The Great Purge: Rubashov, Bukharin, and Friends

To retain his unquestioned dictatorship of the Soviet Union, Stalin knowingly and actively unleashed a campaign of state terror known as the Great Purges and the subsequent Moscow Show Trials. Party members of the “old order” who opposed any of Stalin’s policies or could potentially oppose Stalin were arrested and either secretly liquidated or made examples of in public show trials. The motivations behind Stalin’s Great Purges and show trials are complicated. Stalin created suspicions about counter-revolutionaries and conspiracy plots in his mind. It was clear that when it came to suspicions it was “easy” to fool Stalin, or maybe Stalin’s paranoid mind wanted to be fooled. Regardless, the accused were often convicted of unlikely crimes based on falsified evidence. The obvious course would be to focus on Stalin’s role during these purges, but this will focus on the role played by the accused. Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon and Nikolai Bukharin’s “Last Letter to Stalin” are two historical sources, one a fictional novel and the other an archival document, which lend insight into the motives and psychological processes of the Great Purges’ defendants. The following will compare and contrast Rubashov’s and Bukharin’s: internal thought processes on communist ideology, motivations for confession, and relationship with Stalin.

Darkness at Noon and “Last Letter” both describe the sufferings and inner turmoil which Rubashov and Bukharin are experiencing. Both men believe they have been loyal to the Party and the revolutionary cause, but questions about the regime arise after each has been arrested and interrogated. Obviously, Darkness at Noon goes into greater depth detailing Rubashov’s reflections about the Revolution and the Party, but there are notable similarities between Bukharin’s ideology and Rubashov’s. During a flashback, Rubashov remembers lecturing Richard, the young German communist: “The Party can never be mistaken . . . it is the embodiment of the revolutionary idea in history . . . history knows her way . . . he who has not absolute faith in History does not belong in the Party’s ranks” (Koestler, p.34). Rubashov’s opinions about Party policy and the blind belief in communist ideology are most similar to Bukharin’s at this point. Bukharin writes, “I know all too well that great plans, great ideas and great interests take precedence over everything, and I know that it would be petty for me to place the question of my own person on a par with the universal-historical tasks.” Both men believe that the individual must be marginalized in order to preserve the Fatherland and create a greater good. Individuals such as Rubashov and Bukharin can make mistakes, but Communism can not be mistaken. To stop believing this doctrine is the first step in becoming hostile to the Revolution. Interestingly, Rubashov later confronts his inner conflict between following this doctrine and coming to realization that the Party’s methods may be hindering the great Revolution: “What a mess we have made of out golden age . . . we deliberately let die of starvation about five million farmers . . . we make transition-stage laws which are contradictory to the aims of the Revolution . . . we whip the groaning masses toward a theoretical future happiness” (Koestler, p.129). While Bukharin blindly believes Stalin’s communism is the same ideology from which the Revolution began with, Rubashov’s internal thought process has come to another conclusion. Both Bukharin and Rubashov have been betrayed by the Party and scorned by the Great Purge. But Bukharin still believes that “there is something great and bold about the political idea of a general purge.” It is possible Bukharin also had doubts about Party ideology, but there are no indications of this in his “Last Letter.” In contrast, Rubashov ends his internal monologue with a biting condemnation of the communist revolution: “It was a mistake in the system; in the precept, that the end justifies the means. It was this sentence which killed the great fraternity of the Revolution . . . we are sailing without ethical ballast” (Koestler, p.210). Rubashov did not reach this conclusion easily. In the novel, his interrogations with Ivanov and Gletkin were complicated, heated theoretical debates about the validity of Party ideology. But in the end, Rubashov reaches a greater understanding which Bukharin could not. The Bolshevik Revolution began with just cause, to institute social equality and remove the perceived causes of human suffering. The simple utopian vision became warped and distorted as Party policy created horrible unforeseen consequences.

Why did the accused, who were often old Party members and revolutionaries, confess to outrageous crimes they never committed? Koestler accurately describes some of the methods used: “Some silenced by physical fear, like Hare-lip; some hoped to save their heads; others at least to save their wives or sons, . . . and the best of them let themselves be sacrificed as scapegoats” (Koestler, p.205). Bukharin and Rubashov had similar and differing motivations for confessing to crimes they never committed. Bukharin deeply loved his family, in particular his second wife and young son: “I ask you to allow me to bid farewell to my wife and son. I would like to exchange a few last words with her. I would like permission to meet her before the trial.” Bukharin was being blackmailed by the NKVD and the prosecutors of his show trial. His family’s well-being hinged upon a complete confession and a satisfactory performance during the trial. In contrast, Rubashov mentions no close family or friends which are held hostage by the authorities. In Rubashov case, when Gletkin uses Bogrov to provoke Rubashov, the opposite occurs. Rubashov remembers his friend’s loyalty and then reflects upon his old lover, Arlova. The entire ordeal only strengthens Rubashov’s humanistic and moralistic side. He stubbornly refuses to even discuss confession for a short time afterward. Rubashov is broken down initially with “soft” methods of Ivanov. He agrees to confess after Ivanov convinces him that the greater good of the Revolution takes precedence over any “bourgeoisie sensibilities” of dying in silence. Then Ivanov is removed and Gletkin takes over his interrogation. The “hard” method is used to break Rubashov down: “lack of sleep and physical exhaustion. It is all a matter of constitution” (Koestler, p.195). Rubashov is tired and susceptible to Gletkin’s discourse about Party unity and duty to the Revolution. For the first time, Gletkin uses the word “comrade” to address Rubashov. Rubashov ignores any previous doubts about the validity of the Party’s methods. For now, in his current state, the ends justify the means. Likewise, the situation must have been similar for Bukharin. There is no direct evidence in “Last Letter” to show that Bukharin underwent similar interrogation techniques, but some of his statements to Stalin reveal just that. Bukharin writes, “My head is giddy with confusion, and I feel like yelling at the top of my voice. I feel like pounding my head against the wall . . . What am I to do? What am I to do?” Solitary confinement, sleeplessness, and fatigue similar to Rubashov’s ordeal could be the cause of Bukharin’s confusion and frustration. In addition, he states, “I had no ‘way out’ other than that of confirming the accusations and testimonies of others and of elaborating on them. Otherwise, it would have turned out that I had not ‘disarmed.’” It appears that he was pushed to the limit of something. Whatever tactics they used, Bukharin believes that a confession will bring him relief and at least temporary peace. Perhaps the major motivation for both Rubashov and Bukharin is some perverse feeling of allegiance to the Communist Party and the Revolution. As mentioned previously, Bukharin still blindly believes that the “great ideas and great interests” of the Party take precedence over everything, even his honor and life. Rubashov struggles within himself to find motivation for confessing to false crimes. While he still does not whole-heartedly adhere to Party ideology as Bukharin has, Rubashov does admit that he has only one viable choice: “there is a third choice . . . the denial and suppression of one’s own conviction when there is no prospect of materializing it . . . the only moral criterion which we recognize is that of social utility” (Koestler, p. 137). Rubashov gave up protesting his innocence to his interrogator. Likewise, Bukharin must have also given up, except for this one last letter to Stalin begging for salvation. Once both these men realized that they were guilty by default, they accepted their fate and adjusted psychologically to make confessing easier. According to Geltkin, “Your task is simple . . . the policy of the opposition is wrong . . . make the opposition contemptible . . . sympathy and pity for the opposition are a danger to the country” (Koestler, p.193). The ends justify the means; confess to crimes you did not commit in order to preserve the Bastion of the revolution.

For both the accused men, Bukharin and Rubashov, there is a personal relationship with the man behind the curtain. The man to which this terrible Great Purge is attributed. Bukharin addresses him as Iosif in his “Last Letter” and Rubashov refers to him only as No. 1. This man of course is Joseph Stalin. Bukharin’s document is specifically addressing Stalin, so naturally there is evident throughout the letter of his feelings toward the dictator. Bukharin makes it clear early on that “all these past years, I have been honestly and sincerely carrying out the Party line and have learned to cherish and love you wisely.” He continues on by writing, “For this forgive me, Koba (Stalin’s nickname) . . . I must give you my final ‘farewell.’” Bukharin believes that Stalin is unaware of the injustices taking place. He honestly believes that Stalin is just misinformed and if he properly informed the benevolent dictator, then all would be corrected (or at least forgiven). On the contrary, Stalin knows exactly what is taking place and approves of it. In contrast to Bukharin’s views, Rubashov’s relationship with No. 1 is more in line with that of Trotsky. Rubashov admits that the Soviets’ “leader-worship is more Byzantine than that of the reactionary dictatorships” (Koestler, p.130). In the old photograph with Lenin, Rubashov is at the old man’s side, not Stalin. Rubashov views himself as an intellectual equal with No. 1 and does not revere and grovel at his feet like Bukharin has in “Last Letter.” Furthermore, Rubashov bravely asserts that “since No. 1 sat on the Party with his broad posterior, the air underneath was no longer breathable” (Koestler, p.163). Later, immediately before his execution, he concludes that “the bastion would be preserved, but it no longer had a message, nor an example to give the world. No. 1’s regime had besmirched the ideal of the Social state” (Koestler, p.209). It is obvious that Rubashov is independent from Stalin’s seductive “cult of personality.” Unfortunately, Bukharin’s relationship with Stalin more closely resembles Ivanov’s than Rubashov’s. Ivanov served and believed in Stalin until the very end, until he was betrayed by the system of terror put in place by Stalin. For Bukharin and Ivanov, the Party was Stalin and vice versa. One could not achieve successful revolution without following the word of Stalin as if it were communist ideology. Rubashov made the distinction which Bukharin could not. Rubashov was loyal to the revolution and communist ideology. He even willingly confessed to fantastic crimes and participated in the Moscow Show Trials because of this commitment to protecting communism. But he did not blindly follow Stalin leadership. While Bukharin cried out, “my heart boils over when I think that you might believe that I am guilty of these crimes and that in your heart of hearts you yourself think that I am really guilty of all of these horrors”, Rubashov quietly waited for his fate and knew that history would judge Stalin’s neo-Machiavellism.

Because of its uncanny accuracy, Koestler’s Darkness at Noon is considered a remarkable historical source equal to that of Bukharin’s Last Letter to Stalin. It should be noted; in contrast to the cowardly desperate tone of his letter, Bukharin’s behavior at his show trial in 1938 is today widely described as courageous. The preceding analysis of the two sources described similarities and differences between the accused concerning their thought processes, motivations, and relationships with Stalin. Each of the sources shed light on the appalling ordeal which political oppositionists must have faced during the Great Purge. Their experiences lend much to a greater understanding of a victims’ psychology. But while these men were not guilty of any counter-revolutionary crimes, they certainly were only victims of an authoritarian system which they helped to create. Perhaps the true victims were the thousands of innocent Soviet citizens falsely imprisoned through no fault of their own.