http://www.great-country.ru/

 RGASPI. F. 558. Op. 11. D. 820. L. 3–22. Typewritten text.

The text is printed according to the publication: “Great censorship. Writers and journalists in the Land of Soviets. 1917-1956", M.: 2005, with the original spelling and punctuation preserved.

Feuchtwanger. I would ask you to define in more detail the functions of a writer. I know that you have called writers soul engineers.

Stalin. The writer, if he catches the basic needs of the broad masses of the people at the moment, can play a very important role in the development of society. The writer generalizes the vague conjectures and unconscious moods of the advanced strata of society and makes the instinctive actions of the masses conscious, shapes the public opinion of the era, helps the advanced forces of society to realize their tasks and to strike more accurately at their goal. In a word, he can be a good service element and the advanced aspirations of this society. But there is also another group of writers who, not understanding the new trends of the epoch, attack everything new in their works and thus serve the reactionary forces of society. The role of such writers is also not small, but from the point of view of the balance of history, it is negative. There is a third group of writers who, under the flag of a falsely understood objectivism, are trying to sit between two chairs, who do not want to join either the advanced strata of society or the reactionary ones. Such a group of writers is usually fired upon from two sides: progressive 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 peoples, and history forgets it as quickly as last year's snow is forgotten.

Feuchtwanger. I would ask you to explain how you understand the difference between the vocation of a scientific writer and a writer-artist who conveys his worldview, himself.

Stalin. Science writers usually work with concepts, and fiction writers with images. They are more specific, artistic pictures depict what interests them. Scientific writers write for a selected few, more qualified people, while artists write for the broader masses. I would say that there are more elements of calculation in the actions of so-called scientific writers. Writers-artists are more direct people, there is much less calculation in their activities.

Feuchtwanger.I would like to ask what your definition of the intelligentsia as an interclass stratum means in your report on the Constitution of the USSR. Some think that the intelligentsia is not associated with any class, has fewer prejudices, greater freedom of opinion, but fewer rights. As Goethe said, the acting is not free, only the contemplative is free.

Stalin.I have outlined the usual Marxist understanding of the intelligentsia. I didn't say anything new, a class is a social group of people that occupies 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 indispensable. 

The 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. It does not produce anything itself, it does not occupy an independent place in the process of production. There are intelligentsia in factories and factories - they serve the capitalists. The intelligentsia is in the economy and estates - it serves the landowners. As soon as the intelligentsia begins to play tricks, they are replaced by others. There is such a group of intelligentsia that is not connected with production, like writers, cultural workers. They imagine themselves to be the "salt of the earth", the commanding force standing above the social classes. But nothing serious can come of this. There was a group of intelligentsia in Russia in the 70s of the last century who wanted to change history and, regardless of the fact that the conditions for a republic were not ripe, tried to draw society into the struggle for a republic. Nothing came of it. This group was smashed - here is the independent force of the intelligentsia! But nothing serious can come of this. There was a group of intelligentsia in Russia in the 70s of the last century who wanted to violate history and, regardless of the fact that the conditions for a republic were not ripe, tried to draw society into the struggle for a republic. Nothing came of it. 

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 these frameworks and on this basis, its role is serious.

Does it follow from all this that the intelligentsia should have fewer rights?

In a capitalist society they look at capital - whoever has more capital is smarter, better, has more rights. The capitalists say: the intelligentsia makes noise, but has no capital. Therefore, the intelligentsia there is not equal. Ours is completely different.

If in a capitalist society a person consists of a body, soul and capital, then in our country a person consists of a soul, body and the ability to work. And anyone can work: the possession of capital in our country does not give 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 understood you correctly, you also think that the writer-artist appeals more to the instinct of the reader, and not to his mind. But then the artist-writer must be more reactionary than the scientific writer, since instinct is more reactionary than reason. As you know, Plato wanted to remove writers from his ideal state.

Stalin.You can not play on the word "instinct". I spoke not only about instinct, but also about moods, about the unconscious moods of the masses. It's not the same as instinct, it's something more. Besides, I do not consider instincts to be immutable, motionless. They are reshaping. Today, the masses of the people want to fight against the oppressors in a religious form, in the form of religious wars. So it was in the 17th century and earlier in Germany and France. Then, after a while, they wage a more conscious struggle against the oppressors - for example, the French Revolution.

Plato had a slave-owning psychology. Slave owners needed writers, but they turned them into slaves (many writers were sold into slavery - there are plenty of examples in history) or drove them away when writers poorly served 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 is more likely to reflect new moods and trends, then this is done by an artist rather than a scientific researcher. The artist is at the very source, at the very cauldron of new moods. He can therefore direct 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. History does not justify this either. The first attempts to attack feudal society are made by artists - Voltaire, Molière used to attack the old society. Then came the encyclopedists. In Germany, there used to be Heine, Björne (correctly: Börne), then came Marx, Engels. It cannot be said that the role of all writers is reactionary. Some writers may play a reactionary role, defending reactionary sentiments.

Maxim Gorky reflected the still vague revolutionary moods and aspirations of the working class long before they spilled over into the 1905 revolution.

Feuchtwanger. To what extent is criticism possible in Soviet literature?

Stalin. We must distinguish between practical criticism and criticism aimed at conducting propaganda against the Soviet system. We have, for example, a group of writers who do not agree with our national policy, with national equality. They would like to criticize our national policy. One can criticize. But their goal is not criticism, but propaganda against our policy of equal rights for nations. We cannot allow propaganda to incite one part of the population against another, one nation against another. We cannot afford 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 fascist elements, and we have such elements. To give the right to propaganda for fascism, against socialism is inappropriate. If attempts to propagandize against the policy of the Soviet government, propaganda of fascism and chauvinism, are eliminated, then the writer in our country enjoys the widest freedom, wider than anywhere else.

We welcome business-like criticism that reveals shortcomings in order to eliminate them. We, the leaders, ourselves conduct and provide the widest opportunity for any such criticism to all writers. But criticism that wants to overthrow the Soviet system does not meet with our sympathy. We have such a sin.

Feuchtwanger. There was some misunderstanding. I don't think a writer has to be necessarily reactionary. But since instinct lags behind, as if limping behind reason, the writer may turn out to be reactionary without wanting to. So, Gorky sometimes images of murderers, thieves cause 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 earlier there were more literary works that criticized certain aspects of Soviet life. What are the reasons for this?

Stalin. Your works are read with interest and are well received in our country, not because there are elements of backwardness, but because reality is truthfully depicted there. Whether or not you wanted 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: it is impossible to continue to live in Germany like this.

Ideology always lags a little behind actual development, including literature. And Hegel said that the owl of Minerva flies out at dusk.

First there are facts, then their reflection in the head. It is impossible to confuse the question of the writer's worldview with his works. Take, for example, Gogol and his Dead Souls. Gogol's worldview was undeniably reactionary. He was a mystic. He did not at all believe that serfdom should fall. The notion that Gogol wanted to fight against serfdom is incorrect. This is evidenced by his correspondence, full of very reactionary views. Meanwhile, in addition to his will, Gogol's "Dead Souls" with their artistic truth had a huge impact on entire generations of the revolutionary intelligentsia of the forties, fifties, sixties.

One should not confuse the writer's worldview with the influence of one or another of his works of art on the reader. Did we have more critical works before? Maybe. I did not study the two periods in the development of Russian literature. Until 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 for collectivization won, which united the peasantry with the working class. The problem of relations between the working class and the peasantry was the most important and was of the greatest concern to revolutionaries in all countries. It seemed insoluble: the peasantry is reactionary, connected with private property, it is dragging back, the working class is progressive. This contradiction more than once led to revolution. Thus perished the revolution in France in 1871; thus perished the revolution 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. Maybe we should not have achieved these successes so that there would be more criticism? We think otherwise. The trouble is not so great.

Feuchtwanger. I've only been here 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 completely agree with you. It is unpleasant when they exaggerate to hyperbolic dimensions. People go into ecstasy because of trifles. Out of hundreds of greetings, I answer only 1-2, I do not allow most of them to be printed, as soon as I find out about them, I do not allow overly enthusiastic greetings to be printed at all. Nine-tenths of these greetings are really complete bad taste. And they make me feel uncomfortable.

I would not want to justify - it is impossible to justify, but to explain in a human way where such unbridled, reaching to cloying delight around my person comes from. Apparently, in our country we have managed to solve a big problem for which generations of people have been fighting for whole centuries - Babouvists, Hebertists, all sorts of sects of French, English, German revolutionaries. Evidently, the solution of this problem (it was cherished by the working and peasant masses): liberation from exploitation arouses the greatest delight. People are too glad that they managed to free themselves from exploitation. They literally do not know where to put their joy. The liberation from exploitation is a very big deal, and the masses are celebrating it in their own way. All this is attributed to me - this, of course, is not true, what can one person do? In me they see a collective concept and kindle around me a fire of calf's delight.

Feuchtwanger. As a person who sympathizes with the USSR, I see and feel that feelings of love and respect for you are completely sincere and elementary. Precisely because you are so loved and respected, can you stop with your word these forms of manifestation of delight that embarrass some of your friends abroad?

Stalin. I tried several times to do this. But nothing works. You tell them - it's not good, it's not good. People think I'm talking out of false modesty.

They wanted to celebrate my 55th birthday. I passed through the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks a ban on this. Complaints began to come in that I was preventing them from celebrating, expressing their feelings, that it was not about me. Others said that I was breaking down. How to prevent these manifestations of rapture? It cannot be by force . There is freedom of expression. You can ask in a friendly way.

This is a manifestation of a well-known lack of culture. Over time, this will get boring. It's hard to stop expressing your joy. It is a pity to take strict measures against the workers and peasants. There are already great victories. Previously, the landowner and capitalist was a demiurge, workers and peasants were not considered people. Now the bondage of the working people has been lifted. Huge win! The landowners and capitalists have been expelled, the workers and peasants are the masters of life. They come to veal delight. Our people are still lagging behind in terms of general culture, so the expression of delight is like this. The law, the prohibition, cannot do anything here. If you do, you can get into a funny position. And the fact that some people abroad are upset by this - there's nothing to be done about it. Culture is not immediately achieved. We are doing a lot in this area: for example, in 1935 and 1936 alone we built more than 2,000 new schools in cities. By all means we are trying to raise culture, but the results will be felt in 5-6 years. The cultural upsurge is slow. Enthusiasm grows rapidly and ugly.

Feuchtwanger.I am not talking about the feeling of love and respect on the part of the worker and peasant masses, but about other cases. Your busts exhibited in different places are ugly, poorly made. At the exhibition of the planning of Moscow, where you still think of you first of all, why is there a bad bust? At the Rembrandt exhibition, unfolded with great taste, why is there a bad bust?

Stalin. The question is legitimate. I meant the broad masses, not bureaucrats from various institutions. As for the bureaucrats, it cannot be said that they have no taste. They are afraid that if there is no bust of Stalin, then either the newspaper or the boss will scold them, 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, a bust of Stalin must be put up.

Alien elements, careerists, attach themselves to any party that wins. They try to protect themselves on the principle of mimicry - they put up busts, write slogans that they themselves do not believe in. As for the poor quality of the busts, this is done not only intentionally (I know it happens), but also due to the inability to choose. I saw, for example, in the May Day demonstration, portraits of me and my comrades: they looked like all the devils. People carry them with delight and do not understand that the portraits are not suitable. You can't issue an order to put up good busts - well, to hell with them! There is no time to do such things, we have other things to do and cares, you don’t even 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 apt. In the West, for 150 years, the word "democracy" has been understood as a formal democracy. Isn't there a misunderstanding due to your use of the word "democracy", which is used to give a certain meaning abroad. It all boils down to the word "democracy". Can't you think of another word?

Stalin.We do not just have democracy, transferred from the bourgeois countries. We have an unusual democracy, we have an additive - the word "socialist" democracy. This is different. Without this addition, there will be confusion. With this addition, you can understand. At the same time, we do not want to give up the word democracy, because in a certain sense we are the disciples, the successors of the European democrats, such disciples 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 do not want to give up the word democracy also because a struggle is now flaring up in the capitalist world for the remnants of democracy against fascism. Under these conditions we do not want to give up the word democracy, we are uniting our front of struggle with the front of the struggle of the workers, peasants and intelligentsia against fascism for democracy. Retaining 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.Maybe I, as a writer, attach too much importance to the word and the associations associated with it. It seems to me that bourgeois criticism based on a misunderstanding of the word "democracy" is harmful. The Soviet Union created so many new things, why shouldn't it create a new word here too?

Stalin.You are not right. The positive aspects of retaining the word democracy are greater than the disadvantages associated with bourgeois criticism. Take the united front movement in France, in Spain. Various sections have united to defend the pitiful remnants of democracy. The united front against fascism is the front of the struggle for democracy. The workers, peasants and intelligentsia ask: how do you, the Soviet people, feel about our struggle for democracy, is this struggle correct? We say: “That's right, fight for democracy, which is the lowest rung 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 who did not remain in place, but raised democracy to the highest level.

As for the critics, they should be told that democracy was not invented for small groups of writers, but was created in order to give a 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 became 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 became dangerous, fascism came out. It is not in vain that certain groups of the bourgeoisie agree to fascism, for before democracy was useful, but now it has become dangerous.

Democracy creates the opportunity for the working class to exercise various rights in order to fight against the bourgeoisie.

This is the essence of democracy, which was not created so that writers could scratch their tongues in the press.

If we look at democracy this way, then our working people enjoy every conceivable rights. Here you have freedom of assembly, press, speech, associations, etc.

This must also be explained to our friends who are hesitating. We prefer to have fewer friends, but persistent friends. Many friends, but hesitant - this is a burden.

I know these critics. Some of these critics are asking why we don't legalize the group or, as they say, the Trotskyist party. They say: if you legalize the Trotskyist party, then you have democracy; if you don't legalize it, it means there is no democracy. And what is the Trotskyist party? 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 cause railway wrecks. In the event of a war against us, they were preparing to take all measures to organize our defeat: blow up factories, railways, kill leaders, etc. We are offered to legalize spies, agents of hostile foreign states.

Not a single bourgeois state - America, England, France - legalizes spies and intelligence officers of hostile foreign states.

Why is it being offered to us? We are against such "democracy".

Feuchtwanger. Precisely because democracy in the West is already so chipped and smells bad, this word should be abandoned.

Stalin. But how does the Popular Front fight for democracy? And in France, in Spain - the government of the Popular Front - people are fighting, shedding blood, this is not for illusions, but for the fact that there is a parliament, there is freedom of strikes, freedom of the press, freedom of unions for the workers.

If democracy is not identified with the right of writers to pull each other's hair in the press, but is understood as 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 association, speech, press? Of course yes. Cachin in Parliament, Thälmann in a concentration camp, in France workers may strike, in Germany they may not, and so on.

Feuchtwanger. Now there are three concepts - fascism, democracy, socialism. There is a difference between socialism and democracy.

Stalin. We are not on an island. We Russian Marxists learned democracy from the socialists of the West - from Marx, Engels, Zhores, Guesde, Bebel. If we created a new word, it would give more food to critics: Russians, they say, reject democracy.

Feuchtwanger.A Protocol was issued on the trial of Zinoviev and others. This report was built mainly on the confessions of the defendants. Undoubtedly there are 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 beyond their confessions.

Stalin. Among lawyers there are two schools. One believes that the confession of the defendants is the most significant evidence of their guilt. The Anglo-Saxon law school believes that material elements - a knife, a revolver, etc. are insufficient to identify the perpetrators of the crime. The confessions of the accused are of greater importance.

There is the German school, which gives preference to physical evidence, but it also pays tribute to the confessions of the accused. It is incomprehensible why some people or writers abroad are not satisfied with the confession of the defendants. Kirov was killed - that's a fact. Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky were not there. But they were pointed out by the people who committed this crime as the instigators of it. All of them are experienced conspirators: Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and others. They do not leave documents in such cases. They were caught at face-to-face confrontations by their own people, then they had to admit their guilt.

Another fact - last year there was a collapse of a military train at the station. Humor in Siberia. The train went to the Far East. As stated in court, the switchman turned the switch incorrectly and sent the train to a different track. During the crash, dozens of Red Army soldiers were killed. The switchman - a young girl - did not admit her guilt, she said that she had been given such an instruction. The head of the station, the duty officer were arrested, some confessed to omissions. They were condemned. Recently, several people were arrested in the area - Boguslavsky, Drobnis, Knyazev. Some of those arrested in connection with the crash, but not yet sentenced, testified that the crash had been carried out on instructions from the Trotskyist group. Knyazev, who was a Trotskyist and turned out to be a Japanese spy, testified that the switchman was not to blame. They, the Trotskyists, had an agreement with the Japanese agents to create catastrophes. 

To disguise the crime, they used the switchman as a shield and gave her a verbal order to turn the switch incorrectly. Physical evidence against the switchman: she switched the switch. The testimonies of people prove that it is not her fault. We have not only the testimony of the defendants. But we attach great importance to testimony. They say that they give evidence because they promise freedom to the defendants. This is nonsense. These people are all experienced, they understand perfectly well what it means to show oneself, what it entails to admit to such crimes. There will be a trial of Pyatakov and others soon. You can learn a lot of interesting things if you attend this trial. 

Feuchtwanger. I wrote a play from the life of India, in which it is depicted how Lord Hastings dealt with an 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. 1st question - why did they fall like that? It must be said that all these people - Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Radek, Smirnov and others - all of them fought against him during Lenin's lifetime. Now, after Lenin's death, they call themselves Bolshevik-Leninists, and during Lenin's lifetime they fought against him. Even at the Tenth Party Congress in 1921, when he passed a resolution against factionalism, Lenin said that factionalism against the Party, especially if people insist on their mistakes, should throw them against the Soviet system, into the camp of counter-revolution. The Soviet system is like this - you can be for it, you can be neutral, but if you start to fight against it, then this will inevitably lead to counter-revolution.

These people fought against Lenin, against the party: During the Peace of Brest-Litovsk in 1918. In 1921 on the issue of trade unions. After Lenin's death in 1924 they fought against the party. The struggle was especially aggravated in 1927. In 1927 we held a referendum among the members of the party. 800,000 party members voted for the platform of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, and 17,000 for Trotsky's platform.

These people deepened the struggle and created their own party. In 1927, they staged demonstrations against the Soviet regime, went into exile, into the underground. They have 8 or 10 thousand 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 goes to war with us. For Trotsky cannot return without the defeat of the USSR in the war.

Why do they confess to their crimes? Because they lost faith in the correctness of their position, they see successes everywhere and everywhere. They want to at least tell the people the truth before death or a sentence. At least one good deed to do is to help people learn the truth. These people have abandoned their old beliefs. They have new beliefs. They believe that it is impossible to build socialism in our country. This is a lousy business.

They believe that the whole of Europe will be covered by fascism, and we, the Soviet people, will perish. So that Trotsky's supporters do not perish with us, they must conclude an agreement with the most powerful fascist states in order to save their cadres and the power that they will 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 (so in the text it should be "with Hess") in Berlin and with the Japanese representative in Berlin. They came to the conclusion that the power they will receive as a result of the defeat of the USSR in the war must make concessions to capitalism: to cede the territory of Ukraine or part of it to Germany, to Japan - the Far East or part of it, to open wide access to German capital in the European part of the USSR, to Japanese capital in the Asian part, to grant concessions; disband most of the collective farms and give way to "private initiative," as they say; reduce the scope of state coverage of industry. Part of it to give 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 win anyway, and these “concessions” should save the maximum that can remain. With this "concept" how they try to justify their activities. Idiot concept. Their "concept" is inspired by the panic before fascism.

Now that they have thought everything through, they consider all this to be wrong and want to tell everything, to reveal everything before the verdict.

Feuchtwanger. If they have such idiotic concepts, don't you think that they should be put in a lunatic asylum rather than in the dock.

Stalin. No. There are many people who say that fascism will take over everything. We have to go against these people. They have always been alarmists. They were afraid of everything when we took power in October, during Brest, when we carried out collectivization. Now they are afraid of 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 deserve the attention of the Nazis and the Japanese, to whom they send information about every explosion, about every act of sabotage.

Feuchtwanger. Returning to the old process, I want to say that some are surprised why not 1, 2, 3, 4 defendants, but all pleaded guilty.

Stalin. How does it happen specifically? Zinoviev is accused. He denies. He is given face-to-face confrontations with his followers caught and convicted. One, another, a third convicted him. Then being exposed at face-to-face confrontations by his supporters, he finally was forced to confess.

Feuchtwanger. I myself am sure that they really wanted to carry out a coup d'état. But there is too much to prove here. It would not be more convincing if there were less evidence.

Stalin. These are not ordinary criminals. They have some conscience left. Here, take Radek. We believed him. Zinoviev and Kamenev had slandered him long ago. But we didn't touch him. We had no other evidence, and in relation to Kamenev and Zinoviev one could think that they were deliberately slandering people. Some time later, however, new people, two dozen grass-roots people, partly arrested, partly testifying themselves, clarified the picture of Radek's guilt. He had to be arrested. At first he stubbornly denied everything, wrote several letters, claiming that he was clean. A month ago, he wrote a long letter, again proving his innocence. But this letter apparently seemed unconvincing to him, and a day later he confessed to his crimes and stated much of what we did not know. When you ask why they confess, the general answer is: "I'm tired of it all, there is no faith left in the rightness of one's cause, it is impossible to go against the people - this ocean. We want to help to find out the truth before death, so that we would not be so damned, such as Judas.

These are not ordinary criminals, not thieves, they have something left of their conscience. After all, Judas, having committed treachery, then hanged himself.

Feuchtwanger. Judas is a legend.

Stalin. This is not a simple legend. The Jewish people put their great folk wisdom into this legend.