Record of the conversation of comrade Stalin with the German writer Lion Feuchtwanger
The management of the daily political newspaper is a curious thing. There is a lot of contact with the outside world. Sometimes unnecessary, unnecessary. Sometimes I feel that someone has claims to me. If they are justified, I apologize, I try to correct the error. And if they are gustatory in nature, it is easy to send far, far away. I read a lot of documents of the past on the topic “journalists and authorities”. Always in the past it was harder than today. Stumbled upon I.Stalin's talk with L.Feuhtwanger 8 January 1937 of the year. I was struck by the similarity of many questions with those that we ask each other today and the answers we receive. How little changes in life, if even after 70 years, many topics look as relevant as they did then. I decided that this conversation is the best fit for the “Ideas and People” column. I hope you get the same pleasure from the text of the conversation as I do. Konstantin RemchukovJanuary 8 1937 years
Feuchtwanger. I would ask you to define the functions of the writer in more detail. I know that you called writers soul engineers.
Stalin. The writer, if he catches the basic needs of the broad masses at the moment, can play a very large role in the development of society. He summarizes the vague guesses and unconscious moods of the advanced strata of society and the instinctive actions of the masses makes them conscious.
It forms the public opinion of the era. It helps the advanced forces of society to realize their goals and beat them more accurately on the goal. In a word, he can be a good official element of society and the advanced aspirations of this society. But there is another group of writers who, not understanding the new trends of the era, attacks everything new in their works and thus serves the reactionary forces of society. The role of this kind of writer is also not small, but in terms of balance stories she is negative. There is a third group of writers who, under the flag of a falsely understood objectivism, tries to sit between two chairs, does not want to join either the advanced strata of society or the reactionary ones. This group of writers is usually fired from two sides: advanced and reactionary forces. It usually does not play a big role in the history of the development of society, in the history of the development of nations, and its history is forgotten as quickly as last year’s snow is forgotten.
Feuchtwanger. I would ask you to clarify how you understand the difference between the vocation of a scientific writer and a writer-artist who conveys his attitude to himself.
Stalin. Scientific writers usually act as concepts, and fiction writers as images. More specifically, artistic paintings depict what interests them. Scientific writers write for selected, more skilled people, and artists for wider masses. I would say that in the actions of so-called scientific writers there are more elements of calculation. Writers-artists are more direct people, their work is much less calculated.
Feuchtwanger. I would like to ask what your definition of intelligentsia as an interclass layer in the report on the USSR Constitution means. Some people think that the intelligentsia is not connected with any class, has less prejudice, more freedom of judgment, but less rights. As Goethe said, the actor is not free, only those who contemplate are free.
Stalin. I laid out the usual Marxist understanding of the intelligentsia. I did not say anything new; a class is a community group of people who occupy a certain stable, permanent position in the production process. The working class produces everything without owning the means of production. Capitalists - own capital. Without them, under the capitalist system, production is not complete. Landowners own land - the most important means of production. Peasants own small patches of land, rent it, but occupy certain positions in agriculture. The intelligentsia is a service element, not a social class. She herself does not produce anything, does not occupy an independent place in the production process. There are intellectuals in factories and plants — serving the capitalists. The intelligentsia is in savings and estates - serves landowners. As soon as the intelligentsia begins to trick, it is replaced by others. There is a group of intellectuals that is not associated with production, as writers, cultural workers. They consider themselves to be the "salt of the earth", the commanding force that stands above the social classes. But nothing serious can come of it. In Russia in the 70 of the last century, there was a group of intellectuals who wanted to force history and, regardless of the fact that the conditions for the republic were not ripe, tried to draw society into the struggle for the republic. Nothing came of it. This group was broken - that is the independent power of the intelligentsia!
Another group of intellectuals wanted to directly develop socialism from the Russian rural community, bypassing capitalist development. Nothing came of it. She was broken. There are many such examples from the history of Germany, France and other countries.
When the intelligentsia sets itself independent goals, disregarding the interests of society, trying to fulfill some independent role - it fails. It degenerates into utopians. It is known how caustically Marx mocked the utopians. Whenever the intelligentsia tried to set up independent tasks, it suffered a fiasco.
The role of the intelligentsia is service, rather honorable, but service. The better the intelligentsia recognizes the interests of the ruling classes and the better it serves them, the greater the role it plays. Within this framework and on this basis, its role is serious.
Does it follow from all this that the intelligentsia should have less rights?
In a capitalist society follows. In capitalist society, people look at capital - who has more capital, he is smarter, he is better, he has greater rights. The capitalists say: the intelligentsia is noisy, but it has no capital. Therefore, the intelligentsia is not equal there. We are completely different.
If in a capitalist society a person consists of body, soul, and capital, then in our case man consists of soul, body, and the ability to work. But everyone can work: owning capital does not give us privileges, and even causes some irritation. Therefore, our intelligentsia is completely equal in rights with the workers and peasants. An intellectual can develop all his abilities, work in the same way as a worker and a peasant.
Feuchtwanger. If I understand you correctly, you also think that the writer-artist appeals more to the reader's instinct, and not to his mind.
But then the writer-artist must be more reactionary than the scientific writer, since the instinct is more reactionary than the mind. As you know, Plato wanted to remove writers from his ideal state.
Stalin. You can not play the word "instinct." I spoke not only about instinct, but also about moods, about unconscious moods of the masses. This is not the same as instinct, it is something more. In addition, I do not think instincts unchanged, immobile. They change.
Today, the masses want to fight against oppressors in a religious form, in the form of religious wars. So it was in the XVII century and earlier in Germany and France. Then, after some time, they are fighting against the oppressors more consciously - for example, the French Revolution.
Plato had a slave-owning psychology. Slaveholders needed writers, but they turned them into slaves (many writers were sold into slavery — there are enough examples in history) or drove them away when the writers did not properly serve the needs of the slave system.
As for the new, Soviet society, here the role of the writer is enormous. The writer is all the more valuable because he directly, almost without any reflex, reflects the new moods of the masses. And if you ask who most likely reflects new moods and trends, then the artist rather than a scientific researcher. The artist is at the very source, at the very pot of new moods. He can therefore send the mood in a new direction, and scientific literature comes later. It is not clear why a writer-artist should be a conservative or a reactionary. This is not true. This does not justify the story. The first attempts to attack the feudal society are carried out by artists - Voltaire, Moliere before attacked the old society. Then came the encyclopedists.
In Germany, there used to be Heine, Bjerne (right: Burne), then Marx and Engels came. This is not to say that the role of all writers is reactionary. Some writers can play a reactionary role, defending reactionary sentiments.
Maxim Gorky still reflected vague revolutionary moods and aspirations of the working class long before they turned into the 1905 revolution of the year.
Feuchtwanger. To what extent is criticism possible in Soviet literature?
Stalin. It is necessary to distinguish between business criticism and criticism, with the aim of conducting propaganda against the Soviet system.
We have, for example, a group of writers who disagree with our national policies, with national equality. They would like to criticize our national policy. You can criticize once. But their goal is not criticism, but propaganda against our policy of equality of nations. We cannot allow propaganda to incite one part of the population against another, one nation against another. We cannot allow ourselves to be constantly reminded that the Russians were once the dominant nation.
There is a group of writers who do not want us to fight against the fascist elements, and we have such elements. To give the right of propaganda for fascism, against socialism is inexpedient.
If we eliminate the attempts of propaganda against the policy of the Soviet government, the propaganda of fascism and chauvinism, then the writer in our country enjoys the widest freedom, broader than anywhere else.
We welcome business criticism that reveals flaws in order to eliminate them. We, the leaders, ourselves conduct and provide the widest opportunity for any such criticism to all writers.
But the critic who wants to overturn the Soviet system does not meet with our sympathy. We have such a sin.
Feuchtwanger. Some misunderstanding has turned out. I do not think that a writer should be necessarily reactionary. But since instinct lags behind, as if lame in reason, the writer may turn out to be reactionary, unwittingly. So, in Gorky, sometimes the images of murderers, thieves evoke a feeling of sympathy. And in my own works there is a reflection of backward instincts. Maybe that's why they are read with interest. It seems to me that in the past there were more literary works criticizing certain aspects of Soviet life. What are the reasons for this?
Stalin. Your works are read with interest and are well met in our country, not because there are elements of a backlog, but because reality is truthfully displayed there. Whether you wanted or did not want to give impetus to the revolutionary development of Germany, in fact, regardless of your desire, it turned out that you showed the revolutionary prospects of Germany. After reading your books, the reader said to himself: you cannot continue living in Germany like this.
Ideology is always a little behind the actual development, including literature. And Hegel said that the owl of Minerva flies at dusk.
First there are facts, then their reflection in the head. You can not confuse the issue of the worldview of the writer with his works.
For example, Gogol and his "Dead Souls". The worldview of Gogol was undoubtedly reactionary. He was a mystic. He did not believe that serfdom should fall. Wrong idea that Gogol wanted to fight against serfdom. This is evidenced by his correspondence, full of very reactionary views. Meanwhile, besides his will, Gogol's “Dead Souls”, with its artistic truth, had a tremendous impact on entire generations of revolutionary intelligentsia of the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s.
Do not confuse the writer's worldview with the impact of one or other of his works of art on the reader. Have we ever had more critical works? Maybe. I did not study the two periods in the development of Russian literature.
Before 1933, few writers believed that the peasant question could be resolved on the basis of collective farms. Then there was more criticism.
The facts are convincing. The installation of the Soviet government on collectivization, which closed the peasantry with the working class, won.
The problem of relations between the working class and the peasantry was the most important and gave the greatest care to revolutionaries in all countries.
It seemed intractable: the peasantry is reactionary, connected with private property, drags back, the working class is moving forward. This contradiction has often led to a revolution. So the revolution perished in France in 1871, so the revolution perished in Germany. There was no contact between the working class and the peasantry.
We have successfully resolved this problem. Naturally, after such victories there is less ground for criticism. Perhaps it was not necessary to achieve these successes so that there would be more criticism? We think differently. The trouble is not so great.
Feuchtwanger. I have been here for 4 – 5 weeks. One of the first impressions: some forms of expression of respect and love for you seem to me exaggerated and tasteless. You give the impression of a simple and modest person. Are these forms an unnecessary burden for you?
Stalin. I totally agree with you. It is unpleasant when exaggerated to hyperbolic sizes. People come to ecstasy because of the little things. Of the hundreds of greetings, I respond only to 1 – 2, I don’t allow most of them to print, I don’t allow me to print too enthusiastic greetings as soon as I learn about them. In nine-tenths of these greetings - really full bad taste. And they give me unpleasant experiences.
I would not like to justify - it is impossible to justify, but humanly to explain from whence such unrestrained, reaching for ecstasy delight around my person. Apparently, in our country we managed to solve a big problem, for which generations of people have fought for centuries, babuvisty, Hebertists, all sorts of sects of the French, English, German revolutionaries. Apparently, the resolution of this task (it was cherished by the workers and peasant masses): exemption from exploitation causes tremendous delight. Too people are glad that they managed to get rid of exploitation. Literally do not know what to do with their joy.
A very big deal is the release from exploitation, and the masses celebrate it in their own way. All this is attributed to me - this, of course, is wrong, what can one person do? In me they see a collective concept and make a fire around me with a delight of calves.
Feuchtwanger. As a person sympathetic to the USSR, I see and feel that feelings of love and respect for you are completely sincere and elementary. Just because you are so loved and respected, can you not stop with your word these forms of display of delight that confuse some of your friends abroad?
Stalin. I tried several times to do it. But nothing works. If you tell them it's not good, it won't do. People think that I am speaking out of false modesty.
We wanted to raise the celebration about my 55 anniversary. I conducted through the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) the prohibition of this. Complaints began to come in that I prevented them from celebrating, to express their feelings, that it was not about me. Others said that I was breaking down. How to prohibit these manifestations of enthusiasm? Force is impossible. There is freedom of expression. You can ask in a friendly way.
This is a manifestation of a known lack of culture. Over time, this will bother. It’s hard to stop expressing your joy. It is a pity to take strict measures against the workers and peasants.
Victories are very big. The landowner and capitalist used to be a demiurge; workers and peasants were not considered people. Now the bondage with the workers removed. Huge victory! Landowners and capitalists are expelled, workers and peasants are the masters of life. Come to veal delight.
Our people are still lagging behind in terms of overall culture, so the expression of delight turns out like this. By law, prohibition cannot do anything here. You can get into a funny position. And the fact that some people abroad are upset is nothing to be done. Culture is not immediately achieved. We are doing a lot in this area: for example, in 1935 and 1936 years alone, over 2,000 new schools were built in cities. By all measures we try to raise the culture, But the results will affect through 5 – 6 years. The cultural rise is slow. Delight grow rapidly and ugly.
Feuchtwanger. I am not talking about the feeling of love and respect from the workers and peasants, but about other cases. Exposed in different places your busts are ugly, poorly made. At the planning exhibition in Moscow, where you still think about you all the same, why is there a bad bust? At the exhibition of Rembrandt, deployed with great taste, what is there a bad bust?
Stalin. The question is logical. I meant the masses, not bureaucrats from various institutions. As for the bureaucrats, it is impossible to say about them that they have no taste. They are afraid, if there is no Stalin’s bust, then they will either be a newspaper, or the boss will curse, or the visitor will be surprised. This is an area of careerism, a peculiar form of "self-defense" of bureaucrats: in order not to be touched, Stalin’s bust must be set.
To any party that wins, alien elements are attached, careerists. They try to protect themselves according to the principle of mimicry - busts are put up, slogans are written, in which they themselves do not believe. As for the poor quality of the busts, this is done not only intentionally (I know, it happens), but also because of the inability to choose. I saw, for example, in the May Day demonstration portraits of mine and my comrades: similar to all devils. People are carried with delight and do not understand that portraits are not suitable. You can not issue an order to put up a good busts - well, they to hell! There is no time to be engaged in such things, we have other business and cares, and you don’t look at these busts.
Feuchtwanger. I am afraid that your use of the word “democracy” - I fully understand the meaning of your new constitution and welcome it - is not entirely successful. In the West 150 for years, the word “democracy” is understood as formal democracy. Is there a misunderstanding due to your use of the word “democracy”, which abroad are used to giving a certain meaning to. It comes down to the word "democracy." Can you think of another word?
Stalin. We have more than just democracy transferred from bourgeois countries. We have an unusual democracy, we have a supplement - the word "socialist" democracy. This is different. Without this additive confusion will be. With this additive, you can understand. At the same time, we don’t want to abandon the word democracy, because in a certain sense we are students, followers of European democrats, such students who proved the insufficiency and ugliness of formal democracy and turned formal democracy into socialist democracy. We do not want to hide this historical fact.
In addition, we don’t want to give up the word democracy also because now in the capitalist world the struggle for the remnants of democracy against fascism is heating up. Under these conditions, we don’t want to give up the word democracy, we unite our front of struggle against the front of the struggle of workers, peasants, intelligentsia against fascism for democracy. Keeping the word “democracy”, we extend our hand to them and tell them that after the victory over fascism and the strengthening of formal democracy, we will still have to fight for the highest form of democracy, for socialist democracy.
Feuchtwanger. Perhaps, as a writer, I attach too much meaning to the word and its associated associations. It seems to me that bourgeois criticism, based on the misunderstanding of the word "democracy", is harmful. The Soviet Union has created so much new, why not create a new word here?
Stalin. You are not right. The positive aspects of preserving the word democracy are higher than the disadvantages associated with bourgeois criticism. Take the united front movement in France, in Spain. The various layers united to protect the pitiful remnants of democracy. The united front against fascism is the front of the struggle for democracy. Workers, peasants, intellectuals ask: how do you Soviet people feel about our struggle for democracy, is this struggle correct? We say: “That's right, fight for democracy, which is the lowest level of democracy. We support you by creating the highest stage of democracy - socialist democracy. We are the heirs of the old democrats - the French revolutionaries, the German revolutionaries, the heirs are not left in place, but elevated democracy to the highest level ”.
As for critics, they need to say that democracy was not invented for small groups of writers, but was created in order to give the new class, the bourgeoisie, the opportunity to fight against feudalism. When feudalism was defeated, the working class wanted to use democracy to fight against the bourgeoisie. Here democracy has become dangerous for the bourgeoisie. It was good for the struggle of the bourgeoisie against feudalism, it became bad when the working class began to use it in the struggle against the bourgeoisie.
Democracy has become dangerous, made fascism. It was not in vain that some groups of the bourgeoisie agreed to fascism, for earlier democracy was useful, and now it has become dangerous.
Democracy creates the opportunity for the working class to enjoy various rights to fight the bourgeoisie.
This is the essence of democracy, which was not created so that writers could scratch languages in print.
If we look at democracy like that, then the working people in our country enjoy all imaginable rights. Then you and the freedom of assembly, press, words, unions, etc.
This should be clarified and our friends who hesitate. We prefer to have fewer friends, but steadfast friends. Many friends, but hesitant - this is a burden.
I know these critics. Some of these critics ask: why don't we legalize a group or, as they say, a party of Trotskyists. They say: if you legalize the party of the Trotskyists, it means you have a democracy, if you do not legalize it, then there is no democracy. And what is the party of the Trotskyists? As it turned out - we knew this for a long time - these are scouts who, together with agents of Japanese and German fascism, blow up mines, bridges, and produce railway wrecks. In case of war against us, they were preparing to take all measures to organize our defeat: to blow up factories, railways, kill leaders, etc. We are offered to legalize intelligence officers, agents of hostile foreign states.
Not a single bourgeois state — America, Britain, France — legalizes spies and intelligence officers of hostile foreign states.
Why is this offered to us? We are against such a "democracy".
Feuchtwanger. Precisely because democracy in the West has already been chipped, it smells bad, we would have to abandon this word.
Stalin. But how does the Popular Front fight for democracy? And in France, in Spain — the government of the Popular Front — people fight, they shed blood, this is not for illusions, but for the parliament to be, to have freedom of strikes, freedom of the press, unions for the workers.
If democracy is not identified with the right of writers to drag each other by the hair in the press, and understand it as a democracy for the masses, then there is something to fight for.
We want to keep the Popular Front with the masses in France and other countries. The bridge to this is democracy, as the masses understand it.
Is there a difference between France and Germany? Would the German workers like to have a real parliament again, freedom of union, speech, press? Of course yes. Cachin in parliament, Telman - in a concentration camp, workers in France can strike, in Germany - no, etc.
Feuchtwanger. Now there are three concepts - fascism, democracy, socialism. There is a difference between socialism and democracy.
Stalin. We are not on the island. We, Russian Marxists, learned democracy from the socialists of the West — from Marx, Engels, Zhores, Ged, Bebel. If we created a new word, it would give more food to critics: Russians, they say, reject democracy.
Feuchtwanger. On the process of Zinoviev and others. Protocol was issued. This report was built primarily on confessions of defendants. There is undoubtedly other materials on this process. Could they also be published?
Stalin. What materials?
Feuchtwanger. The results of the preliminary investigation. Anything that proves their guilt besides their confessions.
Stalin. There are two schools among lawyers. One believes that the confession of defendants - the most significant evidence of their guilt. Anglo-Saxon law school believes that the real elements - a knife, a revolver, etc. - insufficient to identify the perpetrators of the crime. Recognition of the accused is more important.
There is a German school, it prefers material evidence, but it also gives due recognition to the defendants. It is not clear why some people or writers abroad are not satisfied with the confession of the defendants. Kirov killed is a fact. Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky was not there. But they were pointed out by the people who committed this crime as his masterminds. All of them are experienced conspirators: Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, etc. They do not leave documents in such cases. They were caught in the confrontations of their own people, then they had to admit their guilt.
Another fact - last year there was a crash of a military train at the station. The hype in Siberia. The train went to the Far East. As it was said at the trial, the switchwoman switched the arrow incorrectly and sent the train the other way. During the crash, dozens of Red Army men were killed. The switchwoman - a young girl - did not admit her guilt, she said that she had been given such an indication. The station chief, the duty officer were arrested, some confessed to omissions. They were convicted. Recently, several people were arrested in the area - Boguslavsky, Drobnis, Knyazev. A part of those arrested in the case of the crash, but not yet sentenced, showed that the crash was carried out on the instructions of the Trotskyist group. Knyazev, who was a Trotskyist and turned out to be a Japanese spy, showed that the switchwoman was not to blame. They, the Trotskyists, had an agreement with Japanese agents to arrange a disaster. To disguise the crime, they used the switchman as a shield and gave her a verbal order to incorrectly translate the shooter. The physical evidence against the switchman: she transferred the arrow. The testimony of people proves that it is not her fault. We have not only the testimony of the defendants. But we attach great importance to the testimony. They say that testimony is given because they promise freedom to the defendants. This is nonsense. People are all experienced, they understand perfectly well what it means to show themselves, what a confession of such crimes entails. Soon there will be a Pyatakov process, etc. You will be able to find out a lot of interesting things if you attend this process.
Feuchtwanger. I wrote a play from the life of India, which depicts how Lord Hastings did to the enemy, who really wanted to carry out a coup d'état, attributing to him, not this, but a completely different crime.
Critics abroad (not me) say that they do not understand the psychology of the defendants, why they do not defend their views, but confess.
Stalin. 1 question - why did they fall so? It must be said that all these people — Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Radek, Smirnov, and others — all fought with him during the life of Lenin. Now, after the death of Lenin, they call themselves Bolsheviks-Leninists, and during the life of Lenin they fought with him.
Lenin, still at the Xth Party Congress in 1921, when he held a resolution against factionalism, said that factionalism against the party, especially if people insist on their mistakes, should throw them against the Soviet system, into the counter-revolution camp. The Soviet system is like this - you can be for it, you can be neutral, but if you start to fight it, then it will certainly lead to counter-revolution.
These people fought against Lenin, against the party:
During the Brest Peace in 1918.
In the 1921 year on the issue of trade unions.
After Lenin's death in 1924, they fought against the party.
Especially exacerbated the struggle in 1927 year.
In 1927, we produced a referendum among party members. 800 of thousands of party members favored the platform of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b), and 17 of thousands for the platform of Trotsky.
These people deepened the struggle, created their own party. In 1927, they staged demonstrations against the Soviet regime, went into exile, underground.
They have thousands of 8 or 10 people left.
They rolled from step to step. Some people do not believe that Trotsky and Zinoviev collaborated with Gestapo agents. And their supporters are arrested along with Gestapo agents. It is a fact. You will hear that Trotsky made an alliance with Hess to blow up bridges and trains, etc., when Hitler makes war on us. For Trotsky cannot return without the defeat of the USSR in the war.
Why do they confess to their crimes? Because they believe in the rightness of their position, they see success everywhere and everywhere. They want at least before death or sentence to tell the people the truth. At least one good deed to do - to help people find out the truth. These people abandoned their old beliefs. They have new beliefs. They believe that it is impossible to build socialism in our country. This is a rotten affair.
They believe that the whole of Europe will be seized by fascism, and we, the Soviet people, will perish. In order for the supporters of Trotsky not to die with us, they must conclude an agreement with the most powerful fascist states in order to save their cadres and the power they receive with the consent of the fascist states. I convey what Radek and Pyatakov are now saying directly. They considered Germany and Japan to be the most powerful fascist states. They negotiated with Gus (as in the text, must be “with Hess”) in Berlin and with the Japanese representative in Berlin. They came to the conclusion that the power they receive as a result of the USSR’s defeat in the war should make concessions to capitalism: Germany should cede the territory of Ukraine or its part, Japan the Far East or its part, open wide access to German capital in the European part of the USSR, to Japan in the Asian part, to grant concessions; dissolve most of the collective farms and give way to "private initiative", as they are expressed; reduce the scope of the state industry. Part of it to give to concessionaires. Here are the terms of the agreement, as they say. They "justify" such a departure from socialism by pointing out that fascism, they say, will still win, and these "concessions" should preserve the maximum that can remain. This “concept” they try to justify their activities. Idiotic concept. Their "concept" is inspired by the panic of fascism.
Now, when they have thought over everything, they consider it all wrong and want to tell everything before the sentence, to reveal it.
Feuchtwanger. If they have such idiotic concepts, do you not think that they should be put in a lunatic asylum rather than in the dock.
Stalin. Not. There are many people who say that fascism will capture everything. We must go against these people. They have always been alarmists. They were scared of everything when we took power in October, during Brest, when we conducted collectivization. Now scared fascism.
Fascism is nonsense, it is a temporary phenomenon. They are in a panic and therefore create such "concepts". They are for the defeat of the USSR in the war against Hitler and the Japanese. That is why, as supporters of the defeat of the USSR, they deserved the attention of the Nazis and the Japanese, to whom they send information about every explosion, about every wrecking act.
Feuchtwanger. Returning to the old process, I want to say that some wonder why not the 1, 2, 3, 4 defendants, but everyone admitted their guilt.
Stalin. How does this happen specifically? Zinoviev is accused. He denies. He is given confrontations with his followers caught and convicted. One, the other, the third incriminate him. Then he finally has to confess, being exposed on confrontations by his supporters.
Feuchtwanger. I myself am confident that they really wanted to carry out a coup d'etat. But this proves too much. It would not be more convincing if less is proved.
Stalin. These are not ordinary criminals. They have something left of their conscience. Take Radek here. We believed him. He was slandered by Zinoviev and Kamenev long ago. But we did not touch him. We had no other testimony, and it was possible to think about Kamenev and Zinoviev that they deliberately slander people. However, after some time, new people, two dozen grassroots people, some of them arrested, some of those who gave testimony themselves, found out a picture of Radek's guilt. He had to be arrested. At first he stubbornly denied everything, wrote a few letters, claiming that he was clean. A month ago, he wrote a long letter, again proving his innocence. But this letter, obviously, he himself seemed unconvincing, and a day later he confessed to his crimes and outlined a lot of what we did not know. When you ask why they confess, then the general answer is: “this is all weary, there is no faith in the rightness of their cause, it is impossible to go against the people - this ocean. We want to help us find out the truth before our death, so that we are not so damned, such Judas. ”
These are not ordinary criminals, not thieves, they have something left of their conscience. After all, Judas, having committed a betrayal, then hanged himself.
Feuchtwanger. About Judas is a legend.
Stalin. This is not a simple legend. The Jewish people put their great proverbial wisdom into this legend.
Information