The Great Terror

As to ‘terror’ itself, we can compare the views of Engels and of Lenin on the 1793 Reign of Terror in France. Lenin wrote of ‘that genuine, popular, truly regenerative terror for which the Great French Revolution became famous’.36 Engels, on the other hand, wrote (in a letter to Marx, 4 September 1870), ‘Terror consists mostly of useless cruelties perpetrated by frightened people in order to reassure themselves. I am convinced that the blame for the Reign of Terror in 1793 lies almost exclusively with the over-nervous bourgeois, demeaning himself as a patriot, the small petty bourgeois crapping their pants with fright and the mob of riff-raff who know how to profit from the terror.’37

So Marxism in itself did not insist on terror. Indeed, Lenin’s ‘terror’ outlook seems to have come from the earlier Russian fanatics. He was a revolutionary, following Chernyshevsky, before he became a Marxist. One element in his specifically Russian background was, of course, the absence of experience of real politics to be found everywhere – reminding one of de Toqueville’s analysis of eighteenth-century France, where writers and theorists, left out of the polity, fell into violent messianisms.

There should be no need to describe the repression that followed the Bolshevik seizure of power, culminating in the openly designated ‘Red Terror’ – with Lenin personally ordering the killing of local groups of class-enemy hostages. Lenin documents kept secret for seventy-odd years, on the grounds that they did not fit his image, are full of calls to hang such. Bertrand Russell writes, when he met Lenin, ‘His guffaw at the thought of those massacred made my blood run cold.’

It is in Lenin’s time too that we see the first Bolshevik ‘show trial’ (recalling that of Danton in 1793). This was that of the Social Revolutionaries (1922) when Lenin was enraged at a compromise reached with the Second International not to use the death penalty.

Though dropped in the present volume the 1968 edition of The Great Terror, had an eight-page Appendix on the other show trials that preceded those of 1936–8. In 1928 came the Shakhty Trial (followed by the Menshevik Trial in 1931 and the Metrovick Trial in 1933). The first of these was very indicative – a total frame-up of engineers, for sabotage (though opposed by some of the Communist leadership). When it comes to collectivisation, Molotov comments ‘they say that Lenin would have carried out collectivisation without so many victims. But how could it have been carried out otherwise?’38 He adds that Lenin would probably have done it even earlier, that he was ‘sterner’ than Stalin and had often decided on ‘extreme measures’ while ‘rebuking Stalin for softness and liberalism’. At any rate, ‘kulak’ in the absence of any surviving bourgeoisie, remained a plausible object of attack right through the 1930s.

It is true that much of the veteran membership felt that the regime, committed to the crushing of the peasantry and facing the ensuing crisis, could survive only by holding firm under the accepted leadership. But the whole Marxist-Leninist vocabulary or credo combined such justifications with at least some appearance of civilised conduct, as presented on the world stage.

One remarkable example of an attempt to present hardly defensible actions as humane, in order to give a suitable impression to Westerners, was when Stalin gave the French progressive, and usefully pro-Soviet, writer Romain Rolland his reasons for bringing in the published law of 7 April 1935, extending the death penalty down to twelve-year-olds (which had had a bad press in France). Their conversation was recorded, but with a note that it was not to be published without Stalin’s permission, which it never got. Stalin’s barely credible defence of the law was

This enactment has a purely educational importance. We have thus sought to deter not so much juvenile delinquents as those who involved children in crime. Groups of ten to fifteen boys and girls were identified in our schools that set out to kill or corrupt the foremost students of both sexes. Foremost students were drowned in wells, assaulted, battered and terrorised. It was established that such children’s gangs were organised by adult criminals. The enactment was promulgated to intimidate and disorganise adult gangsters.39