Main NI Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From Socialist Appeal, Vol. II No. 7, 12 February 1938, p. 4.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
|
The following revealing pen picture of the inner situation of the G.P U., Stalin’s counter-revolutionary secret police, has been supplied by Comrade Ignace Reiss, himself a former G.P.U. agent, who was slain by Stalin’s orders on September 4, 1937, near Lausanne, Switzerland, after he had denounced his murderous employers and declared his adherence to the Fourth International. – Editor |
Among the first to be clapped in jail – accused of “Trotskyism’’ – was the head of the spets department, Molchanov. After his arrest came the arrest of a dozen of his collaborators and this constituted the first blow against Yagoda. Then, one arrest followed another.
The blow was first of all aimed at G.P.U. functionaries of foreign birth. Reprisals against them were only part and parcel of general reprisals against foreign communists who had migrated to the U.S.S.R. Especially desperate was the situation of those who had Fascist rule in their native countries: Germans, Poles, Hungarians and so on.
There was no one to intercede in their behalf and so there was no need for any ceremony in dealing with them. They were all, as a rule, accused of espionage. Very quickly followed the arrest of Russians who had married foreigners, i.e., female “spies.”
Foreign communists disappeared in batches, new ones daily. Two old Polish Communists happen to meet on the street: “You’re not in jail yet?” “And you?” Or, another meeting: “You’re still in Moscow! I thought you were arrested long ago!”
Among those placed under arrest, in pursuance of the line of liquidating the old cadres, was an old Chekist, B. In search for some pretext, they seized upon a denunciation in his case: In 1927, in reply to some denigrating remark about Trotsky made by an assistant of his, B. had said, “Don’t you ... dare mention Trotsky’s name in my presence!” Nothing was made of it at the time. But now, ten years later, he was reminded of his hot-headed action.
Cases of this sort are not an exception but, rather, the rule. A., a woman conductor in Kharkov, was removed from her job. Reason? It appears that her former husband had signed ten years ago some sort of oppositional statement. None of her friends interceded in her behalf – to do so was to suffer the same fate.
G. was removed from his post in the G.P.U., allegedly for “gossiping”. As a matter of fact G. had been intimate with B. who was arrested shortly before. G.’s superior had told him: “I know you meet B. in the corridors. Cut it out.” At the time, B. was only a prospective candidate for jail. After B.’s arrest, G. was first removed from his post and shortly thereafter himself arrested.
Among those arrested was S., an old-timer in the G.P.U., of foreign extraction, who knew several languages and worked in the foreign department. Like the rest, he was accused of “espionage”. When his chief, an intimate friend of his, who knew very well this was a lie, was asked how he had failed to notice that S. was a spy, he replied: A spy does not impart his secrets. An important G.P.U. functionary, Sh., was arrested, and, of course, charged with espionage. His wife was immediately thrown out of their apartment. Sh. was a typical G.P.U.er, in the worst sense of the term. Comrades who knew him intimately were in a quandary: Why had this man been arrested? Was it perhaps because he knew languages? Was this perhaps held suspect by the authorities?
In the G.P.U. there worked a German. His fate had long been decided, but for one reason or another he had not yet been arrested. Apparently they were waiting for some suitable trial. A pure-blooded German of the Aryan type, he was admirably suited for the role of a Nazi in some public trial. It was indispensable to “liquidate” him, if only because he was a German. Either because no suitable trial cropped up, or for some other reason, a different method was applied in his case. He was sent to Spain, and disappeared there. In general, it is by no means a rare practice to send people to Spain for the purpose of liquidating them.
A member of the G.P.U. fails to show up for work. Was he arrested? Worried comrades begin to wonder. No one, of course, dares to make inquiries. There was still hope that X. had gone abroad, where he had done work. Sometime later a friend of his receives a letter from X.’s servant abroad, with an inquiry as to what she should do with X.’s dog. She had written to the master, but received no reply. Thus, because a dog had been left abroad, news of the arrest of the dog’s owner arrived in Moscow.
Several years ago, one of the G.P.U. functionaries detailed to “work” on the street and to compile reports about the prevailing moods, in making his report to the authorities was rash enough to say that in re potatoes, things were really very bad. Not potatoes, but some sort of mud. Couldn’t something be done about it? He was clapped in jail, and, as is sometimes the case, forgotten. He received no packages, no visits; his relatives were afraid to inquire. A year and a half passed. An investigating magistrate, on finding the case among the old files, proposed in the nucleus that he be set free. (At that time minor cases concerning members could still be brought up in the nuclei.) No decision was reached on the question. The authorities kept dragging the case, but no one doubted that the arrested man would be freed either this day or the next. Presently, some one again reminded himself of the case, and this time the authorities finally decided: To be shot in 24 hours.
Nowadays they try to make arrests with the least amount of fuss. Men are not seized either at home or in the department – so as not to cause panic. People are not arrested – they simply disappear. For example, a meeting is in session; a man gets up to go to the toilet and does not return. This attracts least attention. No one, of course, asks what happened to him.
After Yagoda’s removal and the smashing of the central apparatus of the G.P.U., they began to recall foreign agents to Moscow. As a rule they are recalled by some sort of ruse. For example, X. is informed that he had been compromised and would have to transfer to another country, and “en route” he might drop in on Moscow. U. is recalled on some other harmless pretext. In Moscow, they “disappear.”
Arthur Stashevsky worked in Spain ostensibly as a trade representative. But in reality as one of the leading functionaries of the G.P.U. After Tukhachevsky’s trial and connection with the arrest of Unschlicht and other Polish communists, it was decided in Moscow to recall Stashevsky as well. But inasmuch as his wife and daughter were working in the Soviet pavilion at the Paris exhibition, Moscow was afraid lest he refuse to return. The resourceful minds in the G.P.U. thought up the following stratagem: Stashevsky’s daughter (without her father’s knowledge) was sent from Paris to Moscow with some exhibits, while Stashevsky himself was called to Paris from Spain. In Paris two surprises awaited him: an urgent request by wire to come to Moscow and the information that his daughter was already there (a hostage!). According to the reports of Stashevsky’s friends, neither he nor his daughter ever reached their Moscow apartment. Apparently they were seized at the border. Stashevsky, incidentally, was considered a 100 per cent Stalinist. He was given an interview by Stalin “himself” and received personal instructions from him prior to his departure for Spain. In 1935, he demonstrated his loyalty by betraying Sirtsov, who had been rash enough to make some critical comments on Stalin’s “activity” around the corpse of Kirov.
An old Polish communist, a woman, E., was arrested (her husband had been spared from jail only by a premature death). She was accused of having joined the C.P.S.U. on instructions from the sub-Bureau of the Polish General Staff, in whose employ she had allegedly been since 1921. Bruno Yassensky and other Poles are in jail on similar charges. Inasmuch as they are not apprehending real spies, they are arresting and shooting innocent people.
Even in the G.P.U. hardly any one knows what happens in the inner prison to those arrested.
A case better known than the others is that of the aged Friedman, an old Chekist whom Stalin, for some reason, was bent on including in the Zinoviev trial. He was subjected to many long months of torture to extort confessions from him. Nor did they lose hope of breaking him until a few days before the opening of the trial. But Friedman remained adamant. The story is that his last words were: You can shoot old Friedman only once, but no one can make a whore out of him.
During examination, in most cases, the investigating magistrates do not, apparently, talk frankly with the prisoners, i.e., they conduct the investigation in accordance with orders issued from above, without themselves knowing the truth officially. But, of course, they are very well aware of what is involved.
In Moscow the “confessions” are openly scoffed at. Very popular are anecdotes such as the following: Alexei Tolstoy, upon being arrested and examined, confessed that he was the author of Hamlet, etc.
Because of the number of arrests, and the enormous number of cases, virtually all the functionaries of the G.P.U. have become investigating magistrates. For the same reasons, no packages are permitted in jail. With tens of thousands in prison, the sending of packages is allegedly impossible “in practice”. On the same grounds, many are shot: There is no room in the prisons.
Political prisoners are now usually sent into exile together with ordinary criminals, and, in addition, the criminals are extended the “right”’ of stripping the political prisoners bare. It is hardly surprising if in these conditions many exiles never reach their place of exile, but perish on the way.
After Yagoda’s arrest and the massacre in the G.P.U., the most incredible stories began to circulate among the foreign agents and a real panic ensued. In order to check it somehow, the G.P.U. sent out a circular letter throughout the entire foreign network. Its contents were approximately as follows: The C.C. has removed the gang at the head of our department. We must unfortunately admit that our heads (Yagoda and the rest) turned out to be bandits. The chief task for us and for you is to struggle against the Fascist-Trotskyites: (1) struggle against the Trotskyites; (2) keep a strict check on your subordinates.
It must be said that in connection with the recent trials, the important functionaries of the G.P.U. abroad had to “agitate” their subordinate foreign agents nights on end, so great was the demoralization these trials produced even in this milieu.
According to the latest reports, Z. Unschlicht (sister of Unschlicht), an oppositionist, who was arrested in 1934 and who had worked in the Comintern, died in the isolator. (At the time of her arrest, she was taken from her sick-bed.)
The well known Ukrainian communist Kotsubinsky has been shot.
The Bulletin (of the Russian Opposition) is widely read in the G.P.U.
Gide’s book, or, more precisely, stories concerning this book, and Gide’s taking a new position, have indubitably produced a great impression in the U.S.S.R. Those arriving from abroad are bombarded from all sides with questions about what Gide had written.
In present conditions, a rather grave “problem” for the Soviet functionary is the question of arranging a party. X. is considering giving a party in his house and inviting a number of friends, among them foreign communists, mostly workers in the G.P.U. A more experienced friend urgently advises against it: Something might come out of it. The best thing is to go to a party given by so and so. Such and such people will be present there, whose position today is quite sound.
Main Militant Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 30 July 2015