Mr. D. N. Pritt and the Russian Trial (1936)

Pamphlet Review from the November 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Pritt has written a pamphlet entitled “The Zinoviev Trial." The purpose of this pamphlet is to refute allegations that the Russian terrorist trial was not conducted fairly and urging that the sixteen executed were, in fact, guilty of the charges. In other words, it is Mr. Pritt's contention that the trial was not in any sense a frame-up.

We do not share Mr. Pritt's view, and there is nothing in his pamphlet that gives us sound reasons for doing so. On the first page he tells us he has studied the whole of the available material and has the advantage of professional training and he feels forgiving towards critics who have had to rely on the very condensed reports that have reached this country. He also adds that he was present at the trial. If by condensed reports Mr. Pritt signifies those like the Russian official report that has been issued, then we would point out that Mr. Pritt's pamphlet adds nothing to our information on the subject.

We will take some of Mr. Pritt's points and examine them as examples of the nature of his defence.

First of all he deals with the abjectness and eagerness of the confessions of Zinoviev and his associates. At the beginning he attempts to explain them on the ground of race. He argues that to us the confessions make curious reading only because we don't do those things. This is surely a curious argument and can just as well be used to defend any enormities committed by the Russian Government itself.

He informs us that his friends in Russia tell him that it is common for prisoners there to plead guilty when the evidence is overwhelming against them, and he adds:—

. . .  I am bound to say, as some confirmation of this assertion, that in conversations I have held in Soviet prisons with accused persons awaiting trial on substantial charges, I have not infrequently been struck by the readiness with which they have stated to me, in the presence of warders, that they are guilty and cannot complain if they are punished. (Page 6.) (Italics ours.)

The above statement in itself is sufficient to put out of court all Mr. Pritt’s psychological arguments (in spite of his professional training), and he evidently has no idea of what people will do when in fear. The suggestion is that prisoners are terrorised into making confessions and he replies that they confessed to him—in the presence of warders! What did he expect them to do?

There is a further point to be noted in Mr. Pritt’s statement. Why were warders present when he interviewed prisoners—was it that they could not trust him or them? Perhaps they were afraid the prisoners might not have confessed if left alone with Mr. Pritt! It would be interesting to know if any foreign journalist or Mr. Pritt had any private interviews with any of the Zinoviev group before or during the trial. And, if not, why not?

In reply to the criticism of the private nature of the preliminary investigations, Mr. Pritt points out that the same procedure is adopted in many European countries. Either he overlooks or does not understand the meaning of his statement on page 2 that Russia is a Socialist country. If this statement were true then Russian procedure should be ahead of the most democratic capitalist countries instead of being behind many of them.

Explaining the paucity of the evidence brought forward at the trial Mr. Pritt argues that as the prisoners pleaded guilty it was only necessary to decide upon the degree of their guilt and, hence, only evidence in this direction was considered. We have already dealt with this point in last month's Socialist Standard, and we only mention it here to bring in the following quotation from the pamphlet: —

One can well imagine that the Soviet Government, so far as concerns the point of view of properly informing foreign criticism, would much have preferred that all or most of the accused should have pleaded not guilty and contested the case. (Page 9.)

This is an excellent example of Mr. Pritt's reasoning. May we ask him what prevented the Soviet Government from giving the evidence in full for the benefit of foreign criticism? Surely it is not suggested that the prisoners would have objected ! Either the statement is a meaningless piece of bluff or else there were serious reasons preventing the bringing forward of the alleged evidence.

On page 10 we have another example of legal reasoning that is a jewel.

To give an example, it was part of the prosecution's case that two of the accused had had a conversation in which a highly incriminating phrase was used; the two accused in question, by no means friendly to one another, each admitted that such a conversation had taken place and that the incriminating words were used, but each of them said that the other was the actual author of the phrase. It does not require much experience in the weighing of evidence to realise that such a circumstance as that offers considerable evidence of the guilt, and considerable reinforcement to the plea of guilty, of either or both of the accused in question.

Surely the conclusion is absurd. Why did the accused admit that a conversation had taken place which only themselves knew about ? (What was the “weight of evidence" that forced this confession?) If the case was framed what better way to make it appear genuine than to introduce trumpery disagreements that did not affect the main charge? If they each said the other used the incriminating words then either or both may be liars. As the accused were alleged to have examined the evidence before the case opened they all knew what was coming forward at the trial. Finally, if it is not known who used the incriminating phrase it is no evidence of the guilt of either.

Yet another example of Mr, Pritt's reasoning powers is contained in the following two quotations. It will be noticed that in the first quotation he asserts that it would be impossible to procure a confession from, or to trick into confessing, men of the calibre of the defendants. In the second quotation he says it would be easy to do so!

If it were the practice of the People’s Commissariat for Home Affairs, which has taken over the staff and the functions of the G.P.U., to extract confessions by false promises of lenient treatment . . . surely no one would be better able to estimate the complete worthlessness of such a promise under the circumstances of this case than the experienced revolutionaries whom I saw in the dock. If, again, it were the practice of this department to attempt to extract confessions by violence . . . no one would be better able than these men to support the violence, and subsequently to expose it before the world in the sure hope of discrediting their enemies and gaining sympathy for themselves. If any trickery or deceit, simple or complicated, were employed in an effort to entrap any of these men into confession, surely they would be better fitted than anyone else on earth to detect and circumvent the plot. (Page 12.)

Such men as the critics suggest that Stalin is, would not have hesitated for a moment; they would have procured a confession, a simple enough task. It only involved a promise of leniency; or some simple trick like telling each of them that the other has confessed. (Page 18.)

In the first quotation it is stated that no one would be better able to withstand violence than the accused. This may be true, but there are forms of torture well known to the Bolsheviks (such as what is called the Chinese and the Ukrainian) which it is doubtful whether anyone could withstand. The threat of the continuance of either would make the present writer confess anything and yearn for the shooting party. Further, if the violence is sufficiently effective to extract a confession, then it is almost certain that the threat of its continuance would be enough to deter any attempts at exposure. Anyhow, to whom would the exposure be made? There were only some foreign journalists, some young Communists and safe Government supporters present at the trial. As Mr. Pritt does not say anything about having interviewed the prisoners we take it that this was not possible. If it was possible, and he did not attempt to interview them, then he is wrong when he says he examined all the available evidence. Mr. Pritt is evidently quite blind to the influence of violence and hence makes such statements as the following: —

Why are we not to assume, of such men as these, that if they said nothing against the Government and against the investigators, and nothing in favour of themselves, it was because there was nothing to be said? (Page 16.)

It is just because they said nothing against the Government, and so forth, that the business points strongly to a frame-up. There are people who, on Mr. Pritt's own admission, held to their policy to the last, and were only forced at the very end to admit complicity in a terrorist attack on officials of a Government they were denouncing. As they had confessed two or three times before, they could hardly be considered “of contrite heart," and yet they give fulsome praise to the opponents who, they know, are going to shoot them! It will take more than Mr. Pritt’s simple views on racial differences to explain that.

On page 17, Mr. Pritt asks indignantly, referring to this "Socialist ” country: —

Is it part of the duty of the judicial authorities to publish reports showing exactly how they have conducted preliminary investigations of which the persons who are at once most interested and best informed, viz., the accused, make no complaint?

But why not publish such reports? Particularly when there is so much suspicion. Further, may we ask if Mr. Pritt knows anything about the methods employed in getting confessions? It is surely a strange thing that there are so many abject confessions, so much purging in Russia, and that when it is suggested that Bukharin, Rakovsky and Radek were implicated, that all of them should so anxiously have screamed for the death penalty on the prisoners. What develops this fearful apprehension in men who were not afraid of methods of the Czarist police? On page 20, Mr. Pritt says that the confessions were the prudent course of clear-headed men. Where does the prudence lie in clearing the path to the grave ?

On page 24, Mr. Pritt speaks of the “genuinely corroborative evidence which . . . can be deduced from the indictment and from such evidence as was brought into court.” Why does he not give us some of it? If the arguments in the pamphlet are intended as such then they do nothing to clear the air.

Referring to a suggestion that a lawyer sometimes might not “pull his weight” for an accused out of fear of the Government, Mr. Pritt writes as follows: —

Whether there is anything in it in the U.S.S.R. or not is, of course, not easy to say; all that I can contribute to its elucidation is that I investigated it with care four years ago, and came to the conclusion that a political defendant had as good a chance of getting reliable council in the U.S.S.R., as anywhere else. . . . I may, of course, have been wrong, although I do not think I was. (Page 32.) (Italics ours.)

Again, this is supposed to be a “Socialist" country, and they stood, at best, no better chance —but he is not sure—he only thinks so!

He also adds that he does not know where in the world a counsel could be found with a command over Russian sufficient to follow such a fast trial full of cross-questioning, etc. Yet, in spite of the difficulties and speed of the trial, Mr. Pritt, who is not a Russian scholar, claims to have been able to follow it closely enough to be convinced of its genuineness!

Towards the end of the pamphlet he makes some remarks on the Russian judicial system, designed to suggest that prisoners have as much chance in a Soviet court as elsewhere: —

The independence of judges and advocates is being constantly increased, and already compares favourably with that prevailing in many European countries. (Page 29-30.) (Italics ours.)

This statement is significant in a sense not intended. Does it mean that now the position compares favourably with, say, Italy, Germany, Poland and Austria?

Every foreign critic who has studied the Soviet legal system has reported that, taken as a whole, it is good and fair; everyone who studies it at all knows that year by year it progresses steadily towards greater facilities for the prisoner, greater independence of judges and counsel, and greater technical efficiency. (Page 30.)

Now let us compare the above with the remarks on the same subject of one who spent years in Russia, wrote considerably about it when there, and was always regarded as a sympathetic observer. The remarks are contained in an article entitled, "Paradise Imagined,” by W. H. Chamberlin, published in The American Mercury for September, 1936. The quotation is a long one, but we think is too interesting to cut:—

But no sketch of the position of the Soviet lawyer is remotely adequate if it fails to show that he is definitely inhibited from performing one of his most useful and honourable functions; the protection of the individual against the injustice of the State. In democratic countries, even in Czarist Russia, lawyers have always been able to undertake this duty.

It would be impossible to point to a single case in recent years in the Soviet Union where a lawyer has offered an outspoken, vigorous defence of a political prisoner. Yet this is not because evidence of grotesque injustice has been lacking. One need only recall the Ramzin sabotage trial of 1930, when two men, Ryabushinsky and Vishnegradsky, were solemnly indicted for conspiring to set up a counter-revolutionary government in Russia years after they had been dead and buried. The outside world roared with laughter when it learned of this illuminating slip. But neither the attorneys for the defence in the farcical trial nor anyone else in the Soviet Courtroom saw fit to mention it.

. . . But it would be simply unthinkable for a Soviet lawyer, assigned to “defend” a political prisoner, to emphasise damaging weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, or to publish in a legal journal a vigorous denunciation of the frequent practice of arbitrary arrest and exile without trial. The immense force for individual security and common decency, the vast bulwark against personal spite and bureaucratic tyranny, represented by an independent judiciary and by lawyers who can put forth their best efforts on behalf of political defendants without fear of being sent to concentration camps, simply do not exist in the Soviet Union. (Page 11.)

This is a far different picture from that presented by Mr. Pritt!

Mr. Pritt claims to have studied all the available evidence, to have been present at the trial, and to be peculiarly fitted by legal training to understand this case, and yet, on page 19, when going over the previous history of the accused, he only mentions one previous occasion on which they were concerned in a terrorist trial, Kameneff is reported as saying: —

I am now before the court for the third time, accused of terrorist intentions. (Final Statement.)

Why has Mr. Pritt failed to mention this third trial ? A letter appeared in the Manchester Guardian of October 7th, which gives us some information on this point. The writer is Anton Ciliga, at one time a member of the Politburo, who left Russia at the end of last year. The following extract from his letter deals with the matter in question: —

Nor was there any mention of a trial which took place between that of the murderer of Kiroff and the recent Moscow trial, at the beginning of the summer of 1936. Not a word about this trial had been allowed, at the time, to appear in the Soviet Press. The charge was of attempted assassination of Stalin; Zinovieff and Kameneff were among the defendants. The case ended with the shooting of two of the defendants, a G.P.U. official and an officer of the Kremlin guard; 36 men were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Kameneff’s term was prolonged to five years, (Zinovieff was acquitted. This whole affair was also left entirely unmentioned in the recent trial. The only indirect reference to it—Kameneff’s statement that he was appearing for the third time, in a proletarion court of justice, on a charge of terrorism—was carefully cut out of the foreign Communist reports.

There is still a host of questionable statements and frail reasoning in Mr. Pritt’s pamphlet, but what we have dealt with should be sufficient to give the reader an idea of the weakness of Mr. Pritt’s case.

Gilmac.