Chapter 14 2

At this time, Liebert and Rodenberg should be summoned, and they have also received a notice to appear in court! --but not in court!It was as simple as that, did not appear in court, evaded.I'm sorry, but McShelskani can always send a subpoena!How inconceivable that even this rotten aristocratic woman dared not appear before the Revolutionary Tribunal! After the bribe was intercepted, Meshelsky was released on bail by Yakulov - and fled to Finland with his wife.And before Koselev's trial, Yakulov was happily taken into custody, either for this guarantee, or as a blood-sucking snake.He was brought to testify, and must have been shot shortly thereafter. (And we are still wondering: How did it become so lawless? Why is no one fighting?)

But Godliuk reversed the case—he was dying.But Koselev admits nothing!Solovyov is innocent and no one can interrogate... But what kind of witnesses came to the Revolutionary Tribunal voluntarily - Comrade Peters, Vice-Chairman of the Cheka - alarmed Felix Edmondovich (that is, Dzerzhinsky- -Translator's Note) even came in person.Turning his long ascetic, scorching face toward the stunned court, he delivered an impassioned testimony in defense of the innocence of Koselev, his high moral character, revolutionary character, and business ability.The original text of these statements is sadly not quoted, but Krylenko relays: "Both Solovyov and Dzerzhinsky describe Koselev's good qualities in detail." (p. 522) (ouch , what a rash warrant officer!"--you will remember this case in Lubinka twenty years later! It is easy to guess what Dzerzhinsky can say: Koselev is a steely Chekist, merciless to the enemy; he is a good comrade. The heart is warm, the head is calm, and the hands are clean.

Then, out of the rubbish heap of slander and slander, a tall image of Koselev on a bronze ride appeared before our eyes.And his history also shows that he was a man of extraordinary will.Before the revolution he had already had several criminal convictions—mostly for homicide: for deceitfully breaking into the house of the old woman Smirnova (in Kostroma) with the intention of robbing her and strangling her with his own hands.Then for murdering his own father and for killing his own companions in order to use his identity card.The rest of the time, Koselev was sued for fraud, and generally speaking, he served many years of hard labor (his desire for a life of luxury was understandable!), and each time he was saved by the Tsar's amnesty.

At this time, the stern but impartial voice of the top Cheka interrupted the public prosecutor, pointing out to him that the previous courts belonged to the landlord and bourgeoisie, so their judgments cannot be considered in our new society at all.But what happened?The daring warrant officer responded to them with such an intellectually erroneous passage from the bench of the Revolutionary Tribunal that we find it incongruous even to quote it here, in a rigorous account of the Revolutionary Tribunal's trial: "If there is anything good in the old courts of Tsarist Russia that we can trust, it is the jury courts... We can always trust the verdicts of the jury courts, where judicial errors are least." (p. 522)

It is particularly regrettable to hear this statement from Comrade Krylenko, because three months before that, during the trial of the former Lenin favorite, who was by-elected to the Central Committee despite four previous criminal convictions In the case of the spy Roman Malinovsky, appointed by the Commission and appointed Duma deputy, the "public prosecution" took an unquestionable class position: "In our eyes, every crime is a product of a particular social system, and in this sense a criminal record according to capitalist society and the laws of the Tsarist era does not seem to us to be A stain that can never be washed away... We know of many instances where some of our ranks have had it in the past, but we have never concluded from it that such a person must be removed from our ranks. Understand A man of our principles does not fear the threat of being excluded from the ranks of the revolution because of his past convictions..." (p. 337)

Look at how well Comrade Krylenko speaks on party principles!But this time, due to his wrong judgment, Koselev's riding image was eclipsed.Such a situation arose in the Revolutionary Tribunal that Comrade Dzerzhinsky had to say: "For a moment (just a moment! - the author) an idea occurred to me that Koselev was the one who surrounded the Cheka in the deepest period. A victim of the political rage that ignited?" Krylenko suddenly came to his senses: "I don't want to, and never have thought, that the trial in this case will be not a trial of Koselev and Uspenskaya, but a trial of Cheka. Not only can I not Want to do this, and I should oppose it with all my strength!" "The Cheka is led by the most responsible, loyal and proven comrades who take up the difficult task of striking at the enemy, although at the risk of making mistakes the danger of the . . . for which the revolution should express its gratitude . . . I emphasize this aspect in order that nothing can be said about me . . . in the future; 510 pages, the emphasis is added by me--the author) (will say so!...)

Look at what kind of blade the Supreme Public Prosecutor is walking on!However, it appears that he has some old connections from his past underground days, from which he knows which way the winds of tomorrow will blow.This has been perceptible in the trials of several cases, and it is also true this time.There was a wind in early 1919—enough!Time to restrain the Cheka!Yes, there was such an opportunity, and "it was expressed very well in an article by Bukharin when he said that the legal revolution should be replaced by the revolutionary legal system." Dialectics everywhere!Krylenko also speaks dialectically: "The Revolutionary Tribunal has the mission to replace the Cheka" (instead of ??...) But "... in terms of carrying out measures of intimidation, terror and threats, it must not be less terrible than before Cheka." (5th-1st page)

Previous? ...has it already buried it? ...I'm sorry, you are here to replace them, so where are the Cheka personnel going?Dangerous days!You are walking too fast, and you are too hasty to drag a man in a long army coat that reaches his heels" to the court to testify. But, Comrade Krylenko, perhaps the material you are relying on is unreliable? It is true that in those days there were clouds over Lubinka's roof.And the book might not have been written like this.But I suppose that steely Felix went to Vladimir Ilyich, talked and explained.So - the sky cleared up again.Although two days later, on February 17, 1919, the All-Russia Central Executive Committee made a special decision to deprive the Cheka of judicial power--"but not for long"! (page 14)

Our one-day trial was made more troublesome because of Uspenska's mischievous behavior in court.She also "spouted blood" in the dock, involving other Chekist leaders who had nothing to do with the case, and even Comrade Peters himself! (It turned out that she had used his clean reputation for her own blackmail schemes; she had been able to sit in Peters's office nonchalantly while he talked to other agents.) Now she hinted that Peters had been in Riga before the revolution. It has an unclear history.See how vicious a viper she turned into in eight months, although she spent those eight months among the Chekas!What should we do with such a person?At this time Krylenko and the Cheka personnel completely agreed: "It is too far to reach this point before a solid system has been established (?? Is it?) ... In order to defend the revolution ... for female citizens Uspenskaya did not and could not have any other sentence than extermination." Not by shooting, but exactly what he said: extermination!But the girl is still young, Comrade Krylenko!Come on, just give her ten years, maybe twenty-five years. By then the system should be consolidated, right?A pity: "In the interest of society and the revolution there is no other answer and there can be no other answer - and the question cannot be put otherwise. On such occasions no isolation measures will have any effect!"

She has offended people... that is, knows too much... Koselev also had to be made a victim.He was shot.Others will be more secure. Could it be that sometime in the future we will read the old archives of Lubinka?No, it will be burned.Already burned. As the reader has already seen, this is a case of little significance, and there is no need for further analysis.But see: 4) The "Churchist" Chin (January 11-16, 1920), according to Krylenko, will "take its proper place in the annals of the Russian Revolution." It really deserves to be.It took only one day to deal with Koselev, but five days for these men.

The main defendants are as follows: A.From Samarin, a well-known figure in Russia, the former head of the General Administration of Orthodox Affairs, who worked to free the church from the tsarist regime, and Rasputin's old enemy, who was once ousted by him. (But the prosecutor thinks, whether it is Samarin or Rasputin - what is the difference?) Kuznetsov, professor of canon law at Moscow University; Moscow High Priest Uspensky and Tsvetkov (on Witkov, the prosecutor himself said: "a great social activist, perhaps the best that the religious world has to offer, a philanthropist."). Their indictment was that they created the "Committee of the United Diocese of Moscow," which in turn established (composed of parishioners between the ages of forty and eighty) the archbishop's voluntary guard (unarmed, of course) in his church dormitory. Regularly on duty day and night, the task of which is to ring the alarm bell or telephone to gather the crowd when the archbishop is in danger from the authorities, and then all follow the archbishop to the place where he is taken, and ask (see, this is counter-revolutionary Action!) The Council of Peoples put the archbishop back! Really old Russian, Holy Russian tradition! --Sound the alarm to gather the crowd and flock to kowtow to petition! ... The public prosecutor was surprised: what danger did Bishop Si encounter?Why do you suddenly want to protect him? True: nothing more than two years of non-judicial sanctions imposed by the Cheka on those who disagree; nothing more than the murder of the archbishop by four Red Army soldiers in Kyiv not long ago; "It is just to protect the workers and peasants who are still under the influence of clerical propaganda, and we will not alarm our class enemies for the time being." (Page 67) - Therefore, the Orthodox Christians are the archbishops What is there to worry about?For two years Archbishop Tikhon has not been silent - he has sent messages to the commissars, to the clergy, to the masses of believers; Typewriter printing; he exposed the massacre of innocents, the destruction of the country - so why worry about the life of the archbishop now? Defendant's second count.Sequestration and confiscation of church property is taking place throughout the country (this is after the closure of monasteries and confiscation of monastic estates, which now involves plates, bowls and chandeliers), -- while the diocesan councils circulate proclamations to the parishioners: Calling Ring the alarm bells and resist expropriation. (This is a natural consequence! This is how they protected the church when the Tatars invaded in the past!) The third crime: arrogance has repeatedly submitted complaints to the People's Committee, accusing local officials of insulting the Church, blasphemy and violating the law on freedom of belief.Although these complaints were unsuccessful (Statement of the Chief of Staff of the Council of People's Commissars, Bunchy Bruyevich), they undermined the prestige of the local cadres. Now that the accused's counts have been reviewed, what is required of these horrific crimes?Can the conscience of the revolution also tell readers?Only execution!That is exactly what Kokholenko demanded (to Samarin and Kuznetsov). But, while busy with that odious legal system, and listening to far too long speeches from too many bourgeois lawyers (not quoted for us due to technical considerations), news came that... the death penalty was abolished up!I really didn't expect it!This is impossible, how could this be?It turned out that Dzerzhinsky had already given instructions within the scope of the All-Russian Cheka (Cheka - and not shot? . . . ).Did the People's Council issue this decision to the Revolutionary Court?not yet.Then Krylenko cheered up and continued to demand the execution on the grounds that: "Even if it may be considered that the increasing consolidation of the republic is precluding the immediate danger from such figures, I still find it beyond doubt that the present period of construction work ... eliminates ... these old-time activists and chameleons ... ...is a requirement of revolutionary inevitability." "Soviet power is proud of the Cheka decision to abolish executions..." But; . . . will be able to rule the Soviet regime for generations to come." (pp. 80-81) Very predictable!Shootings will resume, and they will resume soon!Because there is still a long list of people who need to be killed! (And Krylenko himself, and many of his class brothers...) Well, the Revolutionary Tribunal obeyed and sentenced Samarin and Kuznetsov to be shot, but just in time for the amnesty, the sentence was changed to imprisonment in a concentration camp until complete victory over world imperialism! (I'm afraid they still have to squat there today...) And the sentence for "the best people the religious world can provide"-fifteen years, later changed to five years. In order to have a more or less actual charge, the trial also brought in other defendants: accused in the Zvenigorod case in the summer of 1918, but for some reason there was no trial for a year and a half (probably once , and now sentence again as needed) several monks and teachers.During the summer of that year, several Soviet cadres went to the Zvenigorod monastery to find Abbot Ion and ordered him ("Be quick!") to hand over the preserved mummified body of St. Sava.At the same time, the Soviet cadre not only smoked in the temple (apparently also on the altar), not to mention without taking off his hat, but the one who held Sava's skull in his hand deliberately spat on it, proving the sanctity of falsity .There are other profanities as well.This resulted in bells ringing, popular riots and the killing of a Soviet cadre.The other cadres later denied that they had committed any blasphemy, that they had not spit, and it was enough for Krylenko to have their statement. Yes, who doesn't remember these scenes?My first impression after I was born (I was about three or four years old) was that some pointed men (Chekas in Budyonny caps) entered the Kislovodsk church and parted the stunned The worshiping crowd rushed towards the altar without taking off their pointed hats, interrupting the prayer ceremony.In this way, these Soviet cadres are brought to trial now...?No, these monks were brought together for trial. I ask the reader to keep one thing in mind throughout: since 1918, it has been established that our judicial practice is such that every trial in Moscow (except, of course, the unfair trial of the Cheka) is not An isolated trial of some occasional incident, no.This is the signal of judicial policy; this is the sample in the window, according to which samples are shipped from the warehouse to the provinces; this is typical, this is a demonstration solution before each section of the arithmetic problem set, and the students follow this example Brain to calculate. Therefore, if a "Orthodox case" is mentioned, this singular noun should be understood to mean a great majority.And the Supreme Prosecutor himself is more than happy to explain to us that "almost all the revolutionary courts of the republic" (what a word!) carry out similar trials (p. 61).Revolutionary courts in North Dvina, Tver, Ryazan have just been conducted; in Kazan, Ufa, Solvichygodsk, Tsarevokokshaysk against churches "liberated by the October Revolution" The trial was conducted by the priest in the church and the chanting. The reader will feel that there is a contradiction here: why are these many trials earlier than the Moscow model?It's just a shortcoming of our narrative.Judicial and extrajudicial persecution of the emancipated Church began as early as 1918 and, judging by the case of Zvenigorod, had already reached acute proportions.In October 1918, Archbishop Tikhon pointed out that there was no freedom of preaching in his proclamation to the People's Committee. He said, "Many brave missionaries have paid the blood of martyrdom...Your hands have been accumulated by generations of believers. They trampled on their last wishes without thinking." (Of course, the people's commissars did not read the proclamation, while the officials laughed and said: They will really find a way to blame people-the last wishes! On... mile!--we work only for posterity.) "Purely innocent bishops, priests, monks and priestesses were murdered for no reason on vaguely worded and ill-defined charges of counter-revolution." True, Due to the approach of Denikin and Kolchak, in order to make the Orthodox Christians willing to defend the revolution, they temporarily stopped.But as soon as the climax of the civil war was over, the church was attacked again, and the revolutionary courts became more vigorous with such cases.In 1920 the Holy Trinity Monastery of Sergiy was also hit, and the chauvinist mummy of Sergiy Radonezhsky was taken away and thrown into a museum in Moscow. The archbishop quoted Klyuchevsky: "The gates of the monastery of St. Sergius will be closed only on the day when we destroy all the spiritual and moral treasures bequeathed to us by St. Sergius and other great elders of Russia." The magic lamp on the tomb will go out." Klyuchevsky did not expect that this treasure would be destroyed almost within his lifetime. The archbishop asked to see the chairman of the People's Committee, trying to persuade the authorities not to touch the monastery and the mummies of the saints. Isn't the church separated from the state?The answer was that the chairman was busy discussing major affairs and B could not meet with him recently. I haven't been able to meet him in the future. The People's Commissariat of Justice issued a decree (August 25, 1910) on the abolition of all mummies of saints, because it is this which hinders the glorious progress of the new just society. Next, let's follow Krylenko's choice and look at a case heard by the "High Court". (The High Court is the Supreme Court. Look what a nice shorthand they use among their own people. But at us worms they just yell: Rise! Court now!) 5 "Strategic Center Case (August 16-20, 1920) -- Twenty-eight persons on trial, and several default defendants who could not be summoned. The supreme public prosecutor, who is clear-sighted because he has mastered class analysis, tells us, in a voice that was not hoarse when he began his speech, that besides the landowners and capitalists, "there has been and continues to be a social class, and the society of this class The representatives of revolutionary socialism have been thinking about it for a long time... This class is the so-called intellectual class... Our trial this time will be a trial of history on the activities of the Russian intellectual class," and a trial of the revolution on the intellectual class. (page 34) The scope of our research has a certain narrowness, so it is impossible for us to find out how the representatives of revolutionary socialism thought about the fate of the so-called intelligentsia, and what did they think about it?We are relieved, however, that these materials are published, available to all, and can be exhaustively collected.Therefore, just to illustrate the general situation in the republic at that time, we remind you of the opinion expressed by the Chairman of the People's Commissars in the years when these revolutionary courts were sitting. In a letter to Gorky dated September 15, 1919 (which we have already quoted), Vladimir Ilyich responded to Gorky's account of the arrest of intellectuals, concerning the Russian intelligentsia at that time. In the main part ("nearly Cadets") he wrote: "This is not the mind of the people, but the dung." On another occasion he said to Gorky: "If we smash the pots and pans too much, it will For its (intellectual's) fault." If it seeks justice -- why not come to us? ..."I just took the intellectual bullet." (That is to say Kaplan's bullet.) The words he used when referring to the intellectual were always: rotten liberal; "conformist"; The cause -- but when has it ever sworn an oath of allegiance? This mockery of the intelligentsia, this contempt for it, was embraced affectionately by the political commentators of the twenties, by the newspapers of the twenties, by fashion, and finally by the intellectuals themselves, who cursed The self is eternally flippant, eternally dual, eternally spineless and hopelessly behind the times. And it's just!Listen, the voice of the Prosecution rumbling under the vaults of the High Court brings us back to our seats: "This social class . . . has been tested by a total revaluation over the years." Revaluation, it was often said at the time.What is the conclusion of the revaluation?See: "Russian intellectuals threw themselves into the revolutionary furnace with slogans of civil rights (there was something after all!) and came out allies of black (not even white!) generals, employers (!) The submissive agents of the army and European imperialism. The intelligentsia has trampled on its own flag and covered it with mud." (Krylenko, p. 54) It is only because "this social group has become a historical relic" that "it is not necessary to completely overthrow its individual representatives". This is at the beginning of the twentieth century!What a powerful foresight!Ah, revolutionaries of science! (However, it is still necessary to completely overthrow it. The fight continued throughout the second year, and the fight continued.) We now look with disgust at these twenty-eight allies of the Black Generals and mercenaries of European imperialism.A pungent smell of "the center" hits me head-on-it is also a strategic center, an ethnic center, and a rightist center (when I think of the various cases in the past two decades, all kinds of centers appear in my mind , now the engineer centre, now the Menshevik centre, now the Trotsky-Zinoviev centre, now the Right-Bukharin centre, thanks to the smashing of these centers one by one, we are all alive now) .Wherever there is a center, of course imperialism will intervene. It is true that when we heard that the strategy center under trial is not an organization, it has no charter, no program, and no dues, we felt a little relieved.what is that?That is: they will meet! (Chilling.) When they met, they exchanged views with each other! (It's cold all over.) The charge was very serious, and there was evidence attached: two pieces of evidence were presented against the twenty-eight defendants. (p. 38) These are two letters from the absent activists Myakotin and Fedorov (who are abroad).They are not present, but before the October Revolution they belonged to the same committees as those who were present, which gives us the right to treat those who were absent as the same as those who were present.The letter was about: disagreements with Denikin on some small issues, such as the peasant question (we are not told what, but it is obvious: Denikin was advised to distribute the land to the peasants), the Jewish question, the question of the national federation, Administrative issues (democracy instead of dictatorship) and a few others.What conclusions can be drawn from the evidence?Quite simply: they testify to the correspondence and agreement of those present with Denikin. (Ouch, it's so cold!) But there was also a direct charge against those present: exchanging information with acquaintances living in border regions not controlled by the central Soviet power (eg Kyiv)!That is, for example, that formerly this was Russian land, and then we ceded this frontier to Germany in the interests of the world revolution, and people continue to have letters going back and forth: Ivan Ivanitch, where How is life? ... And here ... H. M. Kischkin (member of the Central Committee of the Cadets) even argued arrogantly from the dock: "One does not want to be blind, one always wants to know what is going on everywhere." Know the situation in various places? ...Don't want to be blind? ? ... No wonder the prosecutors put them His actions were justly assessed as treason!Betrayal of Soviet power! ! But their most horrific act is that, while the civil war is raging on, they ... write books, compose notes, draw up plans.Yes, "experts in state law, finance, economic relations, justice, and public education" were writing. (Moreover, it is easy to guess that when they wrote their works, they did not rely on the existing works of Lenin, Trotsky and Bukharin...) Professor C.A. Federalism in Russia, Stepkovsky - on the question of agriculture (presumably without collectivization...), B.C. Muralevich - on the national education of the future Russia, H.H. Nogradsky - on economic issues.And the (great) biologist H.K. Korytsov (who suffered nothing but persecution and the death penalty in his homeland) allowed these bourgeois authorities to meet and talk in his institute (Kondratiev also fell into in, he was finally tried in the Labor and Peasant case in 1931). "Our inquisitive hearts are about to jump out of our chests before the verdict is pronounced. Hey, what punishment should be given to these general's assistants? There can only be one punishment for them - shot! This is not what the prosecutor wants - - This is already the verdict of the court! (Unfortunately, it was later mitigated: incarceration in concentration camps until the end of the Civil War.) The guilt of the defendants is precisely that they did not crouch in their corners and slowly sip the quarter-pound bread. They met and discussed how the state system should be established after the collapse of the Soviet system. In modern scientific language, this is called: they study escrow methods. The public prosecutor spoke in a loud voice, but we heard that he suddenly lost his breath, as if his eyes flicked towards the podium, was he looking for a piece of paper?A quote?Wait a mininute!It should be put nicely!Or use the one mentioned in another case?It doesn't matter!Is it this, Nikolai Vasiliich, please: "For us... the concept of torture is contained in the very fact of putting political prisoners in prison..." what!Putting political prisoners in jail - that's torture!And that's what the prosecutor said! --What a broad perspective!A new justice system is born!then, "...the struggle against tsarism is second nature to them [political prisoners], so it is impossible for them not to fight against tsarism!" (p. 17) Is it even impossible to learn without researching alternative methods? …Perhaps, thinking—this is the first nature of intellectuals? Alas, clumsily handing in the wrong citation!How embarrassing! ...but Nikolai Vasilyevich is already playing cadenza: "Even assuming that the defendants here, in Moscow, have done nothing--(and that seems to be the case...)--then it's the same anyway: . . . What kind of system would replace Soviet power, which seemed to be collapsing, that would be an act of counter-revolution... In times of civil war, not only action [against Soviet power] was a crime... but inaction itself was a crime." (39 Page) Now it's clear, now it's all clear.They must be sentenced to be shot - for "inaction", for a cup of tea. For example, a group of intellectuals in Petrograd decided that if Yudenich entered the city, they should "concern first and foremost with the convening of a democratic City Duma" (that is, to prevent the general's dictatorship). Krylenko: -- I want to shout at them: "You must first think -- rather die in battle than let Yudenich in!!" But they -- they didn't die. (Then again, Nikolai Vasilyevich didn't die either) There are also some defendants who knew the situation but--didn't report it (according to our saying, "knowledge without reporting"). What follows is no longer "inaction", but active criminality: through political Red Cross member Khrushcheva (she was also on the table and joined other defendants in providing money to the prisoners in Butyrka ( One can imagine how this money went to the prison commissary!) and clothing (see, wool?). Their crimes are heinous!And the punishment of the proletariat will be merciless! The faces of twenty-eight pre-revolutionary men and women swung crookedly and indistinctly before our eyes, like a movie projector slowly tipping over.We didn't see their expressions clearly! --Are they stunned?Is it contempt?Is it proud? Because their answers were not published!For not publishing their final statements! -- It is said that it was due to technical considerations... To compensate for this defect, the prosecutor hummed to us: this is a series of self-flagellation and remorse for mistakes made.The political instability and intermediate nature of the intelligentsia ... (oh, oh, there is this thing: intermediate nature!) - ... in this fact fully confirms the Marxism which the Bolsheviks have always expressed about this stratum The evaluation is correct. (page eight) Who is this young woman who flashes by? This is Tolstoy's daughter Alexandra Lvovna.Krylenko asked her what she was doing during these conversations?She replied: "Bake tea!" - Three years in a concentration camp! According to the overseas publication "In a Foreign Land", we can ascertain the truth of the facts. Also in the summer of 1917, during the Provisional Government, a "Social Activist Union" was formed - the purpose of which was to support the war to a victorious conclusion, against the socialist factions, especially the Socialist Revolutionaries.After the October coup, many prominent members went abroad, others stayed, could no longer hold congresses, engage in organized activities, but intellectuals are used to thinking, evaluating events, exchanging ideas - it is difficult for them to give up immediately this habit.Their proximity to academia allows them to meet in academic conferences.There were many things that could be discussed then: the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty, the withdrawal from the war at the cost of the loss of large territories, the new relations of our country with former allies and former enemies while the war continued in Europe.Some believed that for the sake of freedom and democracy, as well as the obligations of the Covenant, the Entente should continue to be assisted, and the Brest Peace Treaty was signed by people who did not have the authorization of the state.Some hoped that once the strength of the Red Army consolidated, Soviet power would break with the Germans.Others, on the contrary, pinned their hopes on the Germans, who by virtue of their treaty became masters of half of Russia, would now get rid of the Bolsheviks. (While the Germans reasonably believed that doing for the Cadets was tantamount to doing for the British, and that any government other than the Soviets would resume the war against Germany.) As a result of these differences, in the summer of 1918 a "National Center" split off from the "League of Social Activists" - essentially a group, extremely pro-Entente, all Cadets, but They feared, like fire, the resumption of the party form which the Bolsheviks had firmly forbidden.The group had done nothing but hold a disguised meeting at Professor Koryzov's academy.Sometimes they sent team members to Kuban to inquire about the situation - but they disappeared as soon as they went, as if they had forgotten their colleagues in Moscow. (Although the Entente showed little interest in the Volunteers.) But the energies of the "National Center" were mainly concentrated on quietly drawing up various draft laws for a future Russia. At the same time as the National Center, a "Renaissance Alliance" was established to the left of it (basically the Socialist Revolutionary Party - sorry to unite with the Cadet Party, and to restore the habitual party tendencies and views), its purpose is to carry out both anti-German People are fighting against the Bolsheviks.But they felt that this kind of struggle could not be carried out in the Bolshevik area, and the content of the struggle could only be attributed to sending people to the south.But it also annoys them with its reactionary character in the Volunteer Army area. Suffocated to death in the vacuum of military communism, in the spring of 1919 three organizations—the Union of Social Activists, the National Center, and the Renewal League—decided to maintain a constant collaboration, drawing two men from each.In 1919, the newly formed group of six met occasionally, but then stopped and ceased to exist.对他们的逮捕从一九二0年才开始--到那时候，在侦查期间给六人小组取了个响亮的名字"策略中心"。 逮捕是因民族中心的一名平庸的成员H?H?维诺格拉茨基的告密而发生的，他在放进过许多"中心"成员的特科牢房里继续充当颇有成绩的"内线"，而那些人还以克雷洛夫时代的天真在牢房里向他公开说出想瞒过侦查员的话。 也落入被告之列并且是主要被告（六人小组成员）的著名俄国历史学家梅尔古诺夫在流亡期间不得已地写出了一份关于这次审判的回忆--如果不是出版了正是我们手头这本正是登着这篇雷鸣般的演说词的克雷连科的大作，他可能避免写这篇东西的。梅尔古诺夫怀着对自己和同案人恼恨的心情给我们描绘出一幅如此熟悉的苏联侦查工作的图画：侦查者手里没有任何罪证，"案卷里没见到一份文件。起诉材料整个来自被告本人的供词……所有后来受审判的人在预审期间没有坚持沉默的策略……我觉得，采取不说话的原则，我是在不必要地使自己，也许还有别人，遭到更大的厄运……当你面临着遭枪决的可能时，你并不总能想到历史。" 在《全俄非常委员会红皮书》（第二卷，莫斯科，一九二二）里，逐字引用了被侦查人的许多供词，它们，唉，是不漂亮的。 梅尔古诺夫不带幽默感地责备侦查员雅科夫?阿格拉诺夫（他把他们所有人都制住了）对他及其他被侦查人进行欺骗，巧妙的愚弄，他认为"没有什么比这更大的对我的嘲弄了"。他说：这比任何肉刑更坏。后来如此洞彻地剖析过不少俄国革命的历史人物的梅尔古诺夫这时轻而易举地掉进去了：从向他出示的书面供词中看，一些人的问题好像已经澄清了，他却证明他们参加过复兴同盟。而且总的说"开始提供比较有条理的证词"--一篇不把侦查员的问题区分出来的完整叙述。（后来这些供词被给同案人看，使他们感到吃惊和沮丧：好像他是带着难以遏制的愿望讲述这一切的。） 阿格拉诺夫还用这些话把他们都"收买"了，他说，既然这是"过去的事"了，所有这些中心早已经不开会了--所以被侦查人是没有任何危险的，契卡查明一切只是着眼于历史价值。雅科夫?萨乌洛维奇用他的亲切态度迷惑了很多人。在另一些人面前，他把苏维埃政权和俄罗斯之间画了一个绝对的等号，这么一来，如果你热爱后者，那么反对前者就是有罪的。就这样从某些人那里获得了真正卑躬屈节、巴结讨好的供状。（脚注中提到的科特利亚列夫斯基的论文专门被阿格拉诺夫指定为犯人的学习材料。） 在法庭上怎么样呢？梅尔古诺夫写道："「知识分子的」革命传统要求一定的英雄主义，可是心里没有这种英雄主义所需要的激情。如果把法庭变为抗议示威--意味着有意地使不仅自己的还有别人的处境更加恶化。 " 在他们还没挨整的沙皇时期曾是如此爱好自由，如此不可调和，如此不能压服的俄国知识分子，就是这样容易地上契卡的钓钩的，就是这样容易地降服和灭亡的。 但比这更鲜明更可怕的是阿格拉诺夫的另一件成功之作--1921年的"塔甘采夫案"（尽管它不属于这一章，因为没有上法庭）。塔甘采夫教授在侦查的四十五天之内英勇地保持着沉默。Can.是这以后阿格拉诺夫使他同意和他签了一项协议： "我，塔甘采夫，自觉地开始毫不隐讳地供出我们组织的情况……我不隐瞒与我们集团有关系的任何一个人。我做这一切都是为了使我们同案受审人得到宽大处理。 我，全俄肃委特派员雅科夫?萨乌洛维奇?阿格拉诺夫，保证在塔甘采夫公民的协助下迅速结束侦查工作，并在其结束后将此案送交公开法庭审理……我保证对被告中任何一人都将不用极刑。 " 但就搭甘采夫一案--契卡枪毙了八十七人。 我们自由的太阳就这样升起了。我们的十月革命同龄儿--法律在幼年时期就是这样一个胖乎乎的淘气孩子。 这些我们现在完全不记得了。