ABSTRACT
IF THE MOSCOW TRIALS are understood as a drama of historical responsibility then, to be sure, we are as far from Vyshinsky’s interpretation of them as we are from the leftist view. In one of their few agreements both Vyshinsky and Trotsky admit that the Trials raise no problems, the former because the accused are purely and simply guilty and the latter because they are purely and simply innocent. To Vyshinsky, it is a matter of believing the accused’s confessions and not believing the reservations that accompanied them. To Trotsky it is a matter of trusting the reservations and nullifying the confessions. They confessed at gun point and because they hoped to save their own lives or the lives of their families, they confessed mainly because they were not true Leninist Bolsheviks, but rightist oppositionists, or “capitulators.” For want of a really solid Marxist platform, it was to be expected that they would rally to the Stalinist line every time the country’s situation eased and then cross over to the opposition at times of crisis and incipient civil war— for example, during the period of forced collectivization. They were unstable because their ideas were confused and emotion ruled intellect. But each new reunion became more onerous. In order to regain their place in the Party, each time they had to deny more fully the theses they had maintained just previously. In the end the result was a general mood of skepticism and cynicism which also turned into frivolous criticism and shameless obedience. They were “broken.” The case of these innocent capitulators is nothing but a psychological case study. There is no ambivalence in history, there are only irresolute men.
