Causes of show trials + purges of 1930s.

Authors Avatar

Causes of show trials+purges of 1930s

There have been many devastating events which have made great marks in history. Events of notable mention are the Nazi Holocaust of WW2, the use of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima, and the great terror of the 1930’s in the Soviet Union. This great terror was sparked by a number of events, none more notable than the assassination of Sergei Kirov on the 1st of December 1934. There are many other reasons that the Soviet government use to justify these events, such as to defy attacks by counter-revolutionists, to clean up the Communist Party and to exterminate old ideals that are no longer supported by the Party.

Historians argue these ideas to this very day, with many of them disagreeing on the topic of what actually provoked the purges. Some even argue the fact that Stalin should not have been in power, but instead he simply manipulated the government to his own ideals. However there is one thing that can not be disputed by any historian, and that is that fact that these purges and show trials were all major historical events, with much interest from across the world. The show trials and purges had a mixed reaction around the Western world, but by reading newspapers from the time of the incidents it can be seen that all countries come to a basic consensus. This consensus is that the actions that the Soviet Union took against the accused were inhuman and unnecessary.

The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the causes of the show trials and purges of the 1930’s and to evaluate the Western worlds reaction to these events. It does so by examining the processes of the show trials, and by investigating popular publications that deal with current events, from the time of the Sergei Kirov assassination. Based on this examination, it is possible to conclude that Stalin used the purge to rid the Soviet Union of all of his opposition, personal and political and that the Western world saw theses actions as inhuman massacres because the Soviet Union did not offer the accused a fair trial.

As Russia entered the post Great War era there were many issues being faced everyday in the newly communist Russia. One of these questions being raised is who will guide the nation into a new era of prosperity and affluence. The provisional government that forced Tsar Nicholas II to abdicate was quickly overthrown by the Bolshevik party in October 1917 and Vladimir Lenin came into power as the new leader of Russia, the first true leader since the Tsarist regime. However, Lenin’s power was short-lived as he died on January 21, 1924.

Prior to his death, Lenin suffered a stroke in March 1923 affecting his ability to speak. This deficiency started the controversy as to who should be Lenin’s successor. Many people were unsure as to who would continue to lead the government but there were two obvious choices that many people considered to have roughly the same probability of succeeding Lenin. These two obvious choices to be Lenin’s successors were Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin. Many believed Trotsky to be the front-runner as he had recently headed the Military Revolutionary Committee and had served as a high-ranking member of the party during Lenin’s era. Stalin had long served in the Communist Party since before the revolution and in 1923 had become National Secretary for the party. A primary explanation as to why people chose Trotsky over Stalin because Lenin had supported Trotsky as his successor making the claim that Stalin was too rude to lead the government. This is a highly dispute idea, with many different historians having different ideas about whether Stalin or Trotsky was Lenin’s choice as a successor. American historian Richard Pipes, a professor at the prestigious Harvard University, argues that Lenin would have chosen Stalin. He states that Lenin described Trotsky as “not having a clue about politics.” Pipes also expresses the ideas that Lenin trusted Stalin a great deal and that Stalin was Lenin’s right hand man in his final days. Although it was not Lenin’s wish that Stalin took control of the government, Stalin used his position in the government to manipulate the party and put his supporters in crucial spots of the government, consequently ensuring his eventual victory.

During the struggle for power between Stalin and Trotsky many differences emerged. Trotsky presented the theory held by Lenin and Marx, which was that in order for the Soviet Union to remain secure, they must ignite a worldwide revolution so that every country had the same ideals as the Soviet Union. Trotsky believed that until this task was completed that all efforts should be directed towards that ambition. On the contrary to Trotsky’s belief, Stalin presented the idea of ‘socialism in one country.’ For this to happen Russia would have to make herself impregnable to attack and then she would be able to lead the rest of the world in a Socialist revolution.

These were not the only differences between the two potential leaders. The two had a strong dislike for each other, sparked by the differences between them. While Stalin was a bland official, who had reached his position through hard work, Trotsky was a Jewish intellect who had risen to a position of authority through his own personal assertiveness. Stalin eventually won the race for power because he had a strong power base within the party. Trotsky made many tactical mistakes along his rise, including a statement that he had made in 1913 about Lenin, saying that Lenin was responsible for everything that was backward in Russia and by “categorically refusing” a role that Lenin appointed him to. Stalin and his followers made this statements public and before long Trotsky resigned from the Commission of War and took a less prominent role in the government, consequently conceding power to Stalin. Later, in 1927, Trotsky was expelled from Russia for opposing Stalin’s policy of ‘socialism in one country.’ 

As Stalin became more comfortable with his new power, he began to oppose many of Lenin’s ideas and solutions to Russia’s problems. After poor grain harvests in 1927 and 1929, Stalin felt a need to put an end to Lenin’s New Economic Policy (NEP) and construct a new system that would enhance the Russian economy in a shortened period of time. Stalin expressed this idea in a speech in 1931 stating that, “We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this gap in ten years. Either we do it or they crush us…” As a result of these ideas, Stalin with the help of his government created a five-year economic plan that involved the collectivization of agriculture and the rapid industrialization of the country. The plan was quite successful in modernizing the Russian economy and it met almost each and every one of the goals set out by the State Planning Commission.

Even as many of Stalin’s plans were succeeding in improving the Russian economy and the well being of the country’s peasants, there was still a potential opposition to Stalin. To suppress this opposition in the mid and late 30’s Stalin held many trials and purged thousands of the Communist parties ‘unfaithful’ members. The year that these purges began was the same year that Stalin and his associates were congratulating themselves on the early success of the initial five-year plan.

The Soviet concept of a purge, as stated in the book The Permanent Purge by Zbigniew Brezezinski, is “an instrument, employed in rational fashion by the Party, for the cleansing of its system of undesirable elements, and a method of democratic control over the totalitarian system.” However, the need for purges did not end immediately after Stalin beat out Trotsky to become the leader of Russia. In Stalin’s eyes the necessity for Purges was actually amplified as the Communist Party marched en route to socialism. This idea was demonstrated when Stalin said, “The same, but to an even greater degree, must be said about the discipline in the Party after the dictatorship has been achieved.” Stalin also expressed the idea that it was vital that the purges be carried out with the greatest amount of public support from Soviet Citizens as possible, and they should consider the purges an imperative task that is the concern of every citizen. Many American historians, including Bernard Hutton, saw the purges in a different light. Hutton claimed that the ‘actual’ reason for the purges was not simply to cleanse the Party of undesirable elements, but instead as a way for Stalin to eliminate anyone who might pose a direct or indirect threat to him or any of his plans for Russia.

The purges that are known as the ‘Party purges’ began in 1932 in an effort to eliminate ex-Trotskyites and former members of the right wing opposition from the party. These early purges displayed a struggle in the battle of power between Stalin and his opposition. Brezezinski argues that the motive for the purge of the Party was the exponential growth of the Party that had led to a “weakened diligence,” and a “lower political acumen,” of the party membership. By showing these ideas, Brezezinski creates the idea in his readers mind that the purges ordered by Stalin were justified. Many other historians, including Adam Ulam, considered the purges to be “more of a pogrom than a purge,” and Hutton described Stalin’s actions as, “devilish bloodshed.”

These ‘Party purges’ involved expelling hostile members from the party and official reasons for these expulsions were 24.1% of the expelled were not showing enough Bolshevik zeal, 21.1% were guilty of breaching Party discipline, 16% were enemies of the people of the Soviet Union, 11.8% were guilty of moral decay, 8.8% were going bourgeois, and 5.8% were climbing, profiteering and venally exploiting Party rank. The major impact of the ‘Party purges’ was focussed on the agricultural cadres as a result of recent relaxation in the development of agricultural collectivization and to do away with undesirable elements that had recently penetrated the agricultural cells of the Party. In an effort to perform the ‘Party purges’ more effectively a Central Purging Commission (CPC) was established, and quickly became very effective in eliminating unwanted elements of the Party in rural Russia. This commission acted very efficiently and on January 17, 1934, Stalin announced on behalf of the CPC that the ‘Party purge’ had been completed. The purge was effective in reaching the goals set out by the CPC, and resulted in 15.6% of the Party being expelled, and another 1.7% having their status in the Party degraded to the rank of ‘sympathisers,’ which meant that they were not permitted to attend meetings of any Party cell. Many of the expelled Party members were described as “kulaks, white-guards, Troskyites, Zinovievites and other dirt,” sent to forced labour camps, exiled to Siberia, sent to prison, and shot.

What many historians refer to as “the terror,” began on December 1st 1934 when Stalin received a telephone call, telling Stalin that his good friend and one of the prominent investigators into illegal and counter-revolutionary activities in Russia, Sergei Kirov had been shot by ex-Zinovievite Nikolayev. As a result of these actions, Stalin quickly ordered that a new criminal procedure be drafted to deal with terrorist acts and organizations. The newly drafted decree stated,

“1 - The investigating authorities are instructed to expedite cases of those accused of planning or carrying out terrorist acts.

2 - Judicial bodies are instructed not to delay carrying out death sentences involved in crimes of this category on the assumption of possible clemency, as the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee considers clemency…to be unacceptable.

3 - Agencies of the Commissariat of Internal Affairs are instructed to carry out the death sentence on criminals in the above category as soon as possible after sentence has been pronounced.”

This new policy gave rise to the idea that Stalin had ordered Kirov to be shot because Stalin used Kirov’s death to perform a serious of insurmountable purges in order to rid single persons who oppose Stalin and his government. Shortly following Kirov’s death, the secret police (N.K.V.D.) shot nearly five-hundred victims in Leningrad, locked thousands of people away in prisons, and all over the country people exterminated, even people who had nothing to do with the unrest caused by the death of Kirov. Most historians, including Walter Laqueur, believed that most of the victims of these brutal purges were probably supporters of Stalin and the Communist Party.

The first of few private trials came as a result of the Kirov murder, resulting in the murderer and all believed conspirators to the murder being given long prison sentences in a first trial, prior to the change in the criminal procedure. Upon the declaration of the new criminal procedure they were tried again, but this time they were forced into confessions through torture and threats against their family. As a result of these confessions, Nikolaev, and his thirteen alleged accomplices were immediately found guilty of “organizing a Leningrad centre to plot assassinations,” and shot the next morning. Stalin also went as far to exiling, killing or sending to prison anyone who shared the same surname as any of the conspirators who were leading the counter-revolution that killed Kirov.

The first major show trial, or the ‘Trials of the Sixteen’ was held in August of 1936, and was established to seek out and denounce enemies of the Party. The trial was given the name of a show trial because it was used to demonstrate the fate of all counter-revolutionists. Among the sixteen men being tried were Zinoviev, Kamenev and fourteen other old Bolsheviks who were suspected of establishing a terrorist organization under the leadership of Trotsky who had been exiled in 1927 and was now living in France. It was claimed that Trotsky had planned the assassination of Kirov, and that he was also in the process of planning assassinations of Stalin and many of his close followers. The trial was conducted in a whirlwind on publicity and media coverage, and it demonstrated to the citizens of the Soviet Union that the old Bolsheviks were not heroes, but instead dangerous traitors who are dealt with quickly and efficiently. All sixteen of the accused pleaded guilty to all charges, were sentenced with death and shot the next morning.

A second show trial was held in Moscow on the 23rd of January 1937, with accused the accused being charged with sabotaging the national economy. This ‘trial of seventeen’ was also known as ‘The Case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyist Centre.’ After a short and submissive trial, thirteen of the defendants were shot, while the four others received ten year prison sentences.

In the interim between the second and third major show trials, a secret trial was held to regulate the Red Army. On July11, 1937, Tukhachevsky and seven other high ranking military officers were tried in secret and found guilty of ‘espionage and treason to the fatherland.’ Although there was some evidence to support this theory, many historian believe that it was insufficient in proving anything to the court. All eight of the men were shot directly after the trial. Throughout the next year, the military purge continued and as a result over 30,000 military officials were purged. Historian Ian Grey argues that the purpose of this purge was to rid the country of old military values because Stalin disliked defensive military strategies.

The final show trial of this period, took place in March 1938 and was dubbed the Trial of Twenty-One. On trial were three former members of the politburo Bukharin, Rykov and Krestinsky, a former chief of the secret police, Yagoda, and many leaders of the medical profession in Russia. The accused were charged with espionage, terrorism and establishing a ring of organized crime in the Soviet Union, led internationally by Trotsky. There were additional charges laid on Bukharin for conspiring to murder Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov in 1919, and Yagoda for organizing the murder of his two successors as leaders of the secret police. These two, along with Rykov, confessed to all crimes and were sentenced to death along with fifteen others. Three of the accused escaped their live, being sentenced to prison terms

Many historians argue that these show trials and purges were not credible, or supported by evidence. Instead, historians argue that Stalin saw any deceit to the Communist Party, or Socialist Russia as a direct link to Trotsky, and punished people who he suspected may still be in contact with Trotsky to the harshest of punishments. Throughout these purges as many as 1.5 million people were arrested for crimes against the Party and as many as 680 thousand were executed. Among many of these arrests, arose confessions from the accused, which are widely believed to be false, with the accused being bribed with prison sentences instead of execution if they confessed to the crimes which they were accused of. It is still a mystery that is deeply investigated by many historians, as to why Stalin ordered the purge of many the Parties members, leaders of the Red Army, and peasants who had nothing to do with any political matters. The most widely believed idea that has been expressed in many sources is that Stalin simply felt it necessary to eliminate all and any opposition to any of his policies and/or views on life. In the case of the peasants who became victims of what historians have described as a genocide, it is simple believed that Stalin decided that it was necessary to provide an example of the fate of anybody , great or small, who opposed him.

Join now!

The reaction of the Western world to the assassination of Sergei Kirov, and the subsequent trial and purges were mixed. In Canada, specifically Toronto, the two prominent newspapers, The Globe and The Toronto Daily News, reported the incident as front page news. At this time both of these papers were primarily Liberal papers, and published a lot of comment on current events. News of the assassination, the trial and the subsequent purges were carried as front page news, and were carried a number of times in the editorial section. When carried on the front page, the articles were placed generally ...

This is a preview of the whole essay