke at a meeting to work out the Central Committeeʹs appeal: “Self‐contracting is a new kind of onerous contract. The worker must work wherever he is given a large pay. We shouldnʹt give any obligations”. As a result of agitation, the meeting was disrupted.
Yaroslavl makhorka factory. “Instead of shock workers, let them raise prices and let the worker earn as much as he wants, otherwise there will still be breakthroughs. All of us were pressed, there is nothing to breathe. We will be fools if we do not quit dancing to their tune. ʺ ʺWith contracting, the workers rub glasses in, and they listen.ʺ Sosnevskaya factory. In a mechanical workshop, an anti‐Soviet locksmith led an agitation against working out a counter industrial financial plan: “The Bolshevik bastards have come up with some kind of counter plan, now they will strangle the workers. Winter is coming, and we, hungry and barefoot, will have to knock out even more of ourselves in order to give more profit to the state. ʺ
Krasnoe Sormovo plant. Former Socialist‐Revolutionaries and Mensheviks are campaigning in the shops against the appeal of the Central Committee and, in particular, against contracting: ʺThis is a new method of exploitation, violation of the vital and legal interests of the working people.ʺ
In the machine shop of the plant, announcements of meetings on the elimination of the breakthrough were repeatedly disrupted.
Fur factory ʺBelkaʺ. During the elaboration of the Central Committeeʹs appeal, anti‐Soviet elements demanded ʺto re‐elect the factory, which sniffed out the administration and forgot about protecting the interests of the workers.ʺ
At Energostroi, anti‐Soviet people said: “This is worse than the organization of collective farms. It remains to vote who is against the Soviet regime. ʺ
At the Krasnaya Etna plant, an anti‐Soviet worker threatened to pour boiling water over drummer Timoshin because the latter called on the workers to work one day to eliminate the breakthrough.
Saratov Machine‐Building Plant No. 2. “We will remember these damned years for ten years. If another five‐year plan is invented, then lie down alive in the coffin. ʺ “You will not live that life that was under the king. We need to get a good broom to throw them all out. ʺ
Factory ʺMay 1ʺ. “The exploitation of workers is increasing every day, and soon we will work without leaving the factory. Letʹs go back to tsarist times. ʺ
Factory ʺRed Bannerʺ. “We have nothing to do in shock brigades. As we have worked, we will continue to work. We must first feed the worker, but it’s not interesting to work for a pittance.”
Shurovsky cement plant. “There are breakthroughs everywhere, nothing has become, there is nothing to eat. If you do not know how to manage, why take up this business and torture the people? Give control to someone who can feed, shoe and clothe. ʺ ʺCommunists do not know how to run the country.ʺ ʺThe Party is to blame for the current difficulties, and it wants to aggravate these difficulties even more and create unbearable conditions for the workers.ʺ “Our situation is getting worse all the time. To get rid of all this, it is necessary to allow free elections. ʺ
Kolomna plant. ʺAll these campaigns are a counter‐industrial financial plan, contracts against the flyers are just another hype to distract the masses from real life.ʺ
Noteworthy is the speech of the opportunistic character of the working sleeve department at the Kauchuk plant (Moscow).
“Judging by the report on the industrial financial plan, there should have been questions about it, but no one asked them. This means that the workers are not interested in this issue. The workers are tired of these meetings. Tell me, who invented the counter industrial financial plan? ... It is not necessary for the worker, but exclusively for the top of the communists ... The counter industrial financial plan falls on the workerʹs neck, and the worker must endure all difficulties ... The worker is asked: give the quota, increase output, raise productivity and when a worker needs what he needs, no one wants to think about him ... That is why all these meetings have become repugnant to the workers
After the meeting, the said worker said: “I will not agree with anything ... The policy of Rykov, Bukharin and Tomsky was correct. If all their suggestions and thoughts were put into practice, then we would not suffer and the discontent that the workers, and especially the peasants, would not have at this time ... The peasants were completely ruined by the wrong policy ... The party after death Lenin did not lead and does not conduct a correct policy ... Everything leads to destruction, to ruin ... Every day, it gets worse and worse, they only write that the welfare of the working class is improving. There is devastation and violence all around ... ʺ.
There were also noted cases of distribution of leaflets and anonymous letters of anti‐Soviet content in the IPO, CCK and Moscow in connection with the appeal of the Central Committee of the All‐Union Communist Party of the Soviet Union ‐ only 5 cases. Leaflets are directed generally against measures to eliminate a breakthrough in the implementation of the industrial financial plan. Almost all leaflets urge workers to demand better supplies (see Appendix # 2).
The attitude of engineering and technical personnel to the appeal of the Central Committee
Along with a satisfactory attitude and active participation in the elaboration of the appeal of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) of some specialists (mainly young), the attitude of a significant part of the old specialists to the appeal of the Central Committee is clearly hostile.
A characteristic feature of this part of the specialists is passive participation in the development of a counter industrial financial plan and, in some cases, refusal to participate in this work, refusal to self‐fix at the enterprise until the end of the five‐year period, opposing the requirement for contracting to demand an increase in wages, etc.
Some of the engineering and technical personnel consider the main reason for the breakthrough in the industrial financial plan to be ʺobjective reasonsʺ, especially the insufficient supply of workers. Speeches against the general policy of the party were noted, indicating that as a result of the wrong policy, ʺthe Soviet government suffered an economic and political fiasco.ʺ
Pavlovo‐Pokrovskaya factory. N. Posad region. Until the end of the fiveyear period, no one voted for the resolution on contracting engineering and technical personnel, with the exception of two‐party members.
Kolomna industrial area. Of the 600 administrative and technical personnel, only 115 people attended the conference on the Central Committeeʹs appeal, most of them young specialists. The speakers demanded an improvement in supply, which made it possible to fulfill the contract: ʺBefore fulfilling the industrial financial plan by 100%, it is necessary to arrange supplies, otherwise our public catering is very poorly supplied.ʺ
“We need to improve the living conditions for the workers and give out boots. Therefore, our plant did not fulfill the program. ʺ
At the plant of agricultural implements them. Kalinin (Smolensk), a group of technicians and engineers, including party members, in response to an offer to gain a foothold in the enterprise by the end of the five‐year plan, intends to present the administration with a counter‐proposal to increase wages.
Chernorechensky chemical plant named after Kalinin. A group of old engineers consider it impossible to fulfill the industrial financial plan for a number of objective reasons. Old specialists do everything they can to restrain young people who want to participate in the development of a counter industrial financial plan. Only young specialists were contracted.
At the Vyatsky Metallist iron foundry, all the technical staff (technologist and foremen, including 5 party members), during the study of the Central Committeeʹs appeal, filed their resignation, wishing to move to
Leningrad for a higher‐paying job.
“Hungry workers refuse to work; labor productivity is falling. There are colossal breakthroughs, and we are the scapegoats. We must run” (engineer of Donbass).
“The Soviet government suffered an economic and political fiasco. From loud talk and chatter about the five‐year plan, you get only soap bubbles. Now, when it became clear to them that they had stuck with the five‐year plan, they decided to recoup us. They talk about us, the workers, as the only culprits in the disruption of the industrial financial plan, they poison us. ʺ
“Until then, coal production will not be raised, until the nutrition is improved. Talking about the implementation of the program will not help much, you need to feed the workers. The wages of the main groups of workers have dropped, and they need to be restored. We are in no way to blame for these breakthroughs” (mine management engineer). “Is it possible to demand labor productivity from the worker when he is hungry and directly tells you that he cannot work out the norm” (engineer of Grozneft).
“It’s not about what to say about achieving success, but about the fact that we are in a continuous crisis. It is simply difficult to imagine what the third year of the five‐year plan will give. There is no bread, no raw materials, no building materials. Is this really their success?! ʺ (engineer of the mine department No. 4).
On the part of the most anti‐Soviet part of the specialists, there is an open and malicious mockery of the pace of construction.
ʺThe Five‐Year Plan is one of the unpublished tales from The Thousand and One Nightsʺ (Stroyobedinenie ‐ SKK).
ʺThe five‐year plan is the delirium of crazy people or people who are desperate in everythingʺ ‐ Selmashstroy engineers.
APPENDIX No. 1
Unhealthy Enterprises Material
Tambov Carriage Repair Plant. In recent months, a clearly unhealthy environment has developed at the plant. Production targets were not fulfilled, the percentage of rejects increased to 50‐60%. In one case, out of 35 cars, 34 cars turned out to be unusable.
There is considerable mismanagement at the enterprise. While the plant had a large number of wagons to be repaired, the administration was looking for wagons on the railroad tracks.
Spare parts received from the Saratov, Kozlov and other factories were supplied irregularly and in most cases of poor quality. On more than one occasion, workers had to collect nails from old wagons. Workersʹ claims of deficiencies in production were not considered.
With the increase in the production program from 450 to 900 wagons per month, a large number of non‐working items came to the plant, as a result ‐ a sharp decrease in labor productivity, an increase in absenteeism (up to 20‐30 people per day). Social life stood still, workersʹ meetings were not called, there was virtually no shock work.
Despite all this, a number of people from the top administrative and technical personnel went on vacation, others on a business trip.
As a result of mismanagement, indiscriminate production and poor management, the earnings of even skilled workers — old production workers — did not exceed 50‐60 rubles. per month.
Systematic calculations also reduced the wages of workers (the head of the accounting department and the accounting department at the plant in 1928 was dismissed from the Tambov branch of the State Bank for patronizing private traders).
The mood of the workers for the above reasons, as well as in connection with the prod. and prom. difficulties (mainly due to the lack of shoes on sale), have been tense lately. Factory desks and trade‐union organizations did not carry out any explanatory work. The appeal of the Central Committee, without any preliminary study and discussion, even with the workers‐party members, was delivered at a workersʹ meeting on September 7. The resolution proposed by the party cell calling for the fight against truancy and drunkenness and the implementation of the industrial financial plan was not adopted: out of the 2,500 workers present at the meeting, 100 people voted for the resolution with 3 against, the rest abstained from voting (the resolution was put to the vote 5 times). The meeting was attended by up to 700 party members and 500 Komsomol members. The representative of the Central Committee of the Union of Railway Workers was not allowed to finish his report with shouts of ʺdown withʺ. The party secretary and other party members were not allowed to speak. Shouts were heard from the seats: ʺDown with the careerists!ʺ During the reading of the resolution, the workers shouted: “We have no idlers,” “you are full and vote for your own resolution,” “there are shoes in the Central Central Committee, but they were hidden in the basements; it would be nice for Mamontov to come here, he would find shoes for us. ʺ
Tver Carriage Works. The situation with the implementation of the program at the plant is threatening. Until recently, 9 cars were produced daily instead of 14 according to the plan.
The sharp discontent of workers is caused by serious production problems, for the elimination of which the administration does not take the necessary measures.
There are 230 ready‐made cars on the territory of the plant, which are not put into operation due to the lack of wheel centers (the latter are manufactured at Krasny Sormovo and are not sent to Tver due to the lack of cars for transportation). Instead of 2200‐wheel centers (according to the plan for September), the Tver plant received 430 from Sormov. The wheel‐turning shop of the Tver plant is threatened with a shutdown if the wheel centers are not sent in the near future.
To eliminate the breakthrough, public organizations put forward a proposal to increase the production of cars to 18 per day in September. At workersʹ meetings convened to discuss the appeal of the Central Committee, this proposal was accepted. However, it should be noted that the meetings were held with a small number of workers and passive, in most cases, their participation. 6 workshop meetings did not take place due to the absence of workers. Thus, a significant part of the workers was not aware of either the Central Committeeʹs appeal or the decision to increase production by 100% (from 9 actually produced cars to 18).
A meeting of workers in the blacksmith shop, dedicated to the Central Committeeʹs appeal and discussion of a letter from a group of factories to the Tver Carriage Works about liquidating the breakthrough and a response proposal to increase the production of cars to 18 per day, was disrupted. Only 5 people voted for this proposal, the rest left the meeting during the voting.
At the secondary meeting convened the next day, September 19, 10 people voted for this proposal, the rest of the workers refused to vote. Nevertheless, the proposal was declared accepted by the chairman of the meeting. The workers leaving the meeting said: “More often it would be as it is today. Perhaps they would have guessed that the worker must first be shod, clothed and fed, the workers have no desire to accept this proposal. ʺ
Dnepropetrovsk plant named after Petrovsky. The turnover of the workforce has taken on enormous proportions; over the past 3 months, over 4,000 people have left the plant, of which up to 800 workers with 5 years or more work experience at this enterprise (in the last quarter, the turnover of the workforce was half as much). Up to 1,000 workers were fired for violating internal rules. A significant part of these workers are actually fired of their own free will: they deliberately made absenteeism in order to obtain dismissal.
The mood of a part of the workers in connection with food difficulties, the lack of regulation in the regulation and pricing work of the TNB, and the delay in wages is unhealthy. Recently, the number of conflicts between workers and the administration has increased significantly. So, in July‐August, 64 cases of workersʹ manifestation of strike moods (with 1,655 participants) were recorded, of which 34 cases due to food difficulties, 23 cases due to delayed wages and insufficient wages and others ‐ 7. Due to salary delays, several in the case of workers beating representatives of public organizations.
Mass work at the enterprise is insufficient. Until recently, the subscription to the Five‐Year Plan in 4 Years loan was weak. No more than 70% of workers are subscribed to.
Anti‐Soviet activity increased significantly in June‐August at the enterprise. During this period, up to 40 anti‐Soviet leaflets were found at the enterprise. The leaflets were found mainly in workshops with a predominance of low‐skilled workers who had recently arrived from the village (blast furnace, open‐hearth, transport, etc.). Anti‐Soviet inscriptions on the walls in workshops and in latrines have become widespread. The activity of those expelled from the Communist Party has noticeably increased. In addition, up to a hundred kulaks, who fled from dispossession of kulaks, were identified at the plant (most of them were removed from work). In addition, there is a group of young people at the enterprise, anti‐Soviet and with hooligan tendencies. The group has a decomposing effect on the factory youth.
The elaboration of the Central Committeeʹs appeal on the implementation of the industrial financial plan until recently was insufficient. Until September 22, the contracting of workers in most shops covered no more than 20‐30%. In a number of shops, party workers refused to consolidate themselves at the enterprise.
APPENDIX No. 2
North Caucasus. In Krasnodar, a leaflet was distributed with the following content: “Dear comrades! For 13 years we have been adjusting and building. For 13 years we promise jelly shores and manna from heaven.
All sorts of measures, rearrangements in the end have exhausted the working people, since all the activities carried out, sometimes ugly, are a heavy burden on workers, employees and families.
With this it is time to end, it is time to end the hunger strike and deprivation, otherwise the breakthroughs will turn into explosions. In order to stop breakthroughs and conduct the construction business more successfully, we offer:
1) CRK stop feeding shrapnel, grandmothers and sauces. We and our families need healthy food. The handouts that are given to us at the enterprises are not enough for us, we deserve more.
2) In all canteens ʺOsnovaʺ, although at a loss to this organization that does not give us anything, increase the staff of service personnel so that the worker does not spend one and a half or two hours for lunch.
3) To establish, not only in words, the supply of the workers of Krasnodar with footwear, manufactory, linen and outerwear. Who is to blame for the fact that we do not have all this? We believe that the bourgeoisie has enough to feed. The frantic pace of exports must be stopped. Fuck the tractor! You can work on tractors when there is something to eat.
4) We demand to stop the export of cotton, sugar, tobacco, bread.
5) The Board of the Central Regional Committee to disperse and plant businesspeople and specialists.
6) The editorial board of Krasnoye Znamya should suspend the agitation for the liquidation of the breakthrough and engage in agitation on the question of improving the living conditions of workers and their families in the form we propose.
7) Give a secured, normal, healthy life! As long as this request is not respected, the breakthroughs will not be eliminated. ʺ
Moscow region. At the factory. Uglanov (Zagorsk District) found 2 copies of the leaflet with the following content: “Comrades from the commission (for the development of a counter industrial financial plan), before talking about the industrial financial plan, you need to take care of food and footwear, otherwise you force them to do it, but donʹt care about the workers. It is a shame, comrades, for you to press the workers like that. We work almost for nothing; the salary is not enough. ʺ
Kolomna plant. An anonymous letter was found in the locomotivemechanical workshop: “The first five‐year plan will not have to be fulfilled, since it will not be possible to cope with it. Therefore, I advise you to give up your positions, because the workers are against the fiveyear plan. Wait for the second five‐year plan, then we will all be fed and dressed. ʺ
Mountains. Tver. On September 20, an anonymous letter was received in the name of the chairman of Okrsud: “You would pay more attention to yourself, would not force us to work without eating, would not exploit us. We sit hungry and naked in your scum country. Itʹs enough to rot food, itʹs enough to feed us with carrion, mice and rats, we donʹt want your scraps!
Give us, parasites, food, we are dying of hunger at the machines of a free country. Bastards, swindlers, embezzlers, scoundrels ‐ these are our destroyers of the Russian people. ʺ
IPO. In the mountains. In Ivanovo‐Voznesensk, on September 26, an anti‐Soviet leaflet was discovered: “All comrades of the least kind! We, employees of the Volgoles and Soyuzles trust, in our powerlessness, turn to you for support. As part of the so‐called ʺtrade union disciplineʺ, by a resolution of the general meeting (you know the value of these resolutions), we were forced to work two extra hours every day without a day of rest.
Every day the worker is more and more turned into a medieval slave. Already 10% of the peasants ‐ our brothers ‐ are actually enslaved (collectivized), specialists are enslaved by contracting.
Workers, protest! Service comrades donʹt obey! Remember that tyrants in Russia are lascivious like cats and cowardly like hares. They sought the authorities through deception, promising land, freedom, division of the wealth of the rich, but they give land every day 3 yards to the best people. Wait for meʺ.
1) Menzhinsky; 2) Berry; 3) Messing; 4) Evdokimov; 5) Poskrebyshev (for Stalin); 6) Molotov; 7) Kaganovich; 8) Postyshev; 9) Kovraisky; 10) Nikolaeva Central Committee; 11) Ordzhonikidze; 12) Rykov; 13) Syrtsov; 14) Shvernik; 15) Kaul; 16) Prokofiev; 17) Agranov; 18) Olsky; 19) Bokiyu; 20) Blagonravov; 21) Dept. Info; 22) Branch Info; 23) PP MO ‐ Wiesel; 24‐46) All PP OGPU; 47) In business; 48‐50) In the department.
A summary of the INFO OGPU on the attitude of workers, engineering and technical personnel and other layers of the intelligentsia to the process in the case of the ʺIndustrial Partyʺ. December 9, 1930
December 9, 1930
No. 387830 Top secret
The indictment data and especially the picture of sabotage, espionage and sabotage activities of the ʺIndustrial Partyʺ that unfolded during the trial, aroused sharp indignation among the broad masses of workers.
The workers respond to the actions of the wreckers and to the increased aggression of the imperialists by deploying shock troops, an additional subscription to the Five‐Year Plan in 4 Years loan, deductions for the countryʹs defense, and a new influx into the Party.
Meetings and rallies on the activities of the ʺIndustrial Partyʺ are held with increased activity of workers, demanding the application of the highest measure of social protection to pests.
Only among insignificant groups of workers of individual enterprises, due to insufficient explanatory work and under the influence of agitation of the anti‐Soviet element, manifestations of a negative character were noted.
Isolated facts of disruption of meetings ‐ the Leningrad plant ʺElektrostalʺ in 152 departments, on some buildings of the Central Black Earth District; facts of weak participation in the demonstration ‐ a number of enterprises in Nizhny Krai ‐ ʺEngine of the Revolutionʺ, ʺKrasnaya Etnaʺ and others. Kanavinsky district; judgments that ʺthe party and the short‐sightedness of the leaders are to blame for the sabotage business ‐ they did not see what this handful of people was doing in the apparatusʺ ‐ plant no. Kalinin and a furrier‐hat workshop (Leningrad ‐ separate production enterprises, etc.).
Activities of the anti‐Soviet element
The agitation of the anti‐Soviet element is primarily aimed at discrediting the process in the eyes of the workers: ʺThe Bolsheviks flew by with their five‐year plan ... And letʹs shout that the pests do not allow building.ʺ
Along with this, the anti‐Soviet element seeks to prove that in the present conditions ʺsabotage is inevitable, sabotage is generated by an absolutely unbearable life,ʺ while trying to present the members of the ʺIndustrial Partyʺ in the form of defenders of ʺoppressed workers and peasants.ʺ Individual cases were noted when the anti‐Soviet element in its agitation uses the case of the ʺIndustrial Partyʺ in order to discredit the ʺfive‐year planʺ (ʺthe five‐year plan is wrong ‐ pests took part in its compilationʺ).
Below are some facts of anti‐Soviet protests:
Moscow regional finishing factory ʺRabochiy” (Ozersk district). The agitation of anti‐Soviet persons in groups of workers was noted: “The Bolsheviks flew by with their ʹfive‐year planʹ, we must somehow get out of the situation, and they started shouting that, they say, the pests are not allowing to build. In connection with the bad mood of the workers, the communists began to write that they had discovered sabotage, otherwise they have no way out. ʺ
Vysokovskaya manufactory (Kashinsky district). “The communists are cunning, they bother us, they have sabotage everywhere, there is nothing to eat — so they say ... What are they looking abroad for? We would open the war as soon as possible” (agitation in a group of female workers).
Rakhmanovskaya factory (Pavlovo‐Posad region). Agitation was noted: ʺThe open group, if the power took into their own hands, then immediately took measures to ensure that the workers and peasants did not starve ... By the spring there will definitely be uprisings of workers and peasants since life is becoming unbearable.ʺ
IPO. Factory them. D. Poor (Kineshma). ʺThe five‐year plan was drawn up incorrectly, pests who have now been arrested took part in drawing up the five‐year plan ... The five‐year plan was built to the detriment of the people, we must fight against the five‐year plan.ʺ
Mountains. Carpets. “The communists want to strangle the workers, starve them with hunger, and all sorts of evasions want to justify themselves, invent some kind of wreckers” (agitation among the builders).
Ukrainian SSR. Dneprostroy. The timekeeper (connected with the countryside) in a group of workers said: “From such a life, everyone will soon be counter‐revolutionaries. For the time being, the pests are at the top, but soon it will come to the point that workers and peasants will become pests. ʺ
Western edge. At Mekhzavod No. 13 (Bryansk), an anti‐Soviet molder worker (has a strong farm in the village) in a group (15 people) said: “The communists themselves have brought the country to ruin and crisis, nowhere is there and is not foreseen, the worker is pressed everywhere, therefore, it is quite clear that there are pests. ʺ
It should be noted that on November 25, a leaflet entitled ʺDeath and Hungerʺ was received at the wall newspaper of the VEO Electrozavod (Moscow).
The leaflet states that “the country has been ruined by the Bolsheviks, the people are dragging out a powerless and half‐starved existence and are imposed an unbearable tax. The real pests are those who rule the country, not those who were shot or who are sitting in the dock. Newspaper resolutions of workers and employees, condemning wreckers, are sheer violence and mockery of the conscience and freedom of speech of citizens. ʺ
(The leaflet is signed: ʺHammer and Sickle worker‐turnerʺ.)
2. Engineering staff
The overwhelming majority of young Soviet engineers and some of the old engineers express their indignation at the activities of the ʺIndustrial Partyʺ and put forward a categorical demand for the application of the highest measure of social protection to pests.
At a number of meetings, in response to the counter‐revolutionary activities of the Industrial Party, the engineering and technical personnel undertake to eliminate the breakthrough in industrial and financial terms.
Mountains. Nizhny Novgorod. At the plant ʺMelstroyʺ them. Vorobyov, all engineering and technical workers participated in the demonstration, and engineer Grubant (temporarily acting chief engineer) walked in front of the column with a poster demanding the execution of the pests. For the first time, all NiGRES specialists participated in the demonstration.
Mountains. Moscow. At the Electrosvet plant, a meeting of engineering and technical personnel condemned the counter‐revolutionary activities of the Industrial Party, believing that it undermines the authority of the engineers and technicians. The speakers promised to “become the most active workers of the Union”.
Moscow region. In the club them. Lenin at the Kashirskaya power plant, engineering and technical workers who spoke at the meeting (attended by up to 50 people) said that they ʺdissociate themselves from the treacherous activities of pests, demand the use of capital punishment and promise to work even more intensively for the implementation of the industrial financial plan.ʺ
Noteworthy is the statement of a foreign specialist (Bernge) working at the Krasnoye Sormovo plant (Nizhny Krai).
“Only a country that really realized all its power and strength can start fearlessly such a world‐wide process in its size and importance, since the government spheres of England and France are involved in this matter. ʺ
A number of statements in private conversations about the ʺoutrageous hypocrisyʺ of the Industrial Party members, who, while occupying responsible posts and outwardly manifesting themselves even as Soviet‐minded people, in fact carried out sabotage and treacherous activities, were noted.
Shaneʹs sabotage is especially outrageous.
Mountains. Moscow. At factory No. 1 of the Mostrikotazh Combine, engineer Eisenberg, in a group of specialists, said: “I just can’t understand engineer Shein, who tried to be in the public eye, spoke at the 16th Party Congress and suddenly turned out to be a pest; after that, who should we believe? You canʹt trust your own father now. It is necessary to nurse less, to deal with pests more severely, then we will prove that we are strong. ʺ
Mountains. Moscow. At the Institute of Applied Mineralogy, one of the engineers publicly stated that Shaneʹs act leads him straight to despair: “There can be no more baseness when a person is, on the one hand, a public prosecutor in the Shakhty trial, on the other, at the same time weaves a net conspiracy ʺ.
Along with the aforementioned negative attitude towards the activities of the ʺIndustrial Partyʺ of the overwhelming majority of young Soviet specialists and some of the old, among rather significant circles of old specialists, opinions are widespread that the process is ʺan invention of the Bolsheviks and a political maneuver of the government in order to gloss over the breakthroughs resulting from the wrong policy of the Central Committee of the All‐Union Communist Party ( b), and to create a certain situation in the international relations. ʺ The confessions of the accused cannot be trusted since their testimonies were ʺtorn out by the GPU.ʺ
The negative attitude of this part of the engineering and technical personnel to the process of the ʺIndustrial Partyʺ is reflected not only in judgments in a narrow circle of ʺtheir peopleʺ, but in some open speeches ‐ non‐attendance of meetings dedicated to the process, opposition to the application of the highest measure of social protection to pests ostensibly for the purpose of ʺpreserving valuable scientific strength for the countryʺ, etc.
Mountains. Moscow. MOKH. An engineer in the team said: “The process is an extremely delicate political step. Thanks to this, the Union localizes the possibility of an impending war. This clever political maneuver will defuse the thickened atmosphere created by the economic crisis within the USSR. ʺ
In the same place, another specialist said: ʺAll this is a staging, a lightning rod in order to cover up the food and economic breakthroughs that were the result of the wrong policy of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b).ʺ
Mountains. Moscow. Selpromobedinenie. The specialist said: “The whole story is 75% exaggerated, most of those arrested are innocent. Only thanks to the cowardice and stupidity of Professor Ramzin, who named the names of people he knew, sometimes good people got into history for nothing, for nothing. In general, the time is now such that none of the specialists have confidence in the future; for no reason they can take you in bed at night and send you to the GPU, enrolling in the category of pests. ʺ
Plant No. 8 ʺManometerʺ. When discussing the resolution on the report on sabotage, some experts said that ʺall cases of discrepancy cannot be summed up under sabotage.ʺ The two engineers abstained from voting on the resolution that indicated the need to ʺbrand the pests with shame and increase the pace of constructionʺ.
Moscow region. Kolomna plant. Out of 330 people, only 85 people attended the general meeting of the engineering and technical personnel on the issue of the Industrial Party.
Mountains. Leningrad. At the Proletarskaya Pobeda factory, information on the Industrial Party case was presented at a re‐election meeting of the ITS Bureau, the resolution proposed by the presidium was not adopted. The meeting adopted a resolution, the meaning of which is: ʺThe court will examine all the materials and judge according to their merits.ʺ
Nizhny. ʺKrasnoe Sormovoʺ. The meeting of 300 engineers and technicians was attended by 100 people. Of the old engineers, only three came to the meeting. Only 4 people spoke in the debate on the report. The speeches concerned only shortcomings in the work of the engineering and technical section.
Pavmurmet. One engineer voted against a resolution calling for capital punishment for saboteurs, arguing that the members of the Industrial Party ʺare irreplaceable as a scientific force.ʺ
In a group of engineers (part of Boomtrest), the judgment of one engineer (a former entrepreneur) was noted: ʺIn the investigation, everything is attached to shift the blame from itself and to reassure the workers who are dissatisfied with the policy of the government.ʺ
IPO. Factory ʺRed Perekopʺ. At the meeting of the ITS on the issue of disclosing the ʺIndustrial Partyʺ of 100 people attended 19. The meeting did not take place.
In private conversations and in separate statements at meetings by old specialists, statements are noted that the trial of the Industrial Party ʺties the hands of all engineers, putting all engineers under suspicion of sabotage.ʺ
Mountains. Moscow. Bobbin‐and‐reel factory ʺKardolentaʺ. The meeting of the engineers and technicians was sluggish. An engineer speaking in the debate said: “The disclosure of the organization put all the technical staff in an awkward position, it tied the hands of all engineers. Now you have to take every step carefully, technical knowledge is dulled, thought is broken. ʺ
VEO. One engineer said, ʺIt is difficult to work in an environment where trust has been undermined on all sides.ʺ
ʺElectroimportʺ. ʺWhereas earlier engineers were treated with caution, now this should turn into complete distrust.ʺ
MOSKh. “The devil knows what is going on with us. Itʹs downright dangerous to do something, you donʹt know which line to keep. It is dangerous to occupy big positions, it is better to be a small engineer so that no one will notice you. Otherwise, I see that in Soviet Russia all non‐partisan engineering, promoted to high positions, ends the GPU. I know very many of those arrested, I think that not everyone is to blame for what is attributed to them, but this is apparently necessary. ʺ
In private conversations, speeches of a number of persons of the engineering and technical personnel with the expression of direct sympathy for the pests were recorded; regret is expressed about the failure of sabotage plans and hopes for the inevitability in the very near future of intervention and the ʺcollapse of Soviet power.ʺ
Mountains. Moscow. State Planning Committee of the USSR and VSNKh. “By the arrests and the whole story with the Industrial Party, as well as by Syrtsov’s speeches, engineer “X” is deeply shocked and thinks that all these events will have negative consequences for the USSR. He thinks that serious events from abroad should be expected in the spring. ʺ
Engineer ʺ3ʺ believes that the Soviet regime is ʺbursting at the seamsʺ and serious shocks are close.
GUMZ. “History repeats itself just like during the French Revolution. Danton, Marat, Robespierre remind me of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin. Now the last of them on the stage is Robespierre‐Stalin, after which everything must fail. Now there was one conspiracy, then there will be another, a third, and then the overthrow of the government will take place and a complete reaction will come, just like in France. ʺ To the question: ʺWell, are you thinking about Napoleon too?ʺ ‐ the engineer replied: “Yes. There will be a complete restoration of the old one”.
Nizhny. Technician Zvirla said in a private conversation: “It is a pity that the sabotage plans failed: you have to be able to build an organization like the Industrial Party in such difficult conditions. Surely now in the OGPU fight and torture are used, and only for this reason they confess and betray each other. ʺ
IPO. Kolchuginsky plant. The engineer said in a private conversation: “At the present time we have beenʺ locked down ʺ, theʺ Industrial Party ʺwas formed as a result of the party regime. To follow the general line of the party means to go with the flow. Smart people cannot vote as they do now. Now we will demand democracy. ʺ
3. Employees, teachers and other layers of the intelligentsia
A negative attitude towards the trial of the ʺIndustrial Partyʺ also takes place on the part of some of the old professors, separate groups of teachers, doctors, office workers and others.
The process by these groups is generally regarded as a ʺbig dealʺ and as ʺone of the links in the campaign to the best, thinking part of the country.ʺ
Facts of obvious hypocrisy were noted, when individuals from the professors at meetings voted to condemn the pests, and in the circle of ʺtheir ownʺ expressed sympathy for ʺthose who suffered for the idea.ʺ Mountains. Nizhny Novgorod. Professor of the Stroyinstitute, after a meeting at which he voted for a resolution condemning the ʺIndustrial Partyʺ, in a private conversation among his ʺfriendsʺ said that he was ʺdepressed by his participation in the dirty story of the sentencingʺ, that ʺthe unsuccessful outcome of the work of theʺ Industrial Party ʺis explained by treason abroad, which at the last moment did not give ʺusʺ help. ʺ As for the outcome of the struggle, he believes that ʺonly in Moscow bloody events could have happened, and in other cities the victory of Ramzinʹs party would have passed painlessly for the population, since everyone has long been waiting for the death of the Bolsheviks.ʺ
In his speech at the general meeting of scientific workers, the professor of the Chemtechinstitute avoided a direct answer to the question about the attitude of the professors towards pests. He stated that “at the moment there is a daily battle in the USSR, history will show who will emerge victorious; besides, it is not always and not always possible to openly express oneʹs thoughts. ʺ
The executive secretary of the Local History Society in a private conversation pointed out: “No ʹIndustrial Partyʹ can exist. Everything that is published in the newspapers is just another invention, an exaggerated affair to distract public opinion from the failures of the five‐year plan.
The doctor of the central outpatient clinic said in a private conversation: “I do not believe in the guilt of the accused. This story is hyped up in order to bring even more fear to our workers. I am sure that the verdict will be just as harsh, because the communists are generally harsh towards the intelligentsia. ʺ
The doctor of the regional hospital said: “I don’t believe a single line of Krylenkov’s lies: the fact of sabotage was invented in order to divert the attention of the people, deceived by the Bolsheviks for 13 years. The Bolsheviks do not succeed with the five‐year plan, and they are looking for pretexts to justify. ʺ
Mountains. Moscow. Peopleʹs Commissariat for Health. At the rally on the disclosure of sabotage in NKZdrava, no one spoke in the debate. The secretary of the party cell had to make a special speech on the topic that this silence makes him ask the question: are there really Soviet workers at this meeting or not. Only after that a few people spoke.
Specialist of the Chemical Institute. Karpova said: ʺI fully support the platform of the Soviet regime, I work for socialist construction, but I am a staunch opponent of the death penalty andʺ I cannot vote for a resolution requiring execution. ʺ
An employee of the State Bank said: “This business is a linden, in fact, there was nothing like this in such a terrible scale, there were only isolated cases of sabotage and betrayal, and the OGPU, with the help of its provocateurs and partly its scribblers, combined an entire political party, a whole boom, to annoy France. Cases about pests are now tired ‐ something worse is needed ‐ now it is as if the whole party is being tried.
Moscow region. In the Pavlovo‐Posad region, two doctors in a conversation about the Industrial Party said: “This whole thing is clearly exaggerated, we must blame someone for their inability to rule the country. All this is also incitement of the workers to the intelligentsia, so that now we can expect all kinds of excesses on the part of the proletarian masses. ʺ
Among individual employees of the Mostrikotazh trust, there was talk that “the whole thing is a sham”. The GPU had to create such a thing in order to distract the working class from internal problems. ʺ
Assistant Head of INFO OGPU Gerasimova Head of Division 2
1) Menzhinsky; 2) Berry; 3) Evdokimov; 4) Poskrebyshev (for Stalin); 5) Molotov; 6) Ordzhonikidze; 7) Akulov (NK RCI); 8) Nikolaeva (Central Committee); Shvernik; 10) Messing; 11‐21) In the OGPU; 22) In business; 23‐24) In the department.
Special summary INFO OGPU on the response of workers, engineering and technical personnel and other layers of the intelligentsia to the verdict of the Supreme Court and the decision of the Central Election Commission in the case of ʺIndustrial Partyʺ. December 20, 1930
December 20, 1930
No. 388043 Top secret
The verdict in the Industrial Party case and the decree of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR met with the approval of the broad masses of the workers. Significant cadres of workers joined the shock brigades; an additional subscription to a loan was launched; applications were received for contracting in production until the end of the five‐year plan, etc.
In a number of enterprises, where there was no sufficient explanation of the political significance of the CEC resolution, significant groups of workers noted manifestations of a negative nature (passivity at meetings, refusals to vote for a resolution approving a pardon, etc.).
These groups of workers viewed the pardon (individual speeches at meetings, private conversations) as an act caused by the ʺfear of the Soviet government before the interventionʺ; instructions were also noted that ʺthe government does not take into account the demands of the workers, for which it was necessary to raise noise and organize demonstrationsʺ, ʺwe said our word, and it was necessary to carry it outʺ, etc.
Factory number 6 ʺRed seamstress” (Moscow). The workers are dissatisfied with the cancellation of the execution, public organizations did not provide any explanations. There were no meetings in connection with the CEC resolution. A group of workers gathered in a club, demanding from the chairman of the factory committee to clarify the meaning of the decree, the chairman of the factory committee replied: ʺNobody gathered you, and I have no speakers for you.ʺ
Plant ʺRed Triangle” (Leningrad). In a number of workshops, significant groups of workers did not vote for a resolution approving the CEC resolution. In the 1st galosh workshop, at a meeting (attended by 400 people), most of the workers refused to vote for the proposed resolution. There were shouts: “We will not vote, we must shoot the parasites, we said our word, and it was necessary to carry it out. You donʹt listen to the worker. They wanted to kill us and our children, and you let them live. ʺ
In shop 41 out of 80 people, only 20 people voted for the resolution; in a rolling of 96 ‐ 23 people. In the main machine shop, the workers demanded clarification of a number of questions: ʺWhy Ramzin and others were not judged by the OGPU Collegium, what motivates the CEC for its decision,ʺ and so on. The speaker was completely unprepared and could not answer questions.
Similar facts took place in a number of Moscow enterprises: building No. 17 of the Teplobeton trust, Artamonovsky tram depot, 4th combing factory Trud, mechanical plant named after V.I. Dzerzhinsky, iron foundry them. Malenkov, plant ʺDynamoʺ, factory named after Sverdlov; and Leningrad: factory. ʺMay 1ʺ, ʺRed Putilovetsʺ and others.
Unhealthy sentiments were also noted among individual party members. Facts have been registered that applications for quitting the party have been submitted, that explanatory work among workers has been refused, and so on.
Trekhgorny brewery (Moscow). During the rally, the candidate of the AllUnion Communist Party of Bolsheviks said in a group of workers: “The Kumanki are afraid to shoot the professors so as not to lose friendly relations with abroad: in the event of a war, so that they would not be shot, but how good people were received. These are not the CEC, but deviators. ʺ The specified party member defiantly left the meeting.
Northern Shipyard (Leningrad). Among the members of the CPSU (b), there was marked discontent with the decision of the CEC to pardon. The members of the bureau of the collective, in response to sending them to the shops for explanatory work, said: “Let the members of the CEC go and explain themselves. After all, they were amnestied. And we ourselves do not understand such bagpipes, it is clear that all of them had to be shot. ʺ
A number of enterprises in Moscow (Dynamo, Combine No. 3 of Mostrikotazha, Pharmazavod named after Semashko, factory “Livere”) and Leningrad (factory named after Anisimov, “Red Triangle”, etc.) registered similar facts.
The anti‐Soviet element used the insufficient explanatory work in connection with the verdict and decision of the Central Executive Committee for the purpose of agitation among certain layers of workers in a number of enterprises.
Automobile plant number 2 (Moscow). An anti‐Soviet worker in the group said: “You fools were shouting about the shooting, they were driving you to the House of Unions, why was all this comedy needed? The question of the humanity of the Soviet regime is nonsense. Not so long ago, 48 innocent people were shot. The consequences of sabotage will fall on the workersʹ necks. We will again be offered to sign up for a loan, they will say that the workers themselves demand this in response to the saboteurs. They will have many more processes and they will all collect money from us. ʺ
Factory ʺRed Rose” (Moscow). During the rally, some anti‐Soviet persons submitted anonymous letters: “Stop twisting the workersʹ heads! After all, you shoot peasants in bundles, rob them to the last thread, and here you kill us with various meetings and rallies. ʺ
Noteworthy is an anonymous letter addressed to the All‐Russian Central Executive Committee, signed “Indignant” (Leningrad).
The letter expresses dissatisfaction with the mitigation of the sentence of the defendants and indicates that the pardon violated the demands and will of the broad masses of workers who defended ʺthe honor and right of councils.ʺ The letter ends with the words: ʺYou were afraid to shoot 5 people, not thinking that if the plans conceived by the interventionists were implemented, all the pillars would be hung with the corpses of workers.ʺ
Facts of anti‐Soviet agitation took place in Moscow: at building No. 1 ‐ Krasnopresnensky District, Krasnokholmskaya Factory, Svoboda Factory of Moskhimobedineniya, Mosteklofarfortrest Mirror Factory and others.
2. Engineering staff
The overwhelming majority of young and some old engineers expressed satisfaction with the CECʹs decision, believing that the defendants will be used at work, provided that they are strictly controlled. Along with this, the pardon was regarded by them as evidence of the increased power of the Soviet regime: ʺWe have become strong and therefore we cannot shoot them.ʺ
A number of judgments were noted about the incorrectness of the cancellation of the sentence (“they brought so much harm, but they were pardoned”), and doubts were expressed about the sincerity of the assurances of the pests about the desire to work for the benefit of the Soviet country: “We will put them back to work, and they will continue to harm, as and before the process. ʺ
Among some of the old anti‐Soviet engineers, statements continue to be recorded in private conversations that ʺthe process is exaggerated,ʺ ʺthe process is a well‐played play based on previously learned roles.ʺ
ROMP (Moscow). An engineer in a group of employees said: “The whole process is nothing more than a play called France. At the trial, everything was foreseen in advance, an agreement was concluded between the saboteurs and the authorities: ʺWreckers, compose, you will be sentenced to death, and then pardoned.ʺ The authorities honestly fulfilled their obligation to the arrested, otherwise they could not act ‐ conscience would not allow, France was dishonored, and she does not care about it.
Plant them. Kazitsky (Leningrad). The engineer said in a private conversation: “I have never seen such clever political charlatans as the Communists; there is no doubt that the cancellation of the sentence was predetermined in advance, the process was staged, it is a clever chess move. ʺ
In a number of cases, the statements were clearly anti‐Soviet (Mashtrest
‐ Moscow, the state optical plant ‐ Leningrad, etc.).
3. Other strata of the intelligentsia
Some of the old professors and scientists, refraining from openly assessing the verdict, in private conversations expressed the opinion that the pardon was dictated by the fear of aggravating the international situation of the USSR, and also was a concession to public opinion in Europe.
In a number of cases, it was noted that there could be no other answer to the ʺsincere confessions of the defendants except for pardon.ʺ
The following conversations are also characteristic of this part of the intelligentsia:
“I am very glad that these people were pardoned. It would be a shame if they were shot just because they served their ideas, but now they have repented” (Professor of Selkhozmashinotrest, Kharkov).
Noteworthy is the statement of Professor Tereshchenko (an ardent Black Hundred).
“One should have expected that they would be pardoned. These are corrupt souls who said everything that was demanded of them, piled up all sorts of nonsense on themselves and on the powers hostile to the USSR. This is just a comedy, in which they lectured on the dangers of powers and political figures disliked by the USSR” (Kharkov).
Assistant to the head of INFO OGPU Gerasimova Head of the 2nd department of INFO Grosman
Negative moments in mood Tools x
AMO plant. Due to insufficient explanatory work, the meeting appointed in the economic department did not take place, since none of the workers came.
1st Metal stamping factory. The rally went sluggishly: out of the 500 people present, no one spoke. Only 100 people voted for the proposed resolution, the rest abstained.
Plant them. Vorovsky. At the rally against the resolution approving the pardon, 130 out of 200 people voted. The workers who spoke in the debate said: ʺIt was imperative to shoot, not annul the sentence.ʺ
Sevkabel plant. A number of workshops received proposals to convene meetings of protest against the CEC decision. Party organizations did not carry out any explanations on the workshops.
Factory them. ʺMay 1ʺ. At the rally on December 9, out of 150 people present, only 10 people approved the CECʹs decision. The speakers said: “The government does not take into account the opinion of the workers. Why was it necessary to raise a fuss and arrange a demonstration? ʺ
Krasnoe Sormovo plant. Minor groups of workers voted for the resolution approving the CEC resolution. In the iron foundry, out of 370 people, 70 voted; in a locomotive building of 150 ‐ 12 people.
Plant number 42. Significant groups of workers in a number of workshops greeted the Central Executive Committeeʹs decision with a negative response. Discontent was especially evident at the shop meetings. The meeting of the 4th workshop was extremely stormy, where, after the speeches of one‐party member and a worker (ʺthey won the revolution in streams of blood, and now, after 13 years, they again wanted to drown the revolution in blood. The pests must be shotʺ), covered with applause, for the resolution, approving the pardon, only a fifth of those present voted, while the rest voted against with shouts of ʺshootʺ. At the FZU meeting, only one‐eighth of those present voted for the resolution. In the rental shop, due to the tense situation created, the resolution was not put to a vote at all, and the discussion of the issue was postponed to the next day.
The attitude of party members to the resolution of the CEC
Parostroy plant. At the convened rally, the party member tried to protest against the CEC resolution, and when the cell secretary deprived him of his word, he demonstratively left the meeting. Arriving at the shop, the specified party member said that he was submitting an application to quit the party.
Dinamo plant. The party member (worker of a large turning shop) said: “In connection with the pardon, we will have to leave the party. I do not agree with this policy. ʺ
Factory them. Sverdlov. A member of the All‐Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (a worker in a bleaching shop) declared in a non‐party group: “The pardon is wrong. This gives rise to harm to other engineers. The workers went to the demonstration, demanded a harsh sentence, but the wreckers survived. ʺ
Mechanical Plant No. 7. A member of the All‐Union Communist Party (Bolshevik) (a worker in a rolling shop) declared in the party cell that, due to his disagreement with the CEC resolution, he was ʺleaving the party.ʺ
Factory them. Anisimova. A member of the CPSU (b) (a worker in a mechanical workshop) sent a statement to the collectiveʹs bureau to quit the party. He motivated his decision by the fact that ʺhe does not agree with the application of the amnesty and leaves the ranks of the CPSU (b) in protest.ʺ
Factory ʺRed Triangleʺ. A member of the CPSU (b) in a group of party members said: ʺIt is necessary to submit an application to quit the party, since the fact of pardoning the wreckers suggests that we are essentially pawns and do not reckon with us.ʺ The party members present agreed with the speaker.
Plant No. 42 (Samara). In connection with a misunderstanding of the CEC resolution on the part of part of the party members (speaking out against the CEC decision at meetings and in groups of workers), the party committee appointed a closed party meeting. However, after the report clarifying the meaning of the CEC decision, some party members made speeches expressing disagreement with the CEC decision. When the secretary of the City District Committee of the All‐Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) at the end of the meeting addressed those present with an indication of the need to defend the CEC resolution at workersʹ meetings “with foam at the mouth”, one member of the CPSU (b) ironically remarked: Letʹs scream with foam at the mouth that we donʹt have to shoot, as if we donʹt have our own head. You have to lose your conscience in order to shout one thing today, and another tomorrow. ʺ
Building No. 1. An anti‐Soviet worker in the group said: “Because the members of the ʹIndustrial Partyʹ had different convictions, you cannot shoot. They thought of a good thing, they intended to give the factories to people who know how to manage them, and with this they would make the peasantʹs life easier. ʺ
Moscow Central Labor Exchange. An unemployed (stitcher) in the group said: “We must shoot everyone, although they will not shoot anyway if we do not deal with it ourselves. They demanded to be shot, but pardoned. But all the same, the foundations of autocracy held out for a very long time, and even then they overthrew the Soviets, and even more so we will sweep away. In the event of a war, I will be the first on the other side and I will crush the communists for nothing. ʺ
Krasnokholmskaya factory. A foreman in a group of workers said: “Everywhere they began to find pests, but they themselves fight off the workers and do not notice anything of this. How they steal themselves, but they judge poorly for that, but when you look, they still sit in a good place, but people like Ramzin, who do something useful for the workers, are shot. ʺ
Factory ʺSvobodaʺ Moskhimobedineniya. The worker of the cartoning shop in the group said: “They were sentenced to death, you need to refer to someone, when nothing happened, so they found pests.”
Mirror factory Mossteklofarfortrest. The worker, speaking about the verdict, remarked: “If we hadnʹt opened this organization, war is inevitable anyway. The possibility of war under our rule is not surprising, since the authorities are squabbling among themselves. ʺ Engineering and technical personnel and other layers of the intelligentsia
Mashinotrest. The engineer said: “They want to skin everyone who has not been shot yet. Soon we wonʹt get paid at all. All the money will go abroad. ʺ
In the same place the engineer said in a private conversation: “No matter how many specialists you shoot, there will be no food products as long as the Soviet regime exists. They shot a lot, but there is less and less food. ʺ
State Optical Plant. An engineer in a group of technical workers said: “It is interesting to know how much the Bolsheviks paid to play this comedy. By this process, the Bolsheviks want to find and give an explanation for the collapse to which Russia was brought, but in such a way that as a result of these explanations the saboteurs were to blame, not the Bolsheviks. It is clear why the execution sentence was canceled.
ʺWe have brought the country to starvation; we must blame someone else ‐ let them believe that the pests are to blameʺ (technician).
Commissioner of 2 branches of INFO OGPU
1) Menzhinsky; 2) Berry; 3) Messing; 4) Evdokimov; 5) Poskrebyshev (for Stalin); 6) Molotov; 7) Ordzhonikidze; 8) Akulov (NK RCP); 9) Nikolaeva; 10) Shvernik; 11) Olsky; 12) Agranov; 13) Artuzov; 14) Prokofiev; 15) Bokiyu; 16) Blagonravov; 17) Zaporozhets; 18) alone; 19) Velsky; 20) Beginning. 1 dep. INFO; 21) Beginning. 5 dep. INFO; 22) In business; 23‐25) In the department.