Resistance in the Gulag Archipelago

by Donald G Boudreau

  Third and finally, in a state of hopeful culmination, the hypothesis will bear fruit. That being, if there exist no governmental implementation and public support of a criminal justice system acting in the interests of all the people (i.e., the rule of law) then dissent shall be suffocated. Without the existence of established and accessible channels representing the interests and grievances of the population at large, through which all injured parties may seek recourse without threat of governmental terroristic tactics, innocent persons shall suffer undue harm.

  Included in the above stated processes of “a criminal justice system,” one would submit the sometimes forgotten tenet of a person’s innocence prior to being proven guilty under law. Equal application of the laws would also be conducive to a system “acting in the interests of all the people.” In fact, the writ of habeas corpus, statutes of limitations, and the prohibitions regarding double jeopardy and the implementation of ex-post facto legislation are all applicable to the concept of “a criminal justice system” as outlined above. If a system, be it through the dictates of its orientation or the madness of the presiding dictator, places a greater emphasis on the objectives of the state thus proceeding to negate the preserving of humanitarian means — then dissent which could serve to ameliorate social conflict will not be made manifest. In accordance with the thought as espoused by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, one cannot separate means from ends any longer.

  The Russians claimed they wanted to set up a paradise on earth — their subconscious chose hell. They have murdered their scientists, their poets, the soul of their people. The criminal is spreading in every country. In totalitarian countries it is those in power who are criminal.

  — Eugene Ionesco (1974)

  An excerpt from “No,”

  Esquire, December 1974:254.

  A quarter of a century ago, with the great hopes of mankind, the United Nations was born. Alas, in the immoral world it, too, became immoral. It is not a United Nations but a United Governments, in which those freely elected and those imposed by force and those which seized power by arms are all on a par. Through the mercenary bias of the majority, the UN jealously worries about the freedom of some peoples and pays no attention to the freedom of others. By an officious vote it rejected the review of PRIVATE COMPLAINTS — the groans, shouts and pleadings of individual, common PLAIN PEOPLE — insects too small for such a great organization. The UN never tried to make BINDING on governments, a CONDITION of their membership, the Declaration of Human Rights, the outstanding document of its twenty-five years and- thus the UN betrayed the common people to the will of governments they had not chosen.

  — Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1972)

  Nobel Lecture: 25-26.

  Translated from the Russian by F.D. Reeve

  The Gulag Archipelago (1973) is in scope and density worthy of its subject, which is nothing less than the most massive and systematic repression of a people by its leaders that the world has ever known. The Bolsheviks inherited prison camps from the Romanov monarchy they overthrew, but what had been a purely punitive institution under the tsars became an economic one as well under the commissars. Slave labor attained its apotheosis under Joseph Stalin and his last police chief, Lavrenti Beria. One must preclude discussing particular instances of resistance by first recognizing the relationship between industrial construction and the proliferation of forced labor camps.

  Their growth was simultaneous. By the latter nineteen-thirties, the Gulag was responsible for much of the country’s lumbering and extraction of gold, copper, and coal. Gulag camps built important canals, strategic roads, and many industrial enterprises in remote regions. This pervasive use of forced labor, however, had dangerous consequences:

  In the first place, the harsh regime established in 1936 used up labor quickly, with a consequent need for replacement. Secondly, because Stalin did not find a rational solution for the problem of building in remote regions, he constantly increased the number of projects assigned to Gulag.[1]

  State plans even encompassed the mortality rate of the forced laborers. Conclusively, it appears that a vicious circle was created insofar as the system of forced labor became a cause as well as an effect of mass repression.

  Resistance by the peasant population to assaulting forced labor was not as obscure as it might appear. D.M. Sturley (1964) observes in A Short History of Russia that protest was employed, futile as it was in stifling Stalin:

  Results of the Forced Collectivization did permit the introduction of more efficient methods, the cultivation of new crops, and increased production, but the immediate effects were appalling. The peasants resisted and had to be driven into the collective by the use of machine-guns or by the threat of deportation and forced labour. Rather than hand over their stock to the State they slaughtered and ate it and refused to till the fields. In 1929, there were thirty-four million houses in the U.S.S.R.; in 1933 there were only sixteen and one-half million; thirty million cattle (about 45 percent of the total) had been killed off. Once again in 1932-1933 the country was faced with one of the worst famines it had ever known. The kulaks disappeared, about five million of them, mostly in the forced labour camps and the slow death which they meant.[2]

  Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1973) tells of how Stalinist rule in the 1920’s quashed any and all forms of dissent vis-à-vis the establishment of permanently operating “troikas” whose purpose it was to bypass the courts. These so called OSO tribunes were composed of panels of three. They were also known as the Troikas of the GPU:

  Up to 1924, the authority of the Troika was limited to sentences of three years, maximum. From 1924 on, they moved up to five years of camp; from 1937 on, the OSO could turn out “ten ruble bills”; after 1948, they could rivet a “quarter” — twenty-five years — on you. And there are people — Chavdarov, for example — who know that during the war years the OSO even sentenced prisoners to execution by shooting. Nothing unusual about this.[3]

  These troikas utilized three deterrents which served to quash dissent throughout the Gulag archipelago. Their primary and principal distinguishing feature was closed doors.[4] They were first of all closed courts –for their own convenience. Secondly, in order to avoid any lack of ambiguity they established and utilized a system of predetermined verdicts.[5]

  Thirdly, dialectics entered the troika operational scheme. All the articles of the code had become permeated with instructions, directions, and interpretations. And, if the actions of the accused are not covered by the Code, he can still be convicted:

  • By analogy (What opportunities!)

  • Simply because of origins (7-35: belonging to a socially dangerous milieu)

  • For contacts with dangerous persons (here’s scope for you!) Who is ‘dangerous’ and what ‘contacts’ consist of only the judge can say.[6]

  Directives were issued by Stalin and Beria at their annual convenience. As Solzhenitsyn unveils this system, one comes to realize that it is not the judge that judges. The judge merely receives a substantial salary for his physical appearance, the directives did the judging.

  The directive of 1937: ten years; twenty years; execution by shooting. The directive of 1934: twenty years at hard labor; hanging. The directive of 1945: ten years for everyone, plus five years of disenfranchisement (manpower for three Five-Year Plans). The directive of 1949: everybody gets twenty-five.[7]

  Roy A. Medvedev (1972) accurately summarizes the events surrounding the Great Purges which preceded the implementation of the above stated Stalinist directives.

  In 1936-39, on the most cautious estimates, four to five million people were subjected to repression for political reasons. At least four to five hundred of them—above all the high officials—were summarily shot; the rest were given long terms of confinement. In 1937-38 there were days when up to a thousand people were shot in Moscow alone. These were not streams, these were rivers of blood of honest Soviet people. The simple truth must be stated: not one of tyrants and despots of the past persecuted and destroyed
so many of his compatriots.[8]

  One can undoubtedly ask the question as to why no resistance occurred among the judges and other persons assigned to carrying out the directives of Joseph Stalin. Were they not cognizant of the consequences of their actions? Medvedev’s reasoning is accurate as we will be witnessing when examining Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s two novels, Cancer Ward and The First Circle, as appertaining to the question at hand.

  Most of the judges and procurators must have known what they were doing when they sanctioned the arrest of innocent people and sentenced them to be shot or imprisoned. These officers of the law knew that they were creating lawlessness, but they chose to be its creators rather than its victims! What turned many NKVD officials into sadists? What forced them to break the laws of humanity? Many of them were once good Communists or Komsonol members who joined the NKVD on orders, not at all by inclination. Many influences were at work on them. In the first place there was the fear of becoming prisoners themselves, which overrode all other feelings. Secondly, a terrible selection went on within the NKVD, sifting out some officials, leaving the worst. Many-and this must not be overlooked-were corrupted by the unlimited power of the prisoners that Stalin gave to the NKVD. NKVD personnel were specially trained to be capable of carrying out any order, even the most criminal. The special brigade of torturers, for example, usually included students from the NKVD schools, young people eighteen to twenty years old. They were taken to torture chambers as medical students are to dissection laboratories, and thus were turned to sadists.[9]

  In accordance with the dehumanizing world created here, Alexander Solzhenitsyn is quick to draw the essential distinction between the Tsarist Code and the Stalinist Code.

  And especially new and important was the fact that we did not draw the distinction between methods and means the old Tsarist Code had drawn. Such distinctions had no influence either on the classification of the charges or on the penalties imposed! For us, intent and action were identical! A resolution has been passed-we would try them for that.[10]

  SELF-IMMOLATION

  In 1923, in Vyatka Prison, the (a) Socialist Revolutionary and his comrades barricaded themselves in a cell, poured gasoline over all the mattresses and incinerated themselves.[11] How many were there? Who were they? What were they protesting against? Such an act would have provoked uproar prior to the Revolution. Yet, this time around no one knew of the occurrence-not neither in Moscow— nor in history. And. As Solzhenitsyn observes, “and yet the human flesh cracked in the flames in exactly the same way.”

  HUNGER STRIKES

  One of the most renowned weapons utilized by the incarcerated Social Democrats and Social revolutionaries was the hunger strike. The new prison heads, operating in secrecy and silence, had acquired several powerful methods for combatting hunger strikes. Firstly, patience was adopted on behalf of the prison administration. Secondly, deception was practiced on a large scale thanks to the total secrecy of the operations. When every step is reported vis-à-vis the media, one is not going to do much deceiving. Thirdly, forced artificial feeding was adapted without question, from experience derived from none other than, experience with wild animals in captivity. By 1937, artificial feeding was evidently already in wide use. For example, in the group hunger strike of socialists that occurred in the Yaroslavl Central Prison, artificial feeding was administered to all those participating on the fifteenth day.[12]

  These three approaches to dealing with hunger strikes gave rise to a new view. That the hunger strike is to be viewed as a continuation of counterrevolutionary activity in prison, and accordingly, must be punished with a new prison term. Thus in mid-1937, a new directive was handed down which stipulated that “from now on the prison administration will not in any respect be responsible for those dying on hunger strikes!” A literal translation went as follows: if you seek to kill yourself, go right ahead. For it was the socialists, after all, whom Stalin viewed as the most dangerous enemies of his socialism. For the most part, the concessions obtained through the hunger strikes were infinitesimal when balanced against the extensive loss of life.

  Solzhenitsyn also takes issue with the internal political continuum of the Soviet Union and shows how and why resistance gained no firm foundation. Stalin was free to play them off against one another to his political advantage. Divided they would err under Stalin’s fantasy.

  …those prisoners to the left of the socialists—the Trotskyites and the Communists—shunned the socialists, considering them exactly the same kind of KR’s (counterrevolutionaries) as the rest, and they closed the moat of isolation around them with an encircling ring. The Trotskyites and the Communists, each considering their own direction more pure and lofty than all the rest, despised and even hated the socialists (and each other) who were imprisoned behind the bars of the same buildings and went outdoors to walk in the same prison courtyards.[13]

  It is merely reasonable to understand the non-Western Soviet Union utilizing anti-western sentiments as a rationale for accelerating the industrialization of their nation. Granted, any lesser industrialized nation would have a reason to fear being conquered by a more industrialized nation. Yet, this position can be exploited beyond a reasonable standard of concern.

  In Civilization on Trial, Arnold J. Toynbee (1947) the noted historian, demonstrates how and why this anti-western creed is unquestioningly accepted, generation after generation.

  Marxism is, no doubt a Western creed, but it is a Western creed which puts the western civilization ‘on the spot’; and it was, therefore possible for a twentieth-century Russian whose father had been a nineteenth-century ‘Slavophil’ and his grandfather a devout Eastern Orthodox Christian to become a devoted Marxian without being required to make any reorientation of his inherited attitude toward the West. For the Russian Marxian, Russian Slavophil, and Russian Orthodox Christian alike, Russia is ‘Holy Russia’ and the Western world of the Borgia’s and Queen Victoria, Smiles’ Self-Help and Tammany Hall, is uniformly heretical, corrupt and decadent. A creed which allows the Russian people to preserve this traditional Russian condemnation of the West intact, while at the same time serving the Russian government as an instrument for industrializing Russia in order to save her from being conquered by an already industrialized West is one of those providentially convenient gifts of the gods that naturally fall into the laps of the chosen people.[14]

  ERADICATING DISSENT

  Another conscious move by the Stalinist system to eradicate any dissent was to place common thieves in the same cells with the other zek prisoners. Many of the common thieves worked for the prison administration in exchange for amnesty, special privileges, food, clothing and money. Solzhenitsyn observes the conditions conducive to striking out and explains why to a great extent their non-existence. It is also noteworthy that these common thieves not only sought damaging statements from the other zeks which would certainly come back to haunt them in time. They were also notorious for mugging zeks in their cells and stealing their food parcels, clothing and personal valuables. Resistance by the zeks against the thieves when it did occur was in a rage of self-defense, rather than a group effort at resisting.

  To strike out boldly, a person has to feel that his rear is defended, that he has support on both his flanks, that there is solid earth beneath his feet. All of these conditions were absent for the Article 58’s. Having passed through the meat grinder of political interrogation, the human being was starved, he hadn’t slept, he had frozen in punishment cells, he had lain there a beaten man. But it wasn’t only his body. His soul was crushed too. Over and over he had been told and had had demonstrated to him that his views, and his conduct in life, and his relationships with people had all been wrong because they had brought him to ruin. And so you allow the thieves to take your overcoat and paw through your jacket and snatch your twenty rubles from where it was sewn in, and your bag has already been tossed up above and checked out, and everything your sentimental wife collected for your long trip after you were sentenced stays
up there, and they’ve thrown the bag back down to you with, …your toothbrush. Although not everyone submitted just like that, 99 percent did in the thirties and forties. And how could that be? Men, officers, soldiers, front-line soldiers![15]

  It is said that in 1942 at the Gorky Transit Prison some officer prisoners (including Gavrilov, the military engineer Schebetin, and others) nonetheless rebelled, beat up the thieves, and forced them to stay in line. Another incident is said to have occurred at the Kotlas Transit Prison in 1940. The thieves started grabbing money out of the hands of the political prisoners lined up at the commissary. The politicals began beating up the thieves so badly that they couldn’t be stopped. The guards entered the compound with machine guns to defend the thieves. Solzhenitsyn affirms his belief in this latter occurrence, “now there’s something that rings true. That’s the way it really was.”[16]

  The prisoners were still not free even within the confines of their cellblocks. They were also exposed to juveniles. They were still boys, some as young as twelve years old. They had already been processed through a thieves’ trial a la the Criminal Code, and they continued their apprenticeship with their seniors Solzhenitsyn recounts with almost total recall, he and his fellow zeks being jumped by three of them, who then proceeded on in stealing their food parcels.